{"idx": 0, "qid": "1", "q_text": "Should teachers get tenure?", "qrels": {"197beaca-2019-04-18T11:28:59Z-00001-000": 0, "39a42c2d-2019-04-18T18:27:44Z-00000-000": 0, "3ad69ff4-2019-04-18T13:55:24Z-00003-000": 0, "415925a6-2019-04-18T16:10:08Z-00005-000": 0, "42c77a4d-2019-04-18T11:38:05Z-00002-000": 0, "430e61ef-2019-04-18T11:40:00Z-00001-000": 0, "430e620e-2019-04-18T11:38:45Z-00001-000": 0, "4d2624d5-2019-04-18T19:23:00Z-00001-000": 0, "4d8487a-2019-04-18T18:20:20Z-00000-000": 0, "4fb4627-2019-04-18T18:47:37Z-00003-000": 1, "6450f3a0-2019-04-18T14:55:08Z-00003-000": 0, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "7f546086-2019-04-18T16:57:49Z-00001-000": 0, "7f546086-2019-04-18T16:57:49Z-00003-000": 0, "7f546086-2019-04-18T16:57:49Z-00005-000": 0, "907b62f5-2019-04-18T14:55:01Z-00000-000": 0, "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00008-000": 0, "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00013-000": 0, "9f69b088-2019-04-18T16:01:18Z-00005-000": 0, "1b03f390-2019-04-18T18:42:36Z-00009-000": 0, "30dbd85-2019-04-18T17:13:37Z-00004-000": 1, "ff0947ec-2019-04-18T12:23:12Z-00000-000": 2, "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00014-000": 0, "b8c1b53b-2019-04-18T15:14:54Z-00001-000": 0, "b8c1b53b-2019-04-18T15:14:54Z-00000-000": 0, "e7db427e-2019-04-18T14:18:07Z-00004-000": 0, "caa63d4b-2019-04-18T12:31:31Z-00001-000": 0, "1b03f390-2019-04-18T18:42:36Z-00004-000": 0, "1b03f390-2019-04-18T18:42:36Z-00003-000": 1, "a8936abe-2019-04-18T16:45:19Z-00003-000": 0, "b0680508-2019-04-18T13:48:51Z-00002-000": 2, "b0680508-2019-04-18T13:48:51Z-00004-000": 0, "b8c1b53b-2019-04-18T15:14:54Z-00005-000": 0, "d23aca82-2019-04-18T16:11:12Z-00003-000": 0, "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00003-000": 2, "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00005-000": 0, "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00000-000": 2, "e3f07189-2019-04-18T17:54:23Z-00006-000": 1, "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00002-000": 2, "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00001-000": 2, "e3f07189-2019-04-18T17:54:23Z-00007-000": 0, "1b03f390-2019-04-18T18:42:36Z-00007-000": 1, "b8c1b53b-2019-04-18T15:14:54Z-00002-000": 0, "21dc5a14-2019-04-18T17:11:50Z-00003-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "I accept", "title": "There should not be a teacher tenure.", "pid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.9942626953125}, {"text": "Teachers who perform below benchmarks such as retention, attendance, academic performance results, assessing required learning outcomes and student feedback, should not be allowed tenure because students suffer to be successful and colleges suffer in graduation rates.", "title": "Colleges should abolish the ability for teachers to be tenured.", "pid": "ff0947ec-2019-04-18T12:23:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.9161834716797}, {"text": "Thank you sara_ann_dee for her argument. In this debate, I will argue that ‘there should be a teacher tenure.’ Whether this tenure is reformed, or reduced to only applicable to some teachers, does not matter as long as I am able to prove that ‘teacher tenure’ should, in some form, exist. Voters should vote for me if I am able to do this. Although rebuttals are reserved for the next round, I urge that voters should not blindly accept my opponent's point as I have already discovered some problems in them. First I will define the word ‘tenure’.Tenure: tenure is a form of job security for teachers, given after a probationary period. Please note that: Tenure doesn’t guarantee lifetime employment. It simply protects teachers from being dismissed without just cause. Teachers with tenure are entitled to a hearing in which the school district must prove that the teacher failed a specific standard that’s required of the teacher. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Teaching is a very important profession. Being a teacher, you pass knowledge on to the next generation and if you also do research, you make new discoveries and question the way things are; in other words, challenge the status quo. Teacher tenure ensures that teachers can perform these two tasks by protecting their academic freedom. Moreover, teacher tenure raises the standard of education to a higher level by attracting more capable people to enter this field and allowing teachers to focus on teaching than not being fired. In short, tenure makes sure that the functions of such an important profession can be carried out without any hindrance, that such an important job is done at a high standard, in the hands of gifted people. 1. Teacher tenure protects the academic freedom of teachers. Academic freedom is of paramount importance. Academic freedom prevents any political, intellectual, or religious orthodoxy from hampering the discovery of knowledge and the study and criticism of intellectual or cultural traditions. Without the assurance of academic freedom, many teachers may be discouraged from taking novel or unpopular positions. Important ideas might not be advanced and intellectual debate and advancement would suffer. Protecting the academic freedom of teachers may sound like something that is only beneficial to teachers. However this is not true. With teacher tenure, teachers’ academic freedom of teaching controversial subjects is also protected. This is beneficial to students because they will be exposed to a wider range of views and topics and they will acquire more knowledge. But more importantly, they will also develop critical thinking skills and instead of blindly accepting what others say about it, they can question the legitimacy of them on their own. Another example that demonstrates the importance of protecting academic freedom is Galileo and his support for the Copernican Theory. [1] In this case, there was a violation against Galileo’s academic freedom to support Copernican theory, a very important theory in astronomy, which has a profound impact on mankind. If this violation had been successful, it could have barred this theory reaching other people; consequently, we may never have gained the knowledge that Earth in fact orbits the Sun; and without this knowledge, NASA would never have been able to send a probe on a 7.5 billion km journey to Pluto and we would never have received pictures of such a beautiful place. 2. Teacher tenure is necessary to provide a high standard of education to students. Tenured teachers cannot be dismissed without a just cause as I have mentioned at the very beginning of my argument. Therefore it allows teachers to focus on their job and act in the best interest of students (e.g. failing a student with powerful parents when it is necessary so that he realizes he has to improve) instead of having to worry about political correctness and keeping their job. This ensures that the education that we give to students is of the highest standard. Secondly, according to [2], the admission requirements for future applicants to teacher colleges will increase in the next few years. It is shown on the National Education Association website that teachers make less than other professions receiving similar training and responsibilities. [3] The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that public schools will need more than 440,000 new elementary and secondary teachers by the end of the decade to replace retiring baby boomers. [4] These sources show that more people, and more talented ones with higher academic achievements are needed as teachers, an occupation that is not that well paid. Teacher tenure solves this problem by attracting talented people to become teachers by giving teachers security and stability to their jobs. This is extremely important because only by having good teachers and having enough of them can we provide education of a high standard to students. Brief summary of my arguments 1. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects.2. Tenure attracts more gifted people to enter this profession and allows them to focus on teaching, thus raising the standard of education to a high level.Again, I have not dropped my opponent's points. I will simply address them in the next round in accordance to the rules of this debate. Links: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.nea.org... [4] http://blogs.edweek.org... [5] http://www.joebaugher.com...", "title": "There should not be a teacher tenure.", "pid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.7270050048828}, {"text": "Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing to get rid of the teacher tenure.", "title": "There should not be a teacher tenure.", "pid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.11590576171875}, {"text": "1) Tenure: : the right to keep a job (especially the job of being a professor at a college or university) for as long as you want to have it. 2) Tenure (As defined by American Association of University Professors): Since its founding in 1915, the Association has seen tenure as necessary to protect academic freedom. Tenure, briefly stated, is an arrangement whereby faculty members, after successful completion of a period of probationary service, can be dismissed only for adequate cause or other possible circumstances and only after a hearing before a faculty committee. The Association, also from its inception, has assumed responsibility for developing standards and practices, sometimes in cooperation with other organizations, to give concrete meaning to tenure. Key Association policy statements are the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the 1958 Statement on Procedural Standards in Faculty Dismissal Proceedings, and the Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure. I would like to allow the Pro to decide which definition will be used. So far as the debate structure goes, I would like the second round to be stating preliminary arguments. he third and fourth used for rebuttal and concluding statements accordingly, as long as this is amiable to the Pro. I look forward to this debate, best of luck. Sources 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . http://www.aaup.org...", "title": "Teacher Tenure", "pid": "b0680508-2019-04-18T13:48:51Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.07720947265625}, {"text": "I will be debating on the CON side of teacher tenure. PRO will use this first round as an acceptance round. Violation of the following rules will result in an automatic loss for PRO. Rules: Use this first round for acceptance Do not be rude or mean to each other Do not include personal beliefs, personal experiences are fine if backed up by evidence. Do not forfeit, for obvious reasons.", "title": "Teacher Tenure", "pid": "b0680508-2019-04-18T13:48:51Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.80799865722656}, {"text": "Prevent Arbitrary Firings:If teachers did not receive tenure they could be fired for any reason. In other words, they would be limited in doing their job for fear of being fired. This promotes ineffective teachers for fear of being fired. That is something you do not want from teachers or students won't learn as much. (1) http://www.usatoday.com...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...Tenures Retain the Best Teachers:The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers. Many other careers offer higher pay, but very few offer as much security as tenures. Furthermore, to remove tenures would only drive more great teachers away from the profession. Which would then weaken our educational system even more. (1) http://lilt.ilstu.edu...Rebuttals:Tenure does not limit possibilities: My opponent states that tenures prevent new teachers from a teaching position. That is completely false with teachers being one of the most needed positions. There is even a grant the government has out to draw more teachers. (1) http://teaching.monster.com...(2) https://teach-ats.ed.gov...Tenure does not pull down our economy: Tenure boosts the economy by allowing teachers to be paid more. In addition, every single teacher, if they stay long enough, will get tenure. Tenure in no way restricts teachers from making more. (1) http://www.lasvegassun.com...Teacher tenure does not allow an abuse of position: \"It is a myth that teacher tenure provides a guarantee of lifetime employment, ensuring notice and providing a hearing for generally accepted reasons for termination, such as incompetence, insubordination, and immorality.\"(1) http://voices.washingtonpost.com...", "title": "Should Tenures Be Taken Away", "pid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.67645263671875}, {"text": "Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties. Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. \" A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. \" (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...) (Patrick McGuinn, \"Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform,\" www. americanprogress. org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) \"An Apr. -May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor \"making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured. ” Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, \"56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. \" (M. J. Stephey, \"A Brief History of Tenure,\" www. time. com). Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: \"In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. \" (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure. Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: \"Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, \"Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. ”(\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: \"To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to \"stick around” for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. \" (Marcus A. Winters, \"Challenging Tenure in D. C. ,\" www. manhattan-institute. org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because \"with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to \"show their worth, or their ineptitude. \" (Rose Garrett, \"What Is Teacher Tenure? ,\" www. education. com), (. http://teachertenure.procon.org...).Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: \"It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called \"rubber rooms”) where they were paid to sit idly. Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. \" (\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com), (Steven Brill, \"The Rubber Room,\" New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite? Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: \"Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. \" (Nanette Asimov, \"Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle,\" San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for. Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: \"For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. \" (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force,\" New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, \"Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ,\" www. dangerouslyirrelevant. org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure. The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary? Citations: . http://teachertenure.procon.org...http://teachertenure.procon.org...http://teachertenure.procon.org...Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, \"Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure,\" www. ehow. comPatrick McGuinn, \"Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform,\" www. americanprogress. org. http://teachertenure.procon.org... \"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. comMarcus A. Winters, \"Challenging Tenure in D. C. ,\" www. manhattan-institute. orgM. J. Stephey, \"A Brief History of Tenure,\" www. time. comRose Garrett, \"What Is Teacher Tenure? ,\" www. education. com. http://teachertenure.procon.org... \"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. comSteven Brill, \"The Rubber Room,\" New YorkerTenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force,\" New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. orgScott McLeod, JD, PhD, \"Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ,\" www. dangerouslyirrelevant. orgNanette Asimov, \"Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle,\" San Francisco Chronicle", "title": "There should not be a teacher tenure.", "pid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.52333068847656}, {"text": "Since I assume their opening statement was made in their R1 post, I will begin mine as well. I will be arguing against the idea that tenure for college professors should be abolished. I have three main claims: [Claim 1]: Tenure is a necessity [Claim 2]: Tenured teachers can still be fired (and other misconceptions) [Claim 3]: Research supports tenure [C1]: Tenure is a necessity The concept of tenure dates back over 100 years ago to the early 20 century, when working in the field of education was much different than what it is today [1]. It was female-dominated, classrooms were larger, and working conditions were poorer [2]. Before tenure, teachers could be fired for any reason. If a teacher had the audacity to get married or, even more horrific, pregnant, the schoolboard could immediately fire her. Tenure and teachers' unions were created to guarantee some amount of job protection for teachers. They wanted the peace of mind to know their job wouldn't be terminated for seemingly no reason. At the high school level, most schools require teachers work at the same school for 3-5 years before being considered for tenure, and there are many factors taken into account, with the most important one being a teacher's ability to teach. At the university level, I believe you have to have taught for 6 years before tenure consideration. Once a teacher is granted tenure, however, it does not mean they are immune from being fired. \"Tenure protects academic freedom. In the absence of tenure, teachers may be fired for any reason. Teachers may be fired if the principal doesn't like them or if they are experienced and become too expensive. Teachers may be fired for being outspoken. [2]\" In other words, tenure gives teachers a safeguard to be able to be more involved with the decisions being made at their school, as opposed to being complacent and accepting any and all changes. At the college level, this is incredibly important as professors want to challenge their students and (sometimes) have them confront and critique their already-established beliefs. When I took a Sociology course my senior year of university, our professor warned us of an upcoming lecture the following week where she was going to discuss religion and look at many of the popular ones under a critical lens. I thought this was a strange warning, as anyone whose convictions are strong enough should be fine with having their beliefs challenged. To my surprise, however, many students' parents would contact her to complain. Tenure in this situation protects the professor from being fired simply because a student didn't like one of their lectures. [C2]: Tenured teachers can still be fired (and other misconceptions) There are a lot of myths surrounding the idea of tenure, which is primarily the reason why I accepted this debate in the first place. Some people, for example, think that tenured teachers cannot be fired and have permanent job security forever and can therefore sit back and be a less effective teacher with no criticism whatsoever. This is absolutely not true. Again, tenure grants teachers job security and the inability to be fired without due process. Ineffective (or \"bad\") teachers can still be terminated. However, I think firing someone with no intervention or professional development workshops to help them is a bit harsh. Tenure (especially at the university level) is something that needs to be earned from the hardest-working teachers after a long and arduous process. They have to have committed some amount of research outside their teaching hours, demonstrate very strong teaching abilities, among many other factors. Tenure does not \"protect\" \"burnt-out\" teachers either. \"How many students have complained about a teacher they see as too strict or \"boring\" - only to realize later in life that this teacher made a profound difference in their lives? Research shows that there is no one style that equates to effective teaching - which underscores why a fair hearing is needed before the imposition of a serious consequence such as firing a teacher who has demonstrated years of effective teaching. [3]\" [C3]: Research supports tenure Not only have we established tenure does not help bad teachers keep their job, but there is abolutely no research that suggests students perform worse on standardized tests when taught by a tenured teacher, nor is there evidence that supports perform better with non-tenured teachers [2]. Not only this, but tenured teachers and professors also feel to have a higher obligation to be involved in school-making decisions. \"Research finds that when teachers have a say in how schools are run, they are more likely to be invested in the school and to stay longer, and are more engaged with colleagues in cooperative work. [4]\" In conclusion, tenure is a necessary provision for good teachers and promotes a stronger school culture, thus increasing academic achievement, not hindering it. The myth that tenure protects ineffective teachers is simply untrue. I await Pro's response. Thank you. Sources: [1] . http://www.peoplesworld.org... [2] . http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://www.nysut.org... [4] . http://www.aft.org...", "title": "Colleges should abolish the ability for teachers to be tenured.", "pid": "ff0947ec-2019-04-18T12:23:12Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.50323486328125}, {"text": "Reason 2 - Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts: Most schools stop trying to fire a certain teacher because the proccess is just too difficult. \" A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. \" (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......) (Patrick McGuinn, \"Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform,\" www. americanprogress. org). This quote means that 86 OUT OF 100 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS WANT A TEACHER TO BE FIRED - but will not do so because the proccess is to draining. But what does that leave our learning and growing generation with? Many teachers who do not care, teach well, or put effort in their work? That is certaintly what this is going to result into if we do not abolish it quickly. Also check out this statistic of who is in favor (people in general) \"An Apr. -May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor \"making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured. ” Of course you cannot expect most teachers to be against it sinse that it their profession and it effects them - but for bystanders with accurate and unbiased opinions, look how many people are against it. Also, \"56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. \" (M. J. Stephey, \"A Brief History of Tenure,\" www. time. com). Reason 3 - Most people are against teature tenure: \"In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. \" (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......) This means that most teachers OF SUCH A LARGE PERCENTAGE are not in favor of the teacher tenure. Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: \"Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, \"Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. ”(\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. Reason 5 - Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone: \"To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to \"stick around” for a short period of time to receive tenure. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. \" (Marcus A. Winters, \"Challenging Tenure in D. C. ,\" www. manhattan-institute. org). This statistic is absolutely upsetting and degrating. Basically, this quote is explaning how 99% of teachers have free protection handed to them if they just stay in that profession for a certain amount of time. What if that teacher was already slacking in many areas? Now we are going to award them for poor effort and teaching abilities? It is not fair to the students involved with these teachers and it is not fair that they do not actually have to WORK to recieve a benefit of protection unlike most other professions that require some form of acomplishment to recieve that/those benefits in question. Because \"with most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to \"show their worth, or their ineptitude. \" (Rose Garrett, \"What Is Teacher Tenure? ,\" www. education. com), (. http://teachertenure.procon.org......).Reason 6 - Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing: \"It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called \"rubber rooms”) where they were paid to sit idly. Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. \" (\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com), (Steven Brill, \"The Rubber Room,\" New Yorker). This is just sad, now it even costs the school boards money for teachers not doing their job? Should'nt that be the opposite? Reason 7 - Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers: \"Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. \" (Nanette Asimov, \"Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle,\" San Francisco Chronicle). This quote further proves why tenure is pretty much useless and unfair because teachers DO NOT NEED TENURE to continue their job as a teacher at their shchool, past school, future school, or school they are applying for. Reason 8 - With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal: \"For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. \" (Tenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force,\" New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. org), (Scott McLeod, JD, PhD, \"Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ,\" www. dangerouslyirrelevant. org). This is the most important fact out of all these because it shows how the WHOLE REASON teacher tenure is here in the first place is NOT NEEDED not have the protections that teachers have without tenure. The teacher tenure is not benefitial for anyone except teachers - they get unfair advantages in MANY ways, some I have just listed. Why should we let this continue if unnessisary? Citations: . http://teachertenure.procon.org......http://teachertenure.procon.org......http://teachertenure.procon.org......Wanda Marie Thibodeaux, \"Pro & Cons of Teacher Tenure,\" www. ehow. comPatrick McGuinn, \"Ringing the Bell for K-12 Teacher Tenure Reform,\" www. americanprogress. org. http://teachertenure.procon.org...... \"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. comMarcus A. Winters, \"Challenging Tenure in D. C. ,\" www. manhattan-institute. orgM. J. Stephey, \"A Brief History of Tenure,\" www. time. comRose Garrett, \"What Is Teacher Tenure? ,\" www. education. com. http://teachertenure.procon.org...... \"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. comSteven Brill, \"The Rubber Room,\" New YorkerTenure Reforms and NJSBA Policy: Report of the NJSBA Tenure Task Force,\" New Jersey School Boards Association website, www. njsba. orgScott McLeod, JD, PhD, \"Does Teacher Tenure Have a Future? ,\" www. dangerouslyirrelevant. orgNanette Asimov, \"Teacher Job Security Fuels Prop. 74 Battle,\" San Francisco Chronicle Rebuttals: (rebuttal for \"academic freedom\"): Actually, it does only benefit the teachers. Refer back to my reason 4 in the first round: \"Reason 4 - Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children: \"Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, \"Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults. ”(\"Rhee-Forming D. C. Schools,\" www. wsj. com). This piece of evidence means that the only people actually benefiting from this tenure are the teachers who are employed - not any students. Isint education suppost to be focused on the younger generation and their best interest? Since when did school become all about the teachers - this tenure undermines what it means to actually be a teacher. If anything, it is only a BAD THING for students - and why would we keep something in our school systems that MAKES THE GENERATIONS' LEARNING LESS VALUEABLE? It does not make any sense. \"(Rebuttal for \"high standard\"): That is completely false. Once teachers recieve tenure - they work less hard because they feel as if they are invincible. Refer back to my argument for my reason 1: \"Reason 1 - Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs: If teachers know that they reached the period where they get special defence from most accusations - it would send the message to them that they can then do whatever they want to do in the classroom and really slack with their teaching duties. \" This quote clearly explains how it does nothing except disadvantage the students in the long run. We have more teachers then we need - if we get rid of tenure we will have a job application in that field decrease - it just will not happen. Teachers are paid very well - and it is one of the jobs most people want to work for - so what you have said is false.", "title": "There should not be a teacher tenure.", "pid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.3446044921875}, {"text": "This is a debate of tenures for teachers. The definitions are to be set such that: Tenures are to be defined as allowing a teacher to be guaranteed the teaching position for the rest of their life (just for this debate to simplify definitions). All terms and words are to be based on the U. S. culture, economy, system(s), etc. Pro will be for the removal of tenures while Con will be for the status quo which is the existence of tenures.", "title": "Should Tenures Be Taken Away", "pid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.3272247314453}, {"text": "Here are some facts against Teacher Tenure: Teacher tenure creates complacency because teachers know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. Tenure removes incentives for teachers to put in more than the minimum effort and to focus on improving their teaching. [8] Tenure makes it difficult to remove under-performing teachers because the process involves months of legal wrangling by the principal, the school board, the union, and the courts. A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that 81% of school administrators knew a poorly performing tenured teacher at their school; however, 86% of administrators said they do not always pursue dismissal of teachers because of the costly and time consuming process. It can take up to 335 days to remove a tenured teacher in Michigan before the courts get involved. [2] [4] Tenure makes seniority the main factor in dismissal decisions instead of teacher performance and quality. [21] Tenure laws maintain the \"last-hired, first-fired\" policy. On Feb. 24, 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the Los Angeles Unified School District, claiming that basing layoffs on seniority harms younger teachers as well as \"low-income students and persons of color.\" [22] On Oct. 6, 2010, both sides settled to cap or end layoffs at schools. [23] Tenure is not needed to recruit teachers. Sacramento Charter High School, which does not offer tenure, had 900 teachers apply for 80 job openings. [3] With job protections granted through court rulings, collective bargaining, and state and federal laws, teachers today no longer need tenure to protect them from dismissal. [24] For this reason, few other professions offer tenure because employees are adequately protected with existing laws. [25] Tenure makes it costly for schools to remove a teacher with poor performance or who is guilty of wrongdoing. It costs an average of $250,000 to fire a teacher in New York City. [27] New York spent an estimated $30 million a year paying tenured teachers accused of incompetence and wrongdoing to report to reassignment centers (sometimes called \"rubber rooms\") where they were paid to sit idly.Those rooms were shut down on June 28, 2010. [6] With most states granting tenure after three years, teachers have not had the opportunity to \"show their worth, or their ineptitude.\" [28] A Nov. 21, 2008 study by the University of Washington's Center on Reinventing Public Education found that the first two to three years of teaching do not predict post-tenure performance. [29] Tenure does not grant academic freedom. No Child Left Behind in 2001 took away much academic freedom when it placed so much emphasis on standardized testing. [10] According to an Oct. 1, 2006 survey published in Planning and Changing, 56% of school board presidents disagreed with the statement that teacher tenure ensures academic freedom. [18] Tenure at the K-12 level is not earned, but given to nearly everyone. To receive tenure at the university level, professors must show contributions to their fields by publishing research. At the K-12 level, teachers only need to \"stick around\" for a short period of time to receive tenure. [30] A June 1, 2009 study by the New Teacher Project found that less than 1% of evaluated teachers were rated unsatisfactory. [2] Tenure is unpopular among educators and the public. An Apr.-May 2011 survey of 2,600 Americans found that 49% oppose teacher tenure while 20% support it. Among teachers, 53% support tenure while 32% oppose it. According to a Sep. 2010 report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 86% of education professors favor \"making it easier to terminate unmotivated or incompetent teachers - even if they are tenured.\" [31] [32] Teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children. Former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said in 2008, \"Tenure is the holy grail of teacher unions, but it has no educational value for kids; it only benefits adults.\" [27] Teacher tenure requires schools to make long-term spending commitments and prevents districts from being fiscally flexible. Teacher employment contracts generally lack provisions for declining enrollment and economic turmoil. [33] Tenure lets experienced teachers pick easier assignments and leaves difficult assignments to the least experienced teachers. Senior teachers choose to teach more resource-rich and less challenging populations instead of the classrooms that would benefit the most from experienced teachers. [34] Public Agenda President Deborah Wadsworth argues that teacher tenure leads to \"a distribution of talent that is flawed and inequitable.\" [34] Most school board presidents criticize teacher tenure. In an Oct. 1, 2006 survey, 91% of school board presidents either agreed or strongly agreed that tenure impedes the dismissal of under-performing teachers. 60% also believed that tenure does not promote fair evaluations. [18] ~http://teachertenure.procon.org... *You present your facts and then we will post rebuttals for facts from this round*", "title": "Teacher Tenure", "pid": "b0680508-2019-04-18T13:48:51Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.31219482421875}, {"text": "We are going to make two points. The first is to stipulate as factual Instigator's contention bad teachers are allowed to remain in the classroom rather than give an opportunity to more innovative and qualified teachers. The second is to state it's not the unions fault. The fault lies with the administration and with the school board. What Instigator suggests is the unions not do their job or at least one of their jobs which is to represent and protect the interests of their members. Ethical standards and legal requirements do not allow them to decline to represent 'bad' teachers. There is a way to get rid of bad teachers-- school boards can enact policies allowing for removing such teachers; and administrators can document cases against them. Unions can fight it as they should but if the school boards and administrators do their jobs the bad teachers will go-- and the good teachers who may be unfairly or mistakenly targeted. will be protected. It is the last point why unions should be allowed to protect bad teachers", "title": "Tenured teachers don't always deserve protection from unions", "pid": "591127c0-2019-04-18T12:54:29Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.22732543945312}, {"text": "Quotes used in my debate are all included here. (I know this is not exactly allowed and it's really messy and confusing but 10,000 characters (approx. 1500 words) really isn’t enough for 10 rebuttals.) Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’: ‘a’ (this is where Quote a. from the picture should go) Pro is presupposing that teachers will become complacent if they know they are unlikely to lose their jobs. However, 1. Pro does not give any proof that supports this. 2. A study suggests that academic performance does not slack off after tenure. [1] (Downloadable on the website). It measures the productivity (total number of papers) and impact (citations of papers) of the economics and finance faculty from top twenty-five schools and it finds that they are consistent before and after tenure. 3. There are other incentives for teachers to work. [1] points out that other incentives including pay rise, reduced teaching load and more research funds. Pressure from colleagues and academic discipline are also incentives for teachers to work. Therefore, I can conclude that ‘reason 1’ is invalid. (Although [1] is focused on professors, some incentives I have listed in 3. are also shared by K-12 teachers.) Rebuttal of ‘Reason 2 and 6’ ‘b’‘c’ What Pro says is misleading. Tenure may make it difficult to remove under-performing teachers but it makes it EQUALLY DIFFICULT to remove good teachers. But isn’t this the whole point of tenure - to protect teachers from being fired without a just cause, so to protect academic freedom and increase the quality of education? Also, how many under-performing teachers are there anyway? Teachers perform poorly either because they don’t have the ability to perform well, or they are able to but they are simply complacent and therefore not willing to make an effort. The latter I have already proven to be unlikely in my ‘Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’. The former, as I will explain now, is unlikely too. If a teacher were inept, he wouldn’t have been employed and wouldn’t have been granted tenure in the first place. This isn’t really a disadvantage because under-performing teachers are rare while many more teachers and students can be benefitted. ‘d’ Exactly. There are laws our there designed to remove tenured teachers. It is the administrators’ fault that for some reason they do not use these laws to dismiss teachers, not tenure’s fault. I do agree that tenure makes it difficult to fire under-performing teachers. However, these teachers are rare and it is equally difficult to fire good teachers. If school administrators can utilise tenure well then both under-performing teachers can be fired and good teachers can be protected. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 3’ A large number of people being against tenure cannot explain whether tenure is inherently good or bad. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 4’ ‘e’ This is a short-sighted and superficial statement to make and Pro fails to realise the indirect effect tenure has on students. Tenure gives teachers academic freedom to teach controversial subjects. Students are being taught these and it is already evident how students are affected and benefited. Students develop critical thinking skills and gain knowledge to a wide range of topics. Other benefits of students are mentioned in previous round. The statement that teacher tenure does nothing to promote the education of children is simply not true. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 5’ ‘f’ This merely shows that the system used to grant tenures to K-12 teachers is not strict enough. At best, it only shows that some sort of reform may be needed to change the way tenure is granted at K-12 level, but tenure itself is fine. Also, this argument only focuses on K-12 teachers, and I will remind voters professors are also included in this debate. Rebuttal of ‘Reason 7’ ‘g’ I have already explained in my 2nd contention that tenure can attract people to become teachers. So now the question is whether tenure is NEEDED to do so? The answer is yes, because less people can apply for teacher college and an estimated of 440,000 extra teachers are needed to replace baby boomers. This I have also explained in my 2nd contention. Further evidence that supports this is a webpage on the California Teacher Association website, titled ‘Impending Teacher Shortage Crisis’ [3]. Pro has given the example of a school in Sacramento (Capital of California) to show that there isn’t a teacher shortage. However, it is only the example of a single school and it does not show the general pattern while the statewide statistics do. Also, Pro overlooks other factors that could attract an unusually high number of teachers to apply for jobs at this school – e.g. a high salary. In conclusion, Pro’s point is invalid because I have pointed out the problems with the example she uses. I have also provided a more representative data that disproves her point. Furthermore, I have explained in my 2nd contention about how tenure can and needs to attract people to become teachers. Rebuttal for ‘Reason 8’ ‘h’ 1. The fact that there are multiple methods to protect teacher from dismissal does not mean that teacher tenure is unnecessary. If, according to Pro’s logic, only one way of protecting teacher from dismissal is needed, then shouldn’t ‘collective bargaining, state law and federal law’ be unnecessary too because ‘job protections granted through court rulings’ can offer this protection already? Wouldn’t she be contradicting herself by listing 4 alternatives when she is saying that only one is needed? 2. If that was not what she meant, if she is also acknowledging that different methods can co-exist, then why choose teacher tenure to be the one to be abolished? Pro says teacher tenure has many disadvantages, but I’ve refuted her arguments about these disadvantages already in my above rebuttals. Also, the other methods she has listed do have some of the disadvantages that teacher tenure has too because they have similar purposes. 3. If you look at the sections related to alternative methods to protect teachers from the document Pro used as evidence in her argument, (p.4, paragraphs 2-3) [4] it says: ‘i’ The document does not see these alternatives as a long-term solution, but only as a temporary measure to protect teachers during the period of tenure law reform in NJ. ‘It does not in any way, describe these alternatives as effective either, saying that all they merely do is ‘not leave teachers at the mercy of cruel and capricious boards of education.’ In the last few sentences, it even stresses on the benefits of tenure. The conclusion is that the evidence Pro uses doesn’t actually support her claim. If anything, it is CONTRADICTORY to her entire position in this debate. Pro does not give any explanation to why tenure in particular should be abolished but not other methods of protecting teachers. The evidence given by her – not only is it unsupportive of her argument – it is even against it. Rebuttal for ‘Rebuttal for \"high standard\"’ I have explained in my Rebuttal of ‘Reason 4’ how tenure can have indirect effects on children too. Pro shouldn’t just focus on direct effects and it is a shallow thing to do so. Furthermore, Pro has completely dropped my point on academic freedom and tacitly agrees that it does benefit people (‘j’) but she tries to deny the merit of it by claiming it does not benefit students. Therefore, my point still stands. Tenure protects academic freedom, allowing teachers to perform research freely and teach controversial subjects, which benefits students. Rebuttal for ‘Rebuttal for \"high standard\"’ Pro argues that my 2nd contention is false in her rebuttal. Her reasons for this are: 1. ‘k’ This, I have already explained why it is not true in my ‘Rebuttal of ‘Reason 1’: Pro failed to support ‘reason 1’ with proof; I have provided studies that disprove it; I have explained that there are other incentives for the teacher to work. 2. ‘l’ If you look at [2] and [4] of the previous round you will see Pro’s assertion ‘m’ (incidentally, she uses the wrong ‘then’) is already proven false by sources I have cited in the previous round and she hasn’t given evidence in this round that proves otherwise. ‘n’ [3] of my previous round has already proven this false. I have proven both of these reasons given by Pro as false thus her rebuttal of my point is invalid. Therefore, my point still stands, which I will repeat here once more: Teacher tenure provides a high standard of education to students. Also, I want to point out that Pro’s rebuttal of my 2nd contention is not supported by evidence and merely based on assertion. Why should you vote Con? Pro has explained the disadvantages of tenure but most of which have been refuted. I have explained the advantages of tenure, which Pro has either dropped or attempted to refute but does not succeed as I have proven her rebuttals invalid. This means I have successfully shown that there should be teacher tenure because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages while Pro has not shown why there should not be teacher tenure I have met the criteria for me to win this debate but Pro hasn’t. Also BoP should be on Pro because she needs to explain why the status quo should be changed but she fails to fulfil this BoP. Other than that Pro has, on many occasions, failed to provide evidence to support her claims and in her rebuttal of my 2nd contention, Pro’s blatantly disregards the sources I have cited in the previous round and she continues to make unfounded assertions, which are already proven false by these sources. Pro’s arguments heavily rely on ‘appeal to emotion’ and ‘circular reasoning’. [1]http://papers.ssrn.com...; [2] Deleted [3] https://www.cta.org... [4] http://www.njsba.org...", "title": "There should not be a teacher tenure.", "pid": "c065954f-2019-04-18T14:32:52Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.0208740234375}, {"text": "Teachers should be paid on merit, not seniority and titles", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 215.89605712890625}, {"text": "I have to do this round a little bit different as Pro did not respond to any of my arguments. Instead, he used multiple fallacies throughout the debate. Namely, Ad Hominem(CR1), Ad hominem Tu Quoque(CR2), Appeal to Ridicule(CR1), Begging the Question(CR3), Post Hoc(round 3), and Red Herring(round 3). None of my contentions were refuted by Pro, therefore, I should win the debate. C1: Tenures prevent teachers from being arbitrarily fired, which allows academic freedom. If there was no tenures they could be fired for teaching about issues contrary to what the administration believes. My opponent tried to make it disappear by saying, \"it has nothing to do with tenures. \"C2: Tenures help draw and retain better teachers. It does this by having great job security, which rivals all other careers. If it was not for tenures, we would have worse teachers due to no job security. Again my opponent never did respond. My opponent also danced around my rebuttals. R1: My opponent attempts to assert that new innovative teachers will not be able to get a position. I then proceed to crush that argument in the next two rounds. The two things I prove are that teachers are needed and tenures actually foster an environment of innovation. R2: He makes an assertion that tenures will do great damage to the economy. However, I disprove that by showing teachers will make more. Like any industry, when people can be fired who make more they will be. That is why tenures help prevent seasoned teachers from being fired over salary. He decides to completely drop the argument after that. R3: Then he makes the claim that if a teacher is tenured they can not be fired. Which is completely false and a huge misconception. I prove that by providing links. Again, he chooses not to respond. 1. He never responded to my contentions.2. His contentions were completely defeated by my rebuttals.3. Drops all arguments in round 44. He committed multiple fallacies, especially in round 4.", "title": "Should Tenures Be Taken Away", "pid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.84115600585938}, {"text": "Unions sometimes protect teachers that shouldn't be protected. Some teachers are stuck in a rut, \"babysitting\" until retirement, or getting complaints and being shuffled from school to school. They can't be fired and so they continue to take up space that could be used for younger/newer teachers with incredible ideas and innovative lessons.", "title": "Tenured teachers don't always deserve protection from unions", "pid": "591127c0-2019-04-18T12:54:29Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.72557067871094}, {"text": "I am for the removal of tenures for teachers. There are 3 reasons that justify my position:1. Tenure PossibilitiesTenures allow for teachers to be guaranteed a lifetime teaching position according to the definition of tenure in the structure of this debate. By having this set out, many new teachers are prevented from teaching positions. Many include: - New people with new techniques for students- Fresh graduates with an eager heart to teach- People with new knowledge of a particular subjectBy barring these people from jobs, we stunt the growth of a new generation of Americans that provide our future with updated knowledge, ideas, and techniques. 2. Economic View From an economic viewpoint, tenures pull down our economy. Through keeping old teachers in positions, tenures make money flow only towards older generations of teachers. Thus, there is an imbalance of currency distribution which will:- New generations of teachers will struggle to earn a living - Contribute to the slowdown of money flow and economic downturn- Disable young people from working and benefiting the US while givingolder people the majority of money -- an imbalance3. Abuse of Teaching PositionsThrough allowing teachers fulfilling a number of years to have permanent jobs, tenures open the gateway for abuse of teaching positions. In 1999 six professors sued the state for banning them from watching porn on state computers. Tenures allow abuse of positions for people such as: - Those with corrupted moral standards- Teachers who might harm children indirectly through their depravity- Teachers not conductive to learning environmentNote that this \"corruption\" is not limited to being illegal in the sense that an arrest is at issue but also for such things that don't infringe on the law but still might be harmful for student values such as smoking outside of the school.Sources: http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...", "title": "Should Tenures Be Taken Away", "pid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.6732635498047}, {"text": "To My Future Opponent: Thank you for accepting my challenge. I started this debate to learn the pros and cons of this subject, and I chose the side that is my personal opinion (for now). Please feel free to any styles of debating. However I find it a more constructive debate if you hit each of my points as well as making your own. Hobey ho, lets go! In public high schools, tenure is considered a right for teachers who have passed their (usually) 3 year probationary term. Roughly 2.3 million public school teachers in the U.S. have tenure. (Time) Tenure is job security aimed at impeding wanton firing of \"unpopular\" teachers. Although noble in theory, tenure is simply wrong. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 1) If a teacher deserves to be fired, it is a daunting task for the school district to do so, leading to bad teachers staying in the system. According to a recent article in Time Magazine, \"Though tenure doesn't guarantee lifetime employment, it does make firing teachers a difficult and costly process, one that involves the union, the school board, the principal, the judicial system and thousands of dollars in legal fees. In most states, a tenured teacher can't be dismissed until charges are filed and months of evaluations, hearings and appeals have occurred. Meanwhile, school districts must shell out thousands of dollars for paid leave and substitute instructors. The system is deliberately slow and cumbersome, in order to dissuade school boards and parents from ousting a teacher for personal or political motives.\" As I mentioned before, a noble attempt at stopping corruption, yet it fails to recognize bad teachers in general. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 2) There are numerous cases of teachers that deserved to be fired, proved difficult because of tenure. Yet again, from Time, \"A Connecticut teacher received a mere 30-day suspension for helping students cheat on a standardized test; one California school board spent $8,000 to fire an instructor who preferred using R-rated movies instead of books; a Florida teacher remained in the classroom for a year despite incidents in which she threw books at her students and demanded they referred to her as ‘Ms. God.'\" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Point 3) Tenure can easily lead to teacher complacency. This point is simply logic. If a man or woman has a job they know they won't be fired from (within loose limits), are they really going to work extremely hard to better themselves at their job? In today's world, probably not. The same goes with teachers. Please note, I'm not saying all teachers are lazy scumbags who deserve to be fired, but this is simply a problem with tenure. I'm 100% sure that we've all had a teacher who just didn't care anymore. Mine was in a science class. She never taught a thing. All we did was handouts. Easiest ‘A' I've gotten in my life, but that's not the point of school. Tenure allows for ‘Blow off classes' and ‘easy a's', but is that necessarily a good thing, especially with legislation requiring standardized tests. If students are doing poorly, school districts get less grants, making it even harder to educate new students. It's a slippery slope that many schools are finding themselves in. You may be saying that tenure isn't the only cause of this, but it is a factor. Bad teachers = bad students. Simple. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Possible Solution: Get rid of the tenure system and create a new teacher grading system in which good teachers are kept and bad teachers are fired. I've been thinking about the education system a lot recently, and the only possible alternative I could find in my mind, is a merit based system. It would keep crass politics out of the system by assuring teachers their job (if they are up to it). I propose a three part test. A) Course Knowledge Exam- The teacher ought to know what they are talking about. B) Teacher Improvement Standards- There are numerous workshops and the like that are available to teachers. They should be required to attend a certain amount of such meetings yearly to keep up with the times and teaching styles. C) In Class Examination- Although teachers are often subjected to scheduled \"watching\" periods in which an official of the school sits in on a lesson, this is not enough. They should have a set number of random sit ins to insure the teacher is actually teaching, instead of simply making a show on that one scheduled day.", "title": "The United States Federal Government ought to ban tenure from all high schools.", "pid": "24e47090-2019-04-18T19:22:46Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.65187072753906}, {"text": "Thank you for the debate, however, all your points were refuted.The main goal of teachers is to educate students. That is why my two arguments focus on how having tenures is best for the students.CR1: In an academic environment people have differing views on touchy subjects. Tenures, thus, protect teachers from being fired for teaching contrary to what administrators want, they provide academic freedom. Prior to tenures teachers were fired for differing views and any reason administrators wanted. 1)http://www.mlive.com...CR2: My opponent never refuted my round one argument, \"The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers.\"1)http://www.dukechronicle.com...R1: My opponent has failed to provide proof how tenures dive out innovation. On the contrary, it provides the freedom to come up with new styles of teaching. Since they don't have to worry about being fired they are free to experiment.1)http://www.joebaugher.com...R2: I also urge my opponent to reflect on tenures more, not just the surface level definition. What happens if teachers are not protected by tenures? They will be fired as soon as they start making more money. You can see that happens in every field of work. Thus, tenures do help teachers make more money. 1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...R3: My opponent proposed in round one that tenures make teachers unfireable. I then completely refuted that point by providing a source. He then tries to cover up his defeated argument by saying they can not be fired for smoking. I ask, can any employee anywhere be fired for smoking?1)http://blog.timesunion.com...The proof is in the pudding, tenures allow teachers to provide a better education for students.", "title": "Should Tenures Be Taken Away", "pid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.51962280273438}, {"text": "Coral is a really bad name for a kid. Teachers who work hard and put extra time into making sure their students understand and learn the curriculum should get more money than the teachers who sit around, assign things without telling the students what to do, and making toast instead of teaching.", "title": "merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component for teacher compensation", "pid": "68d82bb6-2019-04-18T19:14:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.3467254638672}, {"text": "If teachers get merit pay for the success of their students,then they will strive harder in order to yield successful individuals. And that would greatly help for the success of its nation. Teachers are not just getting into school to teach but also to learn and to study for the betterment of their discussion so that their students would also be interested to learn and be important.", "title": "That would be the better solution", "pid": "5596abaa-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.33731079101562}, {"text": "Teachers should be paid more; based on merit", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.3218994140625}, {"text": "To avoid problems like this a board of members should be appointed they should be maverick from government. They should be controlled directly by an Educational Head. This board of members can have frequent visit to any schools and can inspect the students any time and can review the students and compare them with the tests they have written. This Board can even blame the Educational system if there any riddle and can give astringent punishment if any malpractices happen. Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance because Teachers' whose service is interminable should be noted and should be lauded with more salary this is an appreciation given to them for sacrificing themselves for their students. This can even encourage other teachers to work hard.", "title": "Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance.", "pid": "d04ae01f-2019-04-18T17:40:13Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.13803100585938}, {"text": "There are many schools where a teacher with more years of experience is paid more because of his service as teacher. Then why not a person with less experience but dedicated in teaching and working really hard for his students and making them to improve in their performance should also paid higher?", "title": "Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance.", "pid": "d04ae01f-2019-04-18T17:40:13Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.09068298339844}, {"text": "Darcy Ann Olsen. \"Teachers Deserve Merit Pay, Not Special Interest Pay\". CATO. May 22, 2001: \"Pay for performance is not a new concept. It works for businessmen, lawyers, waitresses, travel agents, journalists, athletes, accountants, in fact, for most of us. Why not teachers? If a school faces a teacher shortage, let wages increase to attract them. Let schools compete to secure, retain and reward the best teachers. Let schools say \"sayonara\" to those unable or unwilling to get the job done.\"", "title": "Merit-based pay helps attract and keep quality teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00032-000", "bm25_score": 215.08514404296875}, {"text": "There are various reasons for pay-raises due to seniority. It's a system that requires little maintenance, tracking, or otherwise creating overhead. Pay for performance is asking for people to fake their performance. Especially in the world of education, where the performance is based on the students. Sales is a place where commission based pay works well. Teaching is not such a situation.", "title": "Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance.", "pid": "d04ae01f-2019-04-18T17:40:13Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.05540466308594}, {"text": "Better teachers should be paid more", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 215.02919006347656}, {"text": "Darcy Ann Olsen. \"Teachers Deserve Merit Pay, Not Special Interest Pay\". CATO. May 22, 2001: \"This article appeared on cato.org on May 22, 2001. \"Teachers need more money, according to a new survey by the American Federation of Teachers. Noting that teacher salaries last year climbed 3.2 percent, or 0.2 percent less than inflation, AFT president Sandra Feldman said, 'Salaries must at least become competitive to attract and keep quality teachers.'\"", "title": "Teachers should be paid more; based on merit", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00047-000", "bm25_score": 214.9713897705078}, {"text": "First off, I'd like to state my rebuttals to his arguments:R1: The fallicious logic connects being \"arbitrarily fired\" to having tenures. First, people don't get randomly fired unless for economic reasons. Even so, this would mean firing those without tenures which: - Supports my 1st point that new teacher possibilities are eliminated- Shows how unfair tenures are to new teachersR2: As a link to R1 the moral of the argument is flawed. Based on Con's work-for-treat idea, teachers would be encouraged to fight for their positions through pulling down others from getting a job. Also, he states that removal of tenures would drive away \"great teachers. \" He forgets that without tenures, the best teachers with new and innovative ideas continue to teach and are not \"arbitrarily fired\" without a definite reason. I would like to highlight are the flaws in my opponent's rebuttals to my points. They orginate from a lack of understanding of American economic stand and society markets. These are elaborated in the following:CR1: Con's entire argument in invalid. His sources are out-of-date and range from 2007-08 when there were many teachers needed. In 2011 to present, the situation is much different with a dearth of teaching positions. . http://tinyurl.com... [1] CR2: Tenures have nothing to do with teachers getting paid more. I stress Con to reflect upon the definition of tenure which is longer stay, but no implication of more pay. . http://tinyurl.com... [2]CR3: Con supports my 3rd point. Indeed tenures do not protect those from illegal acts. However, tenures do provide people with undesired personal values (such as smoking outside of campus--see my support 3) to continue to influence many children on a daily basis. . http://tinyurl.com... [3] Con's points and sources are invalidated and rebuttals are refuted.", "title": "Should Tenures Be Taken Away", "pid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.9307403564453}, {"text": "All teachers should be paid more, not just a select few", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.926025390625}, {"text": "Thank you Con for helping to provide an engaging debate. I want to start off by taking off the CR's:Weak points: ~ CR1- Con's CR1 has nothing to do with this topic. \"What administrators want\" have nothing to do with tenures. I suggest Con to focus on the debate. ~ CR2- I urge Con to read my counter rebuttal. I addressed the flaws in the idea that \"\"The financial and career safety tenure provides, persuades better qualified candidates to be teachers. \" In Round 3, R2. Con has no reply and concedes. Now here are some things I would like to address for Con's Rebuttals:CR1- As shown in previous points, Con has ignored my arguments. I clearly provided how tenures inhibit new ideas in my 1st Support. He concedes. Also, notice that he provides his main point that \"they don't have to worry about being fired they are free to experiment\" near the end of the debate. Abusive argumentation is abusive. CR2- Once again, Con ignored my point that people aren't arbitrarily fired in my R2, Round 3. Furthermore, as he has also shown, when those without tenures are fired, those with tenures will NOT be fired which is unfair and supports my 1st and 2nd supports. CR3- My creative opponent has ignored the core of my argument. The point is that teachers may have undesirable habits on their personal basis but still influence children on a large scale. It doesn't have anything to do with other jobs-- the point is kids are affected by those that are backed up by tenures. Also, I did not say that tenures make teachers \"unfirable\", but rather harder to fire. Please don't stick words in my mouth. Here are some flaws with Con's argument as a whole:1. He concedes to many of my rebutals and agrees with my arguments.2. Con digresses from the main debate, while I stayed on topic.3. He overlooks the definition and supports/facts around tenures, while I have brought the debate back on track. Thank you to Con again for his efforts and viewers for their time.", "title": "Should Tenures Be Taken Away", "pid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.88967895507812}, {"text": "\"Link Teacher Pay, Student Gains.\" An Atlanta Journal-Constitution. October 14, 2005.: \"As substitutes for performance-based standards, school systems now reward teachers on degrees and seniority. Yet neither of those measures may correlate with student achievement. In this competitive economy, companies would close their doors if they paid low-performing employees the highest salaries just because they’d been there a long time or had a grad school diploma on their wall.\"[5]", "title": "Teachers should be paid on merit, not seniority and titles", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00042-000", "bm25_score": 214.88536071777344}, {"text": "Merit-based pay helps attract and keep quality teachers", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 214.85731506347656}, {"text": "I think it's good. I think.", "title": "merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component for teacher compensation", "pid": "68d82bb6-2019-04-18T19:14:17Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.78689575195312}, {"text": "Beth Lewis. \"Pros and Cons of Merit Pay For Teachers\". About.com: \"We are in the middle of a teaching shortage. Merit pay would inspire potential teachers to give the profession more consideration as a viable career choice, rather than a personal sacrifice for the higher good. By tying teaching salaries to performance, the profession would look more modern and credible, thus attracting young college graduates to the classroom.\"", "title": "Merit-pay helps attract teachers where there are shortages", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00033-000", "bm25_score": 214.72293090820312}, {"text": "Though I believe this resolution to be fairly self-explanatory, allow me to clarify just a bit: 1) Merit-based: based upon a system of student achievement to be defined by the affirmation. As long as the advocacy doesn't switch and student achievement is fairly defined, I'm all set with it. 2) Student achievement: a quantitative measurement of the attainment or mastery of academic skills (for example) Brief resolutional analysis: 1) We are talking about teachers of public schools in the US. We aren't limiting it by grade, but we are limiting it by country. Having to argue about schools in Zimbabwe is a waste of our time :D As I've adopted the negation's stance, I will allow my opponent to lay out his/her case prior to posting mine. I also really like the idea of a cross-ex opportunity in the comments. Can we do that if questions arise? They won't be considered offensively within the debate unless introduced to the debate page, but it'll be a good way to clarify/strategize. Have at me!", "title": "A teacher's pay should be merit-based.", "pid": "31e2f374-2019-04-18T19:26:29Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.7050018310547}, {"text": "I advocate making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) [1] a significant part of K-12 teacher compensation. It is a form of merit based pay that assesses how much a student has improved since last year. This allows us to be sure teachers are actually teaching. The source I provide talks largely about ensuring accountability for schools, and I contend that we can use the same accountability to ensure quality teachers. I'll let CON attack this first so that we will have an equal amount of rounds to debate, then defend AYP in my next 2 speeches. I will end with a single question for CON to answer in the next round: What alternative system of teacher compensation would you propose to ensure that schools have the most educated teachers? [1] http://www.ed.gov...", "title": "Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant part of K-12 teacher compensation", "pid": "ee252398-2019-04-18T19:15:29Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.66839599609375}, {"text": "Accept", "title": "Should Tenures Be Taken Away", "pid": "51530f3f-2019-04-18T18:15:02Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.6678924560547}, {"text": "Merit pay gives teachers an incentive to work harder", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00026-000", "bm25_score": 214.6592559814453}, {"text": "What a shame. After CON's last rebuttal (or lack, thereof) I would posit that not only should we give teachers merit based pay, but we should give debaters merit based pay also. This might encourage people like my opponent to stop posting debates and not following up on them. The problem is rampant. Of the 16 total debates I've had, 5 had forfeits. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... (due to someone's poor judging, I'm actually losing this one) http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...", "title": "Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant part of K-12 teacher compensation", "pid": "ee252398-2019-04-18T19:15:29Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.65167236328125}, {"text": "Beth Lewis. \"Pros and Cons of Merit Pay For Teachers\". About.com: \"Opponents to Merit Pay argue that a better solution to the current educational crisis is to pay all teachers more. Rather than design and regulate a messy Merit Pay program, why not simply pay teachers what they are already worth?\"", "title": "All teachers should be paid more, not just a select few", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00048-000", "bm25_score": 214.65048217773438}, {"text": "Teachers who work in Nyc should be evaluated and awarded based upon their overall class achievements. Tenure should not be given easily after two or more years but given at an adequate time or point in the teacher's career. Evaluations can give in detail the overall outcome of the curriculum the teacher is providing for the student and allow the parents to be informed about the class and the setting and the curriculum taught to their child or children. When the evaluations came out in the ny post last month it raise a couple of questions. Mayor Bloomberg wanted to give out an incentive to those teachers who have excelled or achieved the goal within each grade level. He wanted to offer the teachers a 20,000 dollar award and begin to open up 50 more schools including charter schools to have more teachers apply for these positions and scope the children of tommorrow. Teachers need to be recognized not only by their scholarly academics and their potential to have progression within a classroom setting.", "title": "Teachers Evaluations in NYC", "pid": "4d8487a-2019-04-18T18:20:20Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.5153350830078}, {"text": "\"Oppose Merit-Based Pay for Teachers\". The Falcon's View. March 10, 2009: \"the problem with merit-based pay is that there's no reasonable, rational, consistent way to measure performance... teaching is more art than science. Every student is different, with a unique perspective, background, learning style, and, more importantly, pace of development. To penalize a teacher for having a group of students who develop more slowly than others is absurd. No matter how good the teacher is, there's no way to force a child to develope faster than they're capable of doing.\"", "title": "Teacher merit is too hard to measure for merit-pay to be fair", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00038-000", "bm25_score": 214.49891662597656}, {"text": "Claim: Basing K - 12 teacher's salary on merit would be a huge advantage to the Education System.", "title": "Merit based pay for the Education System", "pid": "7e01e803-2019-04-18T19:38:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.49017333984375}, {"text": "Merit-pay helps attract teachers where there are shortages", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 214.45401000976562}, {"text": "Merit-based pay has succeeded in many places", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.41734313964844}, {"text": "Beth Lewis. \"Pros and Cons of Merit Pay For Teachers\". About.com: \"Incentivized teachers will work harder and produce better results. What motivation do teachers currently have to go above and beyond the job's basic requirements? The simple possibility of extra cash would most likely translate into smarter teaching and better results for our children.\"", "title": "Merit pay gives teachers an incentive to work harder", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00029-000", "bm25_score": 214.38514709472656}, {"text": "If teachers feel that their student's performance will have an effect on their own salary. Then teachers will be monetarily motivated to push their students harder. Normally, schools have this incentive(better results, more funding) and teachers receive a fixed pay that gives them no reason to push their students to do their best, apart from the love of the teaching field. Teachers end up coddling pet-students and ignore/mock pupils that need their help the most. But if teachers will be rewarded for improving 'the overall' performance of a class,( And not just make sure Mr/Ms.First position maintains his/her high standards) then this kind of unfair elitism will eventually die out.", "title": "A good motivater to improve teaching and test standards.", "pid": "5596abaa-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.3636474609375}, {"text": "Resolved: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United Sates public schools. This is last months Public Forum topic. Also, this round will be run exactly like a Public Forum round, minus the cross-examination. For those unfamiliar with Public Forum (or PF) each side first presents a case, without a rebuttal. The second round, each side then makes arguments against the other side. The third round, is again, a rebuttal of sorts, but a bit shorter, and emphasizing on MAJOR points, but I won't be nit-picky, argue what you wish. Because we aren't speaking, there aren't limits on how much you put in here. And finally, the \"Final Focus\" as we, PFers, call it. Summarize why you won, sway the judge(voters in this case). Also, in PF, no sort of formalized plan WHATSOEVER may be proposed. Also, no kritiks (the resolution IS debatable, no arguing that it's not.) or counterplans, etc. We are arguing whether the resolution is true or false, nothing else. Our president, Barack Obama, said in 2009 that, \"Many have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom\" Because merit pay could boost our economy, motivate teachers, and because the current compensation system is faulty my partner and I stand in firm affirmation of today's resolution, which states: Resolved: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United Sates public schools. Before I begin, I'd like to clarify a few terms: Merit pay: is a compensation system whereby base pay increases are determined by individual performance according to the University of Minnesota's glossary of compensation terms. Student Achievement: is defined as the quality and quantity of a student's work according to Merriam Webster This now brings me to my first contention, which states, merit pay can boost our failing economy. Most teachers are considered to be middle to lower class. John Elder, Professor at Yale University said that, \"Bonus money would best be directed towards people who can't afford to save money at any time — because they're behind on their bills or in need of dental work or a few things for the kids with Christmas looming.\" If they get bonuses of $1,500, which was seen in Minneapolis's MPPP program or ones as large as $20,000 as seen in Massachusetts in 1998 it will be spent. With approximately 6.2 million teachers in the U.S. even small bonuses could turn into a large sum. Spending this money puts money back into our economy, which helps this entire nation out of this recession. This much money could jump start our economy and help alleviate the effect of the current recession. This brings me to my second contention, stating: merit pay will motivate teachers. No one can deny that money is a powerful motivator. If teachers are paid more based on how their students are doing, they will try to help their students excel. Gary Ritter, Director of the Office for Education Policy has said in 2009 that, \"There is one area where the evidence is clear--effective teaching is the single most important school-related factor in determinating student success.\" You can see that motivated teachers are vital to student success, and merit pay would aid in motivating mediocre teachers. Also Gayor McCown, Executive Director of the Teaching Commission has said, \"Ensuring that some portion of compensation is based on student performance is a step in the right direction. Such a system would acknowledge a teacher's abilities and efforts in the classroom, and could potentially act as an excellent motivator for all teachers to focus more on what really matters: student performance.\" Bringing me to my third and final contention, stating: the current compensation system is not working. It rewards meritocracy, underpays good teachers, and ultimately causes a shortage in teachers across the nation. Mediocre teachers do much less work, and their students do not reach their full potential, and yet they're paid as much as an intelligent and engaging teacher! According to Victor Lavy, Research Associate at the Centre for Economic Policy Research, \" Few things are more frustrating for high performers than to be treated exactly like their less committed peers. Today, the profession repels too many energetic practitioners by expecting teachers to willingly sacrifice professional growth, advancement and reward. The steps that need to be taken are straightforward. Teachers' compensation should be based on performance rather than simply on experience and credentials.\" It's obvious that merit pay is the only way to solve this problem. Even president Obama believes the current system is faulty. He has said, \"I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences. The stakes are too high.\" Here he was referring to our current teacher compensation system. Victor Lavy has also said that, \"Assuming that the compensation system accurately identifies productivity, basing pay on performance will attract and retain the best teachers\" The current compensation system is unfair and drives the aspiring and current teachers away from the profession, which is causing a teaching shortage. You can clearly see that it is not working efficiently, and that merit pay would be a good addition. I close with a quote from our president last February, \"In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity, it is a pre-requisite.\" Merit pay is a way that students' education could be further improved. Because merit pay could help our failing economy, as well as motivate teachers, and because it would be a great addition to our current, defective compensation system I strongly urge a ballot for the affirmative.", "title": "Merit Pay for Teachers", "pid": "be19aa3c-2019-04-18T19:12:23Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.35702514648438}, {"text": "It will give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching.", "title": "pay state school teachers based on merit", "pid": "da86b00e-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.34390258789062}, {"text": "Students nowadays are walking around aimlessly worrying about exam grades, whilst all our teachers do is take abuse from us, whilst saying \"do what you want, atleast im getting paid\". R1- just acceptance, then in the comments we can lay out our bullet points before starting r2 to make it longer, and fair.", "title": "Teachers should be allowed to discipline students, eg use a ruler for a cane.", "pid": "5ba4d250-2019-04-18T11:42:33Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.34249877929688}, {"text": "I feel that teachers should be provided more funding to achieve their goals within the schools and I also feel like they should be paid more for the services that they are offering to the community that they are engaged in. Teachers are raising the future engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. But they are not being paid anywhere near as much as the students they are teaching go on to make in those professions. In the mean time, Floyd Mayweather is earning $83,000 per second to beat Manny Pacquiao to a pulp in his fights. I feel like America is really placing an emphasis more on sports and entertainment achievement than rewarding those who are actually contributing to the future scholars of America.", "title": "Teachers Should be Paid More", "pid": "2345fbf4-2019-04-18T14:09:46Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.34210205078125}, {"text": "Teachers are workers just like everybody else and if you want to change the industry, striking is a pretty good way to do it. In my opinion teachers are treated like second class citizens, they go to school and obtain their bachelor's degree, then have to deal with unappreciative children on a daily basis. Just like anyone else, if they're not being treated fairly they should be able to demand better working conditions and higher pay.", "title": "Teachers should not be allowed to strike.", "pid": "b58929b-2019-04-18T18:27:16Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.3031768798828}, {"text": "Merit pay does nothing to improve student performance", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00025-000", "bm25_score": 214.24395751953125}, {"text": "Merit pay improves teaching and student learning", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00027-000", "bm25_score": 214.24037170410156}, {"text": "Merit pay focuses teachers on measures over their passion", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00021-000", "bm25_score": 214.2261505126953}, {"text": "but new teachers need experience to teach like any other teacher out there. Students should choose because its there education.", "title": "Teachers shouldnt be laid off because of senority", "pid": "4fb4627-2019-04-18T18:47:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.2216033935547}, {"text": "Im a little disappointed with the rebuttal, I was hoping for a response with some counter-arguemets. I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement \"someone can be tenured after a certain number of years leading to decrease in education\" Do you mean a decrease in the education of the teacher? Or the teacher becoming a worse teacher to the students? Either way this doesn't completely make sense. There are teachers that can improve or worsen in their teaching over time, but all schools have annual or more frequent, workshops to develop their teaching skills. Even tho the teachers contracts are based on an entire 'year' of work. Their contracts would have to be re-negotiated based on the number of hours worked. But, the less-stringent schedule to meet the strict curriculum requirements , would have to be considered as well as the shorter work day. You are correct, the taxes would increase, and this would likely cause the combining of school districts to consolidate the tax-payers (because local property owners pay school taxes regardless of whether or not they have children). My argument was more towards the inconvenience of having to care for/making sure they are cared for by someone, while the parents are at work. Most of the options for child care, do not include furthering their education. Which is money well spent vs having your child play at a day care center.", "title": "Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round", "pid": "e02d66a9-2019-04-18T17:16:14Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.21270751953125}, {"text": "I didn't even realize that this was the December Public Forum resolution when I accepted this. I just figured it out at this Saturday's debate tournament.", "title": "Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant part of K-12 teacher compensation", "pid": "ee252398-2019-04-18T19:15:29Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.19580078125}, {"text": "I definitely think that us students should be able to grade their teachers. I find that this should be an annual or bi-yearly practice. I believe that over years, teachers could alter their teaching styles, maybe for better, or worse. I think it is fair that, teachers who mark their students daily, through ability, understanding, and control, students should be able to do the same. Students are marked, and judged everyday based on ability, and effort. With a lot on the line, their marks. So teachers should give the option of being marked either anonymous or otherwise. So they could improve their teaching ethics. True, teachers have already been through school, but non other than students to judge how well of a job their educator has done.", "title": "Students should be allowed to grade their teachers.", "pid": "68c2d8d0-2019-04-18T15:02:29Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.17880249023438}, {"text": "Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. I argue that a teacher's pay should indeed be merit-based, which I define (as agreed to by my opponent in the Comments section) as pay with a basic salary and bonuses based on merit (student achievement.) I point out that I believe in western society today, our teachers are under-valued, under-appreciated and under-paid. I certainly do not propose reduction in any teacher's salary but instead, I would like to see those who perform best rewarded even more. Student achievement. I think it is important to recognise that this should apply not merely to getting the highest marks or the most number of A-grades in a class but should rather be a measurement of the 'distance-travelled' by pupils. I think it is far more of an achievement to turn an F-student into a C-student than it is to turn a B into an A. I do not advocate a meritocracy that focuses solely on the elite but one that places emphasis on every child. My simple argument is that to give teachers further financial incentive to concentrate on getting the best out of every single pupil would, overall, have significant benefits to any country. A more educated general population would surely be a good thing in anyone's eyes, especially someone who, like my opponent and myself, is involved in Education. My opponent wants us to limit the parameters of this debate to the US. As a UK citizen who has not travelled a great deal I of course have more experience of the education system here than in America. However if I offer any anecdotal or other evidence regarding the UK school system, my opponent can rest assured that I will try to make them relevant to our discussion of the US system which, by the way, I hope to learn more about in this debate. Performance related pay is a powerful tool in Employment. While it is suitable for many jobs it is not suitable for all. One obvious example of a field where it works well is Sales, (although of course I do not equate commerce with education), if travelling salesmen and (in some situations) retail staff, did not receive a commission on their sales, then they would be unlikely to put in as much effort to sell their employer's product. An example of a less appropriate field would be police-work. Rewarding an officer on their number of arrests or conviction rates does not seem a good idea to me as this would encourage them to be over-zealous and perhaps even tempt them into corruption and tampering with evidence as well as criminalizing more of the general population. I think teaching is an appropriate profession to apply performance related pay to as the benefits would clearly outweigh any negative impact. I would like my opponent to explain why it is not and what negative effects she believes that it would have. Thankyou.", "title": "A teacher's pay should be merit-based.", "pid": "31e2f374-2019-04-18T19:26:29Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.1747589111328}, {"text": "The main theoretical argument against merit pay is that it will undermine cohesions in the school, pitting teachers against teachers. Evidence. There is evidence from a recent student of a Texas merit program that indicates that merit pay does not improve educational outcomes. It's not fairly measurable. Merit determinations are generally measured on based on overall improvements in standardized test scores. Standardized testing is a heavily criticized method of measuring educational success. It's not fair. Teachers who teach the developmentally challenged and socioeconomically disadvantaged generally have a more difficult time at getting students to achieve according to determined standards", "title": "Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensatio", "pid": "1eba8643-2019-04-18T19:14:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.15789794921875}, {"text": "It will create uncritical 'learning drone' students.", "title": "pay state school teachers based on merit", "pid": "da86b00e-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.15301513671875}, {"text": "Teachers unions oppose merit-based pay just to remain relevant", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.15283203125}, {"text": "While teachers can be incentivized, students cannot", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 214.14065551757812}, {"text": "Competition improves the overall quality of education.", "title": "pay state school teachers based on merit", "pid": "da86b00e-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.13702392578125}, {"text": "I believe your whole round 2 should be invalid, as you didn't address the socio-psychological pros n cons to your argument. Moreover the alternatives you have suggested are HIGHLY INEFFECTIVE. Whilst in detention, a student typically doesn't learn from their mistakes, esp. if its not solitary detention. A warning is a \"joke\", especially if the child's parents are not authoritarian. The only reasonable alternative is expulsion, but that is highly disruptive in terms of logistics, child development and reputation of the school. Therefore strict discipline is the best way forward, as long as no malice is involved, as mentioned. Speaking of socio-psychological effects, if the recipient was to be traumatised and embarrassed by the events, (s)he should be given counselling support by the academic facility to adjust their attitude. (In r4 we will expand on our points will further analysis, after you refute my r2 argument)> ps. also assess the comments section (voters) as this debate expands in to it.", "title": "Teachers should be allowed to discipline students, eg use a ruler for a cane.", "pid": "5ba4d250-2019-04-18T11:42:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.1308135986328}, {"text": "Beth Lewis. \"Pros and Cons of Merit Pay For Teachers\". About.com: \"Virtually everyone agrees that designing and monitoring a Merit Pay program would be a bureaucratic nightmare of almost epic proportions. Many major questions would have to be adequately answered before educators could even consider implementing Merit Pay for teachers. Such deliberations would inevitably take away from our real goal which is to focus on the students and give them the best education possible.\"", "title": "Merit pay for teachers would be a bureaucratic nightmare", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00051-000", "bm25_score": 214.09616088867188}, {"text": "Darcy Ann Olsen. \"Teachers Deserve Merit Pay, Not Special Interest Pay\". CATO. May 22, 2001: \"Pay for performance is not a new concept. It works for businessmen, lawyers, waitresses, travel agents, journalists, athletes, accountants, in fact, for most of us. Why not teachers? If a school faces a teacher shortage, let wages increase to attract them. Let schools compete to secure, retain and reward the best teachers. Let schools say \"sayonara\" to those unable or unwilling to get the job done.\"", "title": "Merit pay works in markets, can work for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00049-000", "bm25_score": 214.06951904296875}, {"text": "I'll be addressing arguments in general at first, and then I'll address specific arguments after that. It seems to me that this debate now needs an overview, as my opponent has now offered up a plan from my source (fairtest. org) in order to fix all of the problems I claim are inherent in the prospect of teacher merit pay. First of all, this means that if I can disprove his alternative being viable, I've gained incredibly strong footing in this debate. Furthermore, if I can prove that the inherent harms of merit pay exist no matter the assessment system used, I believe I will have won this debate. I will do so now. 1. The peer evaluation system is not politically, logistically, or ethically viable, or at least not moreso than a standardized testing model. What my opponent doesn't tell you about my source is the reason for its analysis. If you read the entire page I cite, you will find that I cited it because it does a wonderful job of summarizing the problems with universal assessment systems involving standardized tests, which are a cornerstone of US assessment, and probably aren't going away any time soon. What that organization does not address at all is the implementation of the peer evaluation system in any sort of universal sense. That's because not even the most highly qualified educational experts would recommend this. This has been a serious problem for over 5 decades. Why haven't we implemented this yet? We haven't because it isn't a number of important things: a. It isn't universally applicable in any way: keep in mind that my opponent clearly conceded that, in order to pay a teacher based on merit, the measurement of the merit must be universally established. My analogy: if one 5th grade class is on times tables and another is on addition and subtraction, the two classroom teachers should not receive equal pay just because students are showing academic achievement. Clearly, one class is conceptually behind. The peer evaluation system is fraught with bias and subjective opinion. Which teachers will assess? How will the localities be assigned assessment teachers? How will we ensure that all assessors have the same concept of how to meet educational goals? Educational research strongly discourages universal curriculum for the very reason that all students are individuals. They should all end up with the same knowledge at the end, but the students may not apply it in the same ways. Which way is the right way? Standardized tests tried to address this, but are failing miserably. b. It isn't logistically possible: teachers are already incredibly pressed for time, especially with shrinking budgets and school years. Not only that, but the definition of what a good, experienced teacher is varies from state to state, even from district to district. Finding enough teachers who have the time, resources, and proper training and skills to assess millions upon millions of classrooms is unrealistic, and a bureaucratic nightmare. c. It doesn't solve the problem of flawed assessment systems: how will peer evaluating teachers measure academic success? Via grades? GPA? Test scores? Project results? All are still based on flawed systems of measurement. We run into the same problems as before. If a peer assessor is looking for students who are able to score high marks on a given project at the end of a unit of instruction, the teacher, again, can inflate grades or artificially manipulate performance in numerous ways to pass his or her evaluation. This is inherent to merit-based pay. There are always ways to cheat a system, especially one that is so bogged down and bloated as judging teams for each classroom. The ONLY way to stop this behavior is not to base pay on merit. Now, onto the rest of the debate. I'll address my opponent's responses to my arguments: 1. I've disproved my opponents alternative as viable above. I also would like to point out his concession on accountability requiring universal standards, which is key to why his alternative cannot be successful. 2. Corruption is inherent in merit-based pay. When performance affects pay, there will always be individuals who attempt to gain more pay by cheating the given system. The perceived success rate is based on the ability to cheat. My evidence proves that there are myriad ways to inflate academic performance, and that those ways have already been heavily exploited. Furthermore, please highlight my example of state governments manipulating student performance in response to the No Child Left Behind Act. That's huge, because states were not doing this until their educational performance affected school budgets. It is directly analogous to the affect merit pay will have on individual schools and students. 3. The problems of socioeconomic, ethnic, and geographic locations will still exist within that utopian plan. These problems are inherent with or without peer evaluation. There is nothing to say that a given peer evaluation team would not be a suburban team coming into a rural school, or an urban team coming into a suburban school, where the learning environment can be completely different. We cannot eliminate human bias from any plan, and we certainly can't expect to solve a couple hundred years of problems with one seemingly simple fix. Even if this system doesn't further entrench the inequities of society within education (which it probably will—statistically, schools are more segregated by specific population than they were prior to Topeka v. Board), the inequities will continue, and my scenario of teachers flocking to places where merit-based pay is far more likely will become a quick reality. And my opponent's initial advocacy: 1. The actual ability of a student is a requirement of testing. That is the accountability I keep talking about. The public will not accept, and should not accept, two classrooms of the same grade with vastly different abilities. How does that serve education? Improvement is only a piece of achievement, as my opponent admits in his initial debate posting. The reason standardized tests are even used was a failed attempt to ensure that accountability. Any solution must include it. 2. While you may think it is easy to implement, two things stand in the way of us accepting this as a possible reality: my above analysis in this post, and the fact that 50 years of research has not led to a peer evaluation implementation for universal student achievement assessment. 3. Well, if the example of sales can't be used to demonstratively prove anything about teaching, I suppose it isn't necessary to the debate. The police officer analogy is much closer to the teaching profession in terms of importance and accountability, which clearly proves my point dexterously. 4. However, the corruption isn't just tied to standardized tests. It's deeper than that. Even the letter grades that my opponent refers to in his initial advocacy can easily be manipulated, as can an observed day of \"performance\" by students. The system my opponent proposes cannot fix the inherent flaws of merit pay. 5. For the most part, the impacts I list in my case are inherent to merit pay, not inherent to standardized testing. The evidence I cite uses standardized testing scenarios, but the same scenarios are a very plausible reality in any system because any system that is merit-based will invite and encourage (inadvertently, but still encourage) corruption. Thus, I negate the resolution. I look forward to my opponent's response!", "title": "A teacher's pay should be merit-based.", "pid": "31e2f374-2019-04-18T19:26:29Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.06068420410156}, {"text": "Teacher merit is too hard to measure for merit-pay to be fair", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 214.05294799804688}, {"text": "Incentives cause teachers to cheat.[1][2][3]\"...analysis, coupled with interviews of educators from flagged schools, led investigators to implicate some 178 educators in 44 of the 56 schools examined\"[3][1] http://www.nber.org...[2] http://www.slate.com...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "title": "Teachers' salaries should be based on their students' academic performance.", "pid": "d04ae01f-2019-04-18T17:40:13Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.05064392089844}, {"text": "\"Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea\". Education Portal. July 10th, 2007: \"Teachers only have so much control over how much and how fast a child can learn. Even if they are willing to go the extra mile, state law may not allow them to do so. For example, in California, teachers cannot require students to stay after class or school to get help.\"", "title": "While teachers can be incentivized, students cannot", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00044-000", "bm25_score": 214.049072265625}, {"text": "Yes, all persistent bullies should be expelled. Bullies are commonly thought of as students who pick on other students. However, bullies can also be teachers and they need to be expelled also. Teachers that humiliate students or use their power to their benefit need to be terminated. They can lead to various situations that may danger a person’s health physically or more commonly, mentally. In some schools it is known that children are hit with rulers. This is not acceptable though because it can really hurt children. Also teachers who shout grades out loud are bullies. If a teacher tells a student’s grade out loud with intent to embarrass them, then they are bullying the student. It is not fair and can lead to a cycle of people bullying one another.", "title": "teachers are bullies too", "pid": "6a5334ab-2019-04-19T12:44:55Z-00021-000", "bm25_score": 214.04327392578125}, {"text": "If a teacher's pay is based on performance, teachers who work with students from bad neighbourhoods and illiterate/non-academic families, will get the least pay; even though they will have to work harder than other teachers to get their students to perform well. This will act as a disincentive for teachers to be employed in such schools(and conditions for the school and its students will exponentially worsen). When something is harder and more dangerous it should have a 'higher'-pay incentive as compensation not the opposite.", "title": "Schools that need the most funding have the worst performing students.", "pid": "5596abaa-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.04144287109375}, {"text": "I have been very busy. Today, I will be rebutting my opponent's arguments. In my opponent's first contention, part A, he says that teachers will go far enough to deprive students of a good education. You can see that teachers would be attempting to give students the best education possible to improve their achievement. If a student was given a poor education, wouldn't they achieve nothing? And because this merit pay is based on students' achievement, it makes sense for teacher to give the best education possible. And also for part B of my opponent's contention, I have nothing to say but this. We cannot say for sure if this merit pay, if the student achievement that the merit pay is based upon, is even going to be based on standardized tests. Therefore, teachers \"teaching to the test\" or narrowing curriculum may not even be a problem. We cannot worry about it in this debate. Moving on to my opponent's next contention, again, in part A, we cannot be sure that these students will be measured by which percentile they fit under. And also that \"smart kids\" can work without teacher assistance, but will they not achieve more with a teacher aiding them? And as for part B, though a teacher may have \"an incorrigible jerky administration\" I do not see how this would affect their pay. Or if they have students that are out of control, all teachers have these kids. There isn't a way out of getting them put in your class. But let me remind you that merit pay is extra pay. These teachers are not getting any less money, simply bonuses. I was a bit too short on time to gather evidence, but I hope this will do.", "title": "Merit Pay for Teachers", "pid": "be19aa3c-2019-04-18T19:12:23Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.02931213378906}, {"text": "Merit pay is uncommon in business, unnecessary in schools", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.01210021972656}, {"text": "I eggcept :)", "title": "Teachers should be allowed to discipline students, eg use a ruler for a cane.", "pid": "5ba4d250-2019-04-18T11:42:33Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.98617553710938}, {"text": "When it comes to the human race we often don't think about the long term consequences of our actions. That short term success isn't always good for the long term success. This is why my partner and I urge a con ballot on the following topic: Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United States public schools. Contention one Teacher merit is too hard to measure for merit-pay to be fair Merit pay is incentive to pay based on test scores, or significant improvement in students. But there is no accurate way to measure & define achievement & performance with standardized testing. With this teachers would teach for the test, students would simply be taught how to answer certain questions, rather than receiving an actual education. The System also cannot simply reward high scores, if it did it would not only reward teachers with already excelling rates, nor can the system solely reward improvement, if so it would unfairly penalize teachers whose students were already scoring to well to post significant gain. The problem with merit-based pay is that there's no reasonable, rational, consistent way to measure performance... teaching is more art than science. Every student is different, with a unique perspective, background, learning style, and, more importantly, pace of development. To penalize a teacher for having a group of students who develop more slowly than others is absurd. No matter how good the teacher is, there's no way to force a child to develop faster than they're capable of doing. Contention two: There are negative outcomes of merit pay Particularly with education, incentive pay could have extreme reverse outcomes. A study Done by the Urban Institute conclude that most merit pay plans\"did not succeed at implementing lasting and effective plans that demonstrate ability to improve student learning\". With problems including low teacher morality because of increased competition, teachers being upset because they didn't get the awards they deserved, and merit pay plans are costly and time consuming. According to the same Institute, there were several merit pay systems in existence in Pennsylvania school districts during the late 1970's. All of those merit pay plans were abandoned in favor of the salary schedule. As is the case with many traditional merit pay plans, theses plans resulted in serious inequities among teachers with similar skill and performance levels, which created morale problems. There was no evidence that the plans improved performance. In most cases, the school boards sought to elimate them. Contention three: Past examples of merit pay for teachers have failed Merit pay comes in many forms and flavors -- including extra bonuses for student achievement gains, satisfactory evaluations by principals or committees, acquiring additional duties, gaining new skills and knowledge, and serving in hard-to-staff schools. We've looked at dozens of plans in North America, South America, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Guess what? None of them, past and present, has ever had a successful track record. None has ever produced its intended results. Any gains have been minimal, short-lived, and expensive to achieve. For these reasons I and my partner negate the resolution.", "title": "Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensatio", "pid": "1eba8624-2019-04-18T19:14:29Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.98480224609375}, {"text": "Merit pay for teachers risks favoritism and cronyism", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 213.98394775390625}, {"text": "Resolved: Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensation in United States public schools My partner and I stand in firm affirmation of today's resolution. Our first contention is that Merit based pay brings about educational progression in students. Education Resource Information Center has recently published a 6 year analysis of the merit based pay effects on the learning of students and reported significant gains in teacher moral and overall scores as a result. What the study details as well which is important to note, is that failed school districts with the presence of merit based programs does not necessarily mean the fault lies on the merit based pay system itself, rather a failure in other areas of the school system such as good regulation oversight for the prerequisite for positive outcomes of merit pay rely on good oversight in the school system. Meaning past failures my opponents may use must precisely outline that merit based pay was the initial cause not the other negative factors the E.R.I.C outlines. The idea and concept of merit based pay is so innovative and works because as the institute for educational finance and Governance of Stanford University puts it, \"Merit based pay is a way to get public schools to follow a sensible business protocol: use money to reward the employees who do the best work, and thereby inspire other workers to do a better job as a result of economic pressure.\" Specific proof of this Merit Miracle is from North Carolina which drastically improved as a result of merit based pay. Terry Stoops, JLF education policy analyst explored the performance of the 30 Guilford County schools that participated in the Mission Possible program last school year. Mission possible is the name given to the merit based program currently in place. She reported \"Teacher and administrator turnover has decreased, the percentage of schools that met No Child Left Behind performance standards increased, and the percentage of students who met North Carolina testing standards increased,\" Stoops said. \"Graduation rates are on the rise, and the school climate has improved considerably.\" Dropout rates would be impacted at such a degree from merit pay that Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia suggested that dropout rates could be cut in half with the usage of merit pay. The question is now probably raised in your mind judge, how is this possible, how does the miracle that is the merit program feasible, reliable and the just? And the answer revolves around the teachers. Through the merit pay based on student achievement, teachers of high quality are drawn to the teacher profession; moral is raised, both factors leading to a good student. The problem today is under the single salary system, good teachers and bad teachers are paid the same wage limiting the want to progress student achievement for that takes work on the teacher and little to nothing is gained in return. Now my opponents may say that good teachers would want to teach for the love of teaching, although this goes on, this a decreasing phenomenon. The current phenomenon shows that these are a dying generation of teachers that can only be reintroduced through the merit based pay system. Currently new teachers with higher academic ability as measured by SAT/ACT scores tend to exit the teaching profession at a faster rate as a result of the lack of want to progress student achievement because of the singe salary system, as reported by Michael Podgursky Department of Economics at the University of Missouri in 2002. The report goes on to say that this trend would be reversed with the usage and implementation of the affirmative because the incentive to be a good teacher would increase. Our next contention is that by increasing scores as a result of the affirmative, the United States would benefit overall. This is so for as previously proven, graduation rates would increase through the affirmation. With this trend, the economic sector would benefit tremendously. Lee Luff, executive director of the Anderson Area Chamber of Commerce, said higher graduation rates would bring more jobs to the county which increase economic development, he as well states \"for every $1 of public money spent on dropout prevention efforts which the merit pay program achieves, the benefit to the community is more than $7.\" It is for these reasons we affirm today's resolution.", "title": "Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher compensatio", "pid": "1eba8643-2019-04-18T19:14:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.98251342773438}, {"text": "I will let my opponent go first as I am arguing for the Con", "title": "Merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant part of K-12 teacher compensation", "pid": "ee252398-2019-04-18T19:15:29Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.9814910888672}, {"text": "Merit pay works in markets, can work for teachers", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 213.96408081054688}, {"text": "\"Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea\". Education Portal. July 10th, 2007: \"4. Some Teachers are Punished ... Should a teacher who chooses to teach at a large school, an inner city school, or a special needs school where tests scores are generally lower be punished? Definitely not, but that is exactly what some merit pay programs threaten to do.\"", "title": "Merit pay discourages teaching disadvantaged students", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00036-000", "bm25_score": 213.9628143310547}, {"text": "Resolved: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher Merit Pay -- a term describing performance-related pay, most frequently in the context of educational reform. It provides bonuses for workers who perform their jobs effectively, according to measurable criteria. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Advantage One: Pride Merit based pay will increase the pride that teachers take in their work. Teachers now dont have to worry about their performance, they get paid (. http://www.payscale.com...) relatively the same. If they were getting paid by performance, teachers would take more pride in their work, and devote more time to their career. The blunt fact is that not all teachers want to teach, and this would only force them to either a) begin devoting more time to helping their students or b) quit. This would lead to a brighter, more knowledgeable future for our childern. Advantage 2: Returning the Original Purpose of School Merit based pay would be a big step towards the return of the original purpose of school, knowledge. Gaining more and more knowledge. In the status quo, teachers just need their students to pass so they can keep their jobs. Moving to merit based pay would make them focus more on the knowledge aspect of school that we have long forgot about. Knowledge is subjective towards the student, basically the student puts in effort and he gets back based upon how much he put in. This wont change if we move to merit based pay. Merit based pay would make a consideration of teachers caring alot more about how much the student is putting in. Advantage 3: Incentive Merit based pay, in the most blunt way possible, is just incentive to do more. To put more devotion into their work. For teachers who dont like teaching, this may be a turning point in that this is a incentive to start caring about their career, and they may find a rejuvenated love for teaching. For teachers who already love teaching, this would just give them the benefits that they have long earned. Conclusion Merit based pay is good, in that through my advantages of pride, original purpose of school, and incentive, we will look to a brighter future.", "title": "Rslvd: That merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component of K-12 teacher", "pid": "d06519d9-2019-04-18T19:14:30Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.95216369628906}, {"text": "Teacher merit can be measured and help determine pay", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 213.9409637451172}, {"text": "There is one big reason that I believe is the main point. For safety. There are so many school shootings that are happening all around and so safety is a big issue. It's not just enough to have a cop walking around the school. I believe with the proper clearance that yes, teachers should be able to carry. If someone were to come in and try to harm your children wouldn't you want the teacher to be able to save them, along with all of the other children's lives? It is just like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. If one of the teachers would have had a gun, then it could have been possible to save some, if not all, of the kid", "title": "Teachers should be able to have guns in school with the proper clearance.", "pid": "d075a0df-2019-04-18T16:44:03Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.93743896484375}, {"text": "It may have worked for you, but according to my first subpoint: Sub point 1: It does not improve education a.Merit pay does nothing to improve student performance A study by the Urban Institute found some positive short-lived effects of merit pay, but concluded that most merit pay plans \"did not succeed at implementing lasting, effective ... plans that had a demonstrated ability to improve student learning. ...little evidence from other research...that incentive programs (particularly pay-for-performance) had led to improved teacher performance and student achievements.\" Merit pay plans have shown some positive short-lived effects, but there as been little evidence to show that merit pay works in the long term.", "title": "merit pay based on student achievement should be a significant component for teacher compensation", "pid": "68d82bb6-2019-04-18T19:14:17Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.9352264404297}, {"text": "\"Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea\". Education Portal. July 10th, 2007: \"7. The Definition of 'Merit' is Too Broad ... Every performance based pay program for teachers that is currently in effect works differently. Some programs allow teachers to up their pay for things that don't truly help students-like filling out paperwork-rather than things that can be less easily measured. It makes the idea of merit less meaningful for an individual who most likely became a teacher to help students.\"", "title": "Merit pay focuses teachers on measures over their passion", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00034-000", "bm25_score": 213.93377685546875}, {"text": "I apologize i did not meet your requirements to debate. I might not have been clear with the tenure. I am a believer in a system that does not tenure their employees after a certain number of years. I would ask you if you would see a doctor that had tenure and no matter what happened after a surgery that person would still have a job. In respect to your argument with shorter work days how does that even make sense? An average work day for a parent is 9am-5pm assuming you wanted a child to be released earlier then where would that child go? I am just confused as to how this would be implemented. Do you think that a tax payer with no children would be willing to pay more in education so someone elses child could stay in school the entire year? Salaries have been a big debate throughout years and I believe that adding more hours would only spark more debate and ultimately fail. Dont get me wrong the idea itself is very noble but the funding doesnt seem to add up", "title": "Public Schooling Systems Should Operate Year-Round", "pid": "e02d66a9-2019-04-18T17:16:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.9306640625}, {"text": "Merit pay undercuts valuable cooperation between teachers", "title": "Merit pay for teachers", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 213.92454528808594}, {"text": "I BELIEVE THAT TEACHERS, who have the rights to be at a school teaching should be responsible and respectful in every way. Otherwise, their is no point of teaching at the first place. If not fired, i believe it could damage many students as well as the schools curricular activities. Teachers who are bad should be fired because students lives are at risk of earning behavioral issues and would ruin their generation. Instead of their fun school life they earn disrespected opportunities which isn't fair if their the ones paying the school for good education. Each teacher should be respectful if want to be respected otherwise their is no point for a student to learn or be able to learn.", "title": "Should Bad Teachers Be Fired", "pid": "41a0fb20-2019-04-18T12:49:42Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.92332458496094}, {"text": "Just as in the private sector, workers should be judged and rewarded on the actual results they achieve. Whether it's through sheer talent or through hard work, some teachers consistently deliver better results than other teachers. Those teachers are more effective and efficient at providing societal value: with the same amount of work-hours they manage to more effectively educate children. It is therefore only just that their pay is differentiated according to the results they achieve.", "title": "It is fair to reward teachers on the actual results they achieve.", "pid": "da86b00e-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 213.92227172851562}, {"text": "\"Top Ten Reasons Why Merit Pay for Teachers Is a Terrible Idea\". Education Portal. July 10th, 2007: \"There are several problems with basing how much a teacher should make on student performance. The most important: there are too many other variables besides teacher effort that determine an individual's and a class' performance.\"", "title": "Student performance does not demonstrate teacher performance", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00039-000", "bm25_score": 213.9193572998047}, {"text": "It is impossible to implement.", "title": "pay state school teachers based on merit", "pid": "da86b00e-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.9080047607422}, {"text": "It will attract more teachers", "title": "pay state school teachers based on merit", "pid": "da86b00e-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.90321350097656}, {"text": "For decades now, teachers have been remunerated based on 'seniority'. This means that they don't have an incentive anymore to improve themselves, no matter how motivated they were at the beginning. Why try to improve yourself if you have nothing to gain from it? Adding a financial reward for exceptional performance will motivate teachers to do their utmost to develop the knowledge and talents of their pupils.[1] [1] Muralidharan and Sundararaman, “Teacher Incentives in Developing Countries:  Experimental Evidence from India”. Podgursky and Springer, “Teacher Performance and Pay” 2007", "title": "It will give teachers an incentive to improve their teaching.", "pid": "da86b00e-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 213.89805603027344}, {"text": "Teachers provide an essential education to our future generations. It is unfair to allow them the power to simply walk off the job because they feel they're not being paid enough. There are other ways to ensure that they are being treated equitably without sacrificing the benefits to our children. For example, mediation has worked in the past for other professionals such as in the healthcare industry to avoid detrimental effects on society. If we allow teachers the ability to go on strike, they will never be happy with what they have.", "title": "Teachers should not be allowed to strike.", "pid": "b58929b-2019-04-18T18:27:16Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.87545776367188}, {"text": "President Barack Obama said in March of 2009: teachers should be treated \"like the professionals they are while also [being held] more accountable. Good teachers will be rewarded with more money for improved student achievement, and asked to accept more responsibilities for lifting up their schools.\"[3]", "title": "Better teachers should be paid more", "pid": "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00041-000", "bm25_score": 213.87466430664062}]}
{"idx": 1, "qid": "2", "q_text": "Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?", "qrels": {"68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "29cc3447-2019-04-18T16:26:48Z-00003-000": 0, "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00000-000": 2, "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00001-000": 2, "24b396e9-2019-04-15T20:22:53Z-00016-000": 0, "a0eb865c-2019-04-18T14:04:27Z-00004-000": 0, "3a1faa39-2019-04-18T12:17:34Z-00001-000": 0, "8e48cbbe-2019-04-18T14:00:01Z-00003-000": 1, "8a21d08-2019-04-18T14:01:36Z-00007-000": 1, "8a21ce9-2019-04-18T14:03:04Z-00004-000": 1, "86c4374a-2019-04-18T12:17:10Z-00005-000": 0, "75d64ceb-2019-04-18T16:32:57Z-00002-000": 0, "75d64ceb-2019-04-18T16:32:57Z-00009-000": 0, "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00001-000": 2, "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00003-000": 2, "2e721803-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00017-000": 0, "691acc63-2019-04-15T20:23:01Z-00020-000": 0, "65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00001-000": 0, "65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00004-000": 2, "657ed681-2019-04-18T19:12:04Z-00002-000": 0, "561a86d1-2019-04-15T20:22:16Z-00006-000": 0, "52ece351-2019-04-18T16:22:02Z-00002-000": 0, "4ebdedaf-2019-04-18T11:49:05Z-00001-000": 1, "41e8d87f-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00056-000": 0, "3a205777-2019-04-18T12:54:13Z-00001-000": 0, "68d8ce13-2019-04-19T12:45:16Z-00023-000": 0, "3eb43d6-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00055-000": 0, "47b5d38-2019-04-18T14:19:43Z-00008-000": 0, "f08ced27-2019-04-18T15:30:33Z-00003-000": 0, "f08ced27-2019-04-18T15:30:33Z-00002-000": 1, "e7eb3b95-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00001-000": 0, "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00002-000": 2, "dff8f1b4-2019-04-18T19:05:14Z-00001-000": 0, "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00000-000": 0, "d4c25be6-2019-04-18T12:50:26Z-00002-000": 0, "d352f90e-2019-04-18T14:45:06Z-00003-000": 0, "cc393e78-2019-04-19T12:45:20Z-00019-000": 0, "cb45a65a-2019-04-19T12:46:53Z-00016-000": 0, "c837ee87-2019-04-18T12:27:18Z-00002-000": 0, "b8deb31f-2019-04-18T19:58:34Z-00005-000": 0, "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00000-000": 2, "aa2a4a53-2019-04-18T15:07:29Z-00003-000": 0, "a5dc84d2-2019-04-18T16:21:24Z-00005-000": 0, "a33194f5-2019-04-18T18:29:39Z-00004-000": 0, "e7eb3b95-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00004-000": 0, "e7eb3b95-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00002-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "You don't care If they are addicted or not. There are no good ways to start vaping. 85 percent of vapers grow up to smoke. If you think about it you are just vaporizing chemicals and breathing them into your lungs. Vaping harms nearly every organ in your body, Including your heart. Nearly one-third of deaths from heart disease are the result of vaping and secondhand smoke.", "title": "Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated", "pid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.3460693359375}, {"text": "I've never claimed that I'm okay with \"kids\" acquiring an addiction to electronic cigarettes. I simply do not care. It's not only nicotine but other harmful substances that are present. You provided examples of why they're bad, Without any sources. I'm just saying that there shouldn't be any regulations because it will be utterly pointless and time consuming. Juul for example is a good way to start vaping, A teen hobby that adds a sense of smoking cigarettes whilst it does contain harmful chemicals similar to cigarettes; \"Traditional cigarettes contain a laundry list of chemicals that are proven harmful, And e-cigarettes have some of these same chemicals. \" Thus, There is a small percentage of chemicals in e-cigs than the classic cigs. http://www. Center4research. Org/vaping-safer-smoking-cigarettes-2/", "title": "Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated", "pid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.0283203125}, {"text": "So you're ok with kids getting addicted to nicotine just because they think it makes them look cool. Companies advertise that it is safer than regular smoking but it really isn't. The chance for second-hand smoke is almost the same. There is no research at all backing that they help people get off smoking. In some cases, It actually makes your addiction worse. One student was carrying a Juul in his pocket when it just exploded. Kids are going behind their parents' backs and using them. Research shows now that e-cigs and Juul's are more popular than cigarettes now.", "title": "Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated", "pid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.82275390625}, {"text": "I have to disagree with you. According to studies from the CDC and NCBI, results suggest that e-cigarettes may contribute to nicotine addiction and are unlikely to discourage conventional cigarette smoking among youth. Also confirmed data from the CDC shows an increased use of e-cigarette from 4.5 percent in 2013 to 13.4 percent in 2014. You claim that the e-cigarette \"juice\" is safe, do you have data to back up that statement? If so, I would urge you to give some concrete evidence. There are reasons why e-cigarette shares the same risk for nicotine addiction, and a simulated substance such as e-liquid or propylene glycol, is not without health effects. I feel that your justification for using e-juice is without concrete evidence and purely speculative. Can you rebuke this?", "title": "Should the e cigarette be available to everyone", "pid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.51600646972656}, {"text": "Nicotine is derived from tobacco. I am not saying that people should not be allowed to use these devices, I am saying they should not be allowed to use them in public around other people potentially putting other's health at risk. They have not proven that these devices are not damaging to those around them and therefore should not be allowed in public and should fall under these protective laws. While there have been benefits from these devices, they have enable some to decrease the amount they smoke or stop smoking, there have also been people that have stared smoking because of them. There has been an increased use in the younger population as well. The effect these products can have on those using them, and those around them include; nausea, head aches, cough, dizziness, sore throat, nose bleeds, chest pain or other cardiovascular problems, and allergic reactions such as itchiness and swelling of the lips. I have also read about people getting wheezy, heart burn, and watery eyes. There have also been reports of young children developing a raspy voice after exposure in a vehicle or enclosed places. There is more and more evidence pointing that these devices can have negative effects on those around them. Since the health of others is at risk, they should not be allowed in public places, and should fall under they same laws as other cigarette products.", "title": "Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed.", "pid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.42527770996094}, {"text": "Vaping is a dangerous hobby, And yes I don't care if they become addicted or not. Life is short, Make it count. Likewise, You're a good debater", "title": "Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated", "pid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.424072265625}, {"text": "The initial reason for the electronic cigarette was for people to stop smoking. Personally, I have seen so many people that benefited from it. Although it has nicotine, it does not have tobacco, and it doesn't burn. Vaporizing is and should be allowed in smoke-free places. Also I don't think it is anyone else business whether or not someone is smoking if it is not damaging to them.", "title": "Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed.", "pid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.31838989257812}, {"text": "Electronic cigarettes comes with different cartridges including 6-18mg of nicotine and sometimes 0mg. This is to say that electronic cigarettes are safer to smoke than traditional cigarettes. Electronic cigarettes do not cause tar because of the fact that it does not contain tobacco and leave behind no tar. As a result, the main components of carcinogen are not present to create a problem that traditional cigarettes that contain various chemicals, additives and smokes. Vapor is just vapor. It does not include any smell or lingering odor. It is far from affecting people around you while smoking electronic cigarette. Electronic cigarettes should not be banned because it does not pose any harm to its users and help people from quitting cigar.", "title": "Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs", "pid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.9923095703125}, {"text": "I work at a hospital in an Emergency department. While I was at work a few weeks ago, I walked past a visitor that was smoking his electronic cigarette, or E-cigarette, while walking down the hall. I was very appalled and realized that people think it is okay to smoke these anywhere including hospitals. It seems as though the laws don't always apply to these devices, even though they should. I informed the visitor that smoking in any form is not allowed on hospital property, and while he was annoyed he did put the device away. With the many advances in Health care we have learned much about the effects of tobacco and nicotine on the body. I think that people should have the choice to use it or not, but I do not believe they should be able to use it in any public place. My health and the health of others is important to me. Smoking in any form, be it cigarettes or E-cigarettes, exposes the people in the vicinity and should be categorized the same.", "title": "Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed.", "pid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.920166015625}, {"text": "I don't think it should be sold to everyone. I think the main purpose is to help people quit smoking. I feel that it will entice the younger generation to use this method of vaping, when there are side effects involved with inhaling any substance into the lungs.", "title": "Should the e cigarette be available to everyone", "pid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.89796447753906}, {"text": "Are they safer than tobacco? Or are they a high-tech way to hook a new generation on a bad nicotine habit? Nobody knows yet. Research into the effects of e-cigarettes lags behind their popularity. But ready or not, the era of e-cigarettes is here. It\"s a booming, billion-dollar industry -- on track to outsell tobacco products within a decade. The number of teens and tweens using these products doubled between 2011 and 2012. The time to get informed about these products is now. So far, evidence suggests that e-cigarettes may be safer than regular cigarettes. The biggest danger from tobacco is the smoke, and e-cigarettes don't burn. Tests show the levels of dangerous chemicals they give off are a fraction of what you'd get from a real cigarette. But what's in them can vary. \"E-cigarettes may be less harmful than cigarettes,\" Drummond says. \"But we still don't know enough about their long-term risks or the effects of secondhand exposure.\" E-cigarettes have triggered a fierce debate among health experts who share the same goal -- reducing the disease and death caused by tobacco. But they disagree about whether e-cigarettes make the problem better or worse. Opponents say that because nicotine is addictive, e-cigarettes could be a \"gateway drug,\" leading nonsmokers and kids to use tobacco. They also worry that manufacturers -- with huge advertising budgets and celebrity endorsements -- could make smoking popular again. That would roll back decades of progress in getting people to quit or never start smoking. Others look at possible benefits for smokers. \"Obviously, it would be best if smokers could quit completely,\" says Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health. \"But if that's not possible, I think they'd be a lot better off with e-cigarettes. They're a safer alternative.\" Siegel compares replacing tobacco with e-cigarettes to heroin users switching to the painkiller methadone. The replacement may have its own risks, but it's safer. Some supporters believe that e-cigarettes could help people quit, just like nicotine gum. Research hasn't shown that yet, though. But there is no hard evidence that they are harmful OR safe. http://www.webmd.com...", "title": "Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed.", "pid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.7396240234375}, {"text": "To address your claims of the dangers of vaping: There is a difference between a substance possibly having side effects in unhealthy people and a substance definitely causing cancer. The risks of smoking compared to those of vaping are like the risks of walking on the highway compared to the risks of walking on the sidewalk. Vaping is mostly safe, and the same arguments you made against its safety can be made for caffeinated beverages and fast food, so I assume that you want those banned too. What you have yet to do is form an argument explaining why smoking and vaping should be banned, and you were not clear with your last sentence. Your initial post said you wanted smoking and vaping to be illegal. Are you now saying you want them to only be illegal is another person is nearby? What if that person is also smoking or vaping? Is it still a crime? Are you suggesting that if someone is smoking or vaping in his or her own home and others are around, that should be a crime? You need to make your position clear. You should also explain why you think that whatever you are arguing to ban should be illegal. As to why I am against what you initially posted, laws that ban activities that only harm the individual partaking in the activity(assuming that the individual has been apprised of the dangers) are unjust. This has been shown in our various drug laws which have been more damaging to society than the drugs they banned. If I am smoking in my home, in my car, or by myself on a street corner, then nobody is affected except for myself. This is especially true with vaping because unlike smoking, vapor does not linger and the vaporizer stops putting out fumes when I am not puffing it. If you think that it should be illegal to smoke near others, then if I walk up to a smoker who is smoking, should he be arrested? Are you talking about smoking in public buildings? If so, that is already banned so that workers are not exposed to concentrated smoke.", "title": "Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned.", "pid": "65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.66424560546875}, {"text": "Yes, I think E-cigs and vapes should be regulated. They should be regulated because their target audience is kids they make flavors from almond to tropical margarita that are appealing to kids. Also, They caused the same harm as tobacco and don't help addicts.", "title": "Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated", "pid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.5989990234375}, {"text": "No, because it is not an actual tobacco product", "title": "Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed.", "pid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.5452880859375}, {"text": "Again, I feel that your information is incorrect. According to several databases, including canadavapes.com, Propylene Glycol is the primary ingredient in the majority of e-liquids and e-cigarette cartridges on the marketplace today. Most e-liquid contains at least 80% and as much as 92% propylene glycol. This is the ingredient that produces the smoke-like vapor when the e-cigarette is exhaled. You are correct in saying people have choices if they want to use products that are safe or unsafe, but it seems more applicable if people are educated in the product they choose to use. And being that I am a parent and a grandparent, I am more concerned about the availability of this product to the younger generation. The idea that vaping can promote cigarette smoking is not good news, especially to our youth. Whether or not you feel that people can do whatever they want, it seems to me that your favorable interest in e-cigs exist because you may either like or use e-cigs, am I correct?", "title": "Should the e cigarette be available to everyone", "pid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.43942260742188}, {"text": "Whether smoking a cigarette or e-cig there is still nicotine In both and nicotine is highly addictive. E cigs are not a safer alternative to cigarettes because they are just as addictive. E-cigs may only be vapor but it is not undetectable. That wretched nicotine smell will linger on your clothes and in your hair. The smoke and vapor is bound to offend someone and I would not like to be sitting out at dinner and have someone blow their e-cigarette vapor in my face or be sitting on the subway next to someone puffing an e-cig having to inhale second hand smoke in an air tight location. E cigs should be banned in closed public spaces and away from those who may find them offensive.", "title": "Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs", "pid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.38145446777344}, {"text": "I agree that Juul is bad, And smoking/vaping in general is bad for ur health, But Juul is a much better alternative to normal cigarretes", "title": "Juul Is Bad.", "pid": "17e9941d-2019-04-18T11:19:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.3487091064453}, {"text": "saying that e cigs should not be sold to everyone is like saying we shouldn't sell soda to everyone. The e-cig is just a device that makes things into vapor, what should be restricted is the E-juice itself. I say this because the actual danger is in the nicotine. but if minors could only buy e-juice without nicotine then its just like drinking soda. I bring soda up because soda is filled with dangerous chemicals that can harm you if you consume to much of it. and that is exactly what e-juice is. a liquid filled with tons of mystery chemicals that can harm you. so what is the pout of banning them if we don't ban soda? It also should come down to a persons choice, if they want to ingest chemicals they should be able to.", "title": "Should the e cigarette be available to everyone", "pid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.28123474121094}, {"text": "Tobacco kills. It doesn't matter how it is smoked, whether in a vapor pipe or in cigarette form, people will still get cancer and suffer a slow painful death. Who wants to live like that? Or who wants to watch their closest most loved family members, relatives or friends suffer like that? Inhaling tobacco whether electronically or old fashioned is still inhaling toxic chemicals that can be very harmful to your health. Bloomberg should ban E-Cigs altogether but especially in public places.", "title": "Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs", "pid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.22694396972656}, {"text": "First off let me start by saying I never claimed e-juice to be safe i think they are quite harmful. another thing you said was that they had prpolynic glycol or glycerin which is anothet untrue statment. Allmost all e-juice maufacturers use vegtable glycerin. But what does this argument really come down too, freedom. If you want to tuin youre health at whatevet age you want why should you not be able to with e-juice when you can do it with soda. But if you restrict minors from buying e-juice without nicotine the health risks can decrease. And like i said befor it should all come down to people, do they want to ruin there healt. If they want to thats fine by me im pretty sure that thats natural salection.", "title": "Should the e cigarette be available to everyone", "pid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.19493103027344}, {"text": "Of all context, There should be no regulations. If the audience wants to buy them; let them. If kids do it for the clout, Let them. The ones whom will suffer the consequences is the user. That's all.", "title": "Should E-cigs and vapes be regulated", "pid": "e435a482-2019-04-18T11:12:51Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.07423400878906}, {"text": "They involve tobacco dependence by trying to treat it with a lesser dosage, if we're consistent with the point of therapeutic value I made. We are not debating if it is legal or not, so that's off the point. Hookah pens can contain no harmful ingredients such as nicotine. E-cigarettes and hookah pens can be used therapeutically, so I'm for it in that manner, and I'm for hookah pens that do not contain ingredients such as nicotine and tar etc. in any manner.", "title": "Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens", "pid": "71cb6b31-2019-04-18T14:53:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.93173217773438}, {"text": "The reason I included vapor is because I wanted to cover all types of smoking. We should also remember that Vapor can also be toxic. It's an Illusion of safe smoking. \"The nicotine inside the cartridges is addictive. When you stop using it, you can get withdrawal symptoms including feeling irritable, depressed, restless and anxious. It can be dangerous for people with heart problems. It may also harm your arteries over time.\"(www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/.../electronic-cigarettes) I also forgot to add that I wanted it to be Illegal around other people >< I apologize!", "title": "Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned.", "pid": "65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.89573669433594}, {"text": "-Thank you once for your submission. Summary:First of all, you choose to deny the children, the family members. I have seen parents who smoke near their children, and other family members. So, walking away might not even be an option.A safer version of smoking, what are you talking about, these scientists are working for tobacco industries that produce only tobacco. Also, electrical cigarettes have its flaws too.1. E-cigarettes have a lithium battery, which is very detrimental to your health.2. They contain liquid nicotine.3. They are toxic.4. No quality control.5. FDA wants regulations for these cigarettes.6. Reusability.7. Cost less than actual cigarettes.8. Banned in public places (New York, Chicago).9. Second-hand vapor.10. Lung Damage.Sources:http://health.howstuffworks.com...Don't Smoke and vote for me!", "title": "Smoking Should be Banned", "pid": "b2b2d4a9-2019-04-18T15:55:06Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.89028930664062}, {"text": "Electronic cigarretes don't contain Tobacco. It was invented back in 2007 to find an alternative way for smoking regular cigarettes which contains tobacco. According to health.howstuffworks.com, some people say they feel more comforable using electronic cigarrete than regular cigarettes not only because it doesn't contain tobacco but it is also reusable. In addition, it saves them money and help them quit smoking regular cigarettes. PS. The characters aren't limit to 500.", "title": "Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs", "pid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.87942504882812}, {"text": "To begin I will make statements based on fact with reliable sources to back the claims made. I will use the next round to refute my opponent's information. Let's start out with how E-cigarettes are dangerous and finish with how Marijuana is not. I will use the fourth round to add further points. I would also prefer if my opponent used round 5 to recap and please not use new arguments. E-cigarettes were introduced into the United States in 2007 after being created by a company is china. They are similar to regular cigarettes in terms of appearance. The e-cigarette uses a mechanism to heat up liquid nicotine which is then transformed into vapor and inhaled and exhaled by the user. Health experts agree, they may pose a serious threat to the the user of the device and the public. I will list and explain various ways that this is true. Health experts also agree they need to be tested and researched more to be deemed safe or unsafe to our health. Possibly the worst of the e-cigarette concept is that they are not subject to tobacco laws because they contain to tobacco. Meaning that they can be purchased with identification proof and can be purchased easily, particularly on the Internet. Meaning youngsters who have acquired enough knowledge to know that e-cigarettes are purchasable online might order one for themselves and keep it. These devices also come in Flavors: Chocolate, caramel, strawberry even bubblegum! Celebrities also use them which may attract children also. A couple examples are Johnny Depp and David Letterman. Katherine Heitgl even used one on a talk show and explained the to the audience! You are probably inquiring what is wrong with something like this? Well, I will get to that in a moment. The reason e-cigarettes are popular among 'former smokers' is because they contain nicotine. An addictive drug found in all tobacco cigarettes. This addictive drug is placed in products like e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes so people do become addicted and remain buying the specified product. This product may even contain MORE nicotine than a tobacco cigarette. Yes, more. Also manufacturers continue to deny testing from the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Ushering us towards a more dreadful conclusion. Countries have realized the health risks and have banned them from the country entirely and/or made them lllegal. Examples are: Australia, Canada, Israel and Mexico. The FDA also claims that second vapor can cause some serious health hazards. Individuals have claimed that the vapor burns their eyes, nose and throat. Especially those with health problems and the elderly. These E-cigarettes and also cause damage to the wind-pipe. Scientists from Athens, Greece noticed the problem also. A test was done on 32 individuals that volunteered to do so, 8 of which have never smoked before. They were given E-cigarettes and asked to use them for 10 minutes. These are the Results. -Non-Smokers -raised airway resistance by 206% to 182% Which experts quoted was a significant increase. -Current and regular smokers -suffered a 220% to 176% increase in airway resistance. -Asthma patients -found no increase. Now I will explain the health benefits behind Marijuana. I will begin with a very truthful quote by The Economist. \"If Marijuana were unknown, it's discovery would no doubt be hailed as a medical breakthrough. Scientists would hail it's potential for treating everything form pain to cancer and marvel in rich pharmacopoeia; many of whose chemicals mimic vital molecules in the human body. before I begin I would like my opponent and the voters to watch this video it is very brief and contains a lot of information. www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mlfvklejuw Now with that in mind I will begin my statement on how marijuana has health benefits. Due to the fact that marijuana does not contain nicotine smokers of the product tend to smoke less because of the lack of the addictive drug. Marijuana also contains THC, a bronchial dilator, meaning it opens up the wind-pipe and lungs excreting dirt and other harmful membranes trapped inside the body. There has been absolutely no cancer resulting from the use of marijuana. Not even a death associated with the herb. There are also health benefits in the cannabis plant (basically marijuana). Like how earlier represented in the video link I posted that it can reduce the risk of cancer. The Journal of the American Medical association tested 5,000 individuals between ages 18-30 years old that used marijuana regularly.\"Had no discernible lung impairment in lung activity from non-smokers.\" There was also a test conducted at Harvard! It revealed the active ingredient in marijuana cute tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability for cancer to spread. Sources: www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/249784.php health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/smokingcessation/10-fact-about-e-cigarettes.htm patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/marijuana-info/marijuana-vs-cigarettes/ txconnectme.wordpress.com/2012/04/26marijuana-cuts-lung-cancer-tumor-growth-in-half-harvard-study-shows/", "title": "Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes.", "pid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.85455322265625}, {"text": "What my opponent says is true - for a standard cigarette. With an e-cigarette, the problem can be averted.Smoking an e-cigarette is technically smoking. It contains fewer chemicals than the normal cigarette does, and it releases a tiny amount of smoke. This greatly reduces the risk for the smoker and the people around them. With the e-cigarette, is it really necessary to ban smoking in all public places?E-cigarette smoking can also help the economy. They are taxed, and this helps generate money for the economy. With little health risks, the e-smokers don't have to make the economy lose the medicare bills, resulting in a net gain. With places like the US in debt, can we really afford to lose this, given most smokers smoke in public areas?Illegalizing e-smoking has a down-side. Addicted people would still smoke in public places, defeating the purpose of illegalizing it. Cigarette taxes would go away, removing the economic support it brings us. Is illegalizing smoking the best thing to do?", "title": "Smoking should be banned in all public places", "pid": "41269782-2019-04-18T18:21:05Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.7901611328125}, {"text": "The simple fact that teens who are underage and using tobacco products/products that involve tobacco dependence speaks for itself. It is against the law in some states to use these as a minor.", "title": "Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens", "pid": "71cb6b31-2019-04-18T14:53:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.6463623046875}, {"text": "The FDA is actually proposing extending its authority to cover additional products that meet the definition of a tobacco product under the proposed rule: Tobacco Products Deemed To Be Subject to the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. Currently FDA regulates cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco and smokeless tobacco. Proposed newly \"deemed\" products would include electronic cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, certain dissolvables that are not \"smokeless tobacco,\" gels, and waterpipe tobacco. The definition of a \"tobacco product\" according to the FDA is any product \"made or derived from tobacco\" that is not a \"drug,\" \"device,\" or \"combination product\" (except for accessories of deemed tobacco products). Examples of tobacco products include; hookah, e-cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, novel tobacco products, and tobacco products that may be developed in the future. To read this definition for yourself go to http://www.fda.gov... (It is on page 7 of the document.) Nicotine overdose has increased in not just adults, but also children. CNN did a story on this. In February there were 215 poison center calls involving e-cigarettes which is an huge increase from one per month in September 2010. The sad thing is 51% of those calls involved children 5 and under. http://www.cnn.com... E-cigarettes fall under the definition of a tobacco product according to the FDA. Manny of the E-cigarette devices contain nicotine the drug found in tobacco along with other substances and some have been found to contain carcinogens. There is not enough evidence to support that these devices are safe for those exposed to them and therefore should be categorized the same as any cigarette. Meaning they should not be allowed in hospitals and other public places.", "title": "Smoking E-cigarettes in public should be categorized the same as any cigarette and not allowed.", "pid": "b83fa829-2019-04-18T16:06:32Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.59121704101562}, {"text": "Electronic cigarette is not subjected to U.S tobacco laws because it doesn't have any tobacco in it. Therefore, electronic cigarettes are better than regular cigarettes. In terms of accessibility among minors, they are able to purchase regular cigarettes which is actually violating a law as to purchasing electronic cigarettes. Another reason why smoking electronic cigarette is better than regular cigarettes is because there is no combustion involved while smoking it. There is no smoke coming out of the cigarette, instead there's a vapor that provides similar sensation as smoking traditional cigarettes. This is one of many great innovations we have in our modern time. The mayor shouldn't ban something useful as to alternating smoking cigar.", "title": "Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs", "pid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.5189971923828}, {"text": "I will add only add one more point in this round. A study found that THC, the main psychoactive substance found within cannabis, may actually strengthen one's nicotine addiction. In essence, if a person tried to wean themselves off of tobacco using marijuana, they would be more inclined to relapse and return back to smoking tobacco, thus defeating the object of using marijuana as an alternative. Source: http://www.hightimes.com...", "title": "Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes.", "pid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.480224609375}, {"text": "This will be my first debate on DDO but I've debated on the marijuana topic many times so hopefully I'll be equipped enough. This should be fun! Happy holidays to you also!", "title": "Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes.", "pid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.38690185546875}, {"text": "I've seen kids younger then 14 who are vaping, and when you ask them why they say \"its not bad for me\" so i think that we should slap parents who let there kids vape", "title": "kids shouldent vape", "pid": "ebbaf687-2019-04-18T11:45:29Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.3532257080078}, {"text": "Unfortunately it seems Pro was unable to continue the debate for whatever reason. Since I have no further points or rebuttals to make, this debate is now over.", "title": "Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes.", "pid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.34983825683594}, {"text": "It has not yet been concluded that E-cigs help people quit smoking. Theres no proof E-cigs have aided in quitting cigarettes, it has only been proved a remedy for those who cannot quit cigarettes. Also according to health.howstuffworks.com Because they contain no tobacco, e-cigarettes aren't subject to U.S. tobacco laws, which means they can be purchased without proof of age, especially online which is dangerous for our children. No laws make buying these e-cigs easily accessible and when smoking is started at a young age they are hooked and prone to all the diseases and cancers caused by cigs. these devices should be deemed illegal until the proper research trials have been conducted. Teacher also made it clear to limit 750characters", "title": "Bloomberg's Ban on E-Cigs", "pid": "18710bc8-2019-04-18T16:37:00Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.2878875732422}, {"text": "For now all rebuttals to Pro's points have been addressed, and woven into, the points I made in round 2.", "title": "Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes.", "pid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.28195190429688}, {"text": "Isee now, youre a parent and you dont want to youre kids to use ecigs so you dont want any underage peoplw to have thwm, and thats completely understandable. But you have to relize that kids will get there hands on them somehow and there really is no point in punishing the kids because they will get them again! So what im saying is why not let the kids have the freedome to ruin there health, its natural selction at its finest.", "title": "Should the e cigarette be available to everyone", "pid": "6aa773f4-2019-04-18T14:45:16Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.25091552734375}, {"text": "Also happy holidays! Marijuana-. http://www.drugabuse.gov... Tobacco-. http://healthliteracy.worlded.org... E-cigarettes-. http://en.wikipedia.org... I would prefer a well equipped opponent for this debate where as this can be an extremely controversial topic. The first three links should get you started!", "title": "Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes.", "pid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 213.11231994628906}, {"text": "The use of e-cigarettes and hookah pens should be banned from underage citizens due to the lack of adulthood they still have not experinced yet.", "title": "Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens", "pid": "71cb6b31-2019-04-18T14:53:18Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.04904174804688}, {"text": "Is it safe to purchase video games online? I wish to purchase some new trending video games for my brother. Some of my friends suggested me to check here at Steam. Instant-gaming (https://www. Instant-gaming. Com/en), BestBuy, Online stores tat offer great deals on the bulk purchase of video games. Please give your opinion about the online purchasing of video games.", "title": "Video games", "pid": "6706fda2-2019-04-18T11:21:04Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.82798767089844}, {"text": "My initial argument was a statement, not an opinion. The tobacco industry has stated that they are only harmful if you smoke them and I believe them. As an added precaution I not only avoid smoking them, but I am also careful about not to eating any of them. < > I mean no disrespect, but I trust my doctor, his equipment, credentials, experience and reputation over your high school student's medical knowledge. Thanks for coming out!", "title": "Cigarettes are bad for my health.", "pid": "fa7e9c9a-2019-04-18T19:59:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.64303588867188}, {"text": "I accept and look forward to you explaining to me why you should have the right to tell me, a grown adult, that I can't enjoy my vaporizer in my own home.", "title": "Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned.", "pid": "65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 212.6313934326172}, {"text": "There are many other choices that we allow parents to make which may affect their children’s health. Living in a big city can be just as dangerous for their respiratory systems because of the air pollution. Not vaccinating your child can lead to them contracting a life threatening illness, like polio or measles. Yet we don’t punish parents who choose to expose their children to car exhaust fumes daily or to the risk of a serious illness, although the cost of treating them would also have to be covered by the healthcare system. We have to trust parents to do the best they can, and not let the state to interfere with family life.", "title": "The state has a right to get involved because the costs of illnesses caused by passive smoking are u...", "pid": "7df86911-2019-04-19T12:44:10Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 212.58062744140625}, {"text": "If parents are so irresponsible to let their kids vape who can stop them and if they have no nic in it its just like flavored air", "title": "kids shouldent vape", "pid": "ebbaf687-2019-04-18T11:45:29Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.56753540039062}, {"text": "I want to debate with someone intelligent for once so bring it on.", "title": "Smoking Vapor Pens should be legal for kids 16 and up", "pid": "5405a0ae-2019-04-18T15:26:30Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.4931640625}, {"text": "I'll start by highlighting why nicotine is a beneficial component of e-cigarettes and then finish with reasons why e-cigarettes are a healthier 'alternative' than marijuana. But first I will point out that young people are susceptible to copying most things they see older people doing regardless of what it is. Also the fact that e-cigarettes are not subject to tobacco laws doesn't really do much in terms of preventing young people from getting them. If a child or teenager wants something they'll find a way to get it. The large amount of underage smokers and drinkers in the US and UK would be an example of this. It's natural that an e-cigarette would contain nicotine; they're tailored towards smokers. The vast majority of e-cigarette users are either former cigarette smokers or people who are trying to quit smoking; in addition there is little evidence to suggest that non-smokers take up e-cigarettes. Now, if a tobacco smoker were to attempt using marijuana as an alternative there is a relatively high chance that they would relapse back to smoking tobacco once again. A tobacco smoker may not even give up tobacco even if they were to begin smoking marijuana thus becoming a \"dual user\" i.e. they would smoke both tobacco and marijuana. The latter point in itself would defeat the object of marijuana being used as an alternative (since the negative effects of the tobacco smoke would negate any positive effects marijuana presents). On the other hand, if a tobacco smoker were to attempt using e-cigarettes as an alternative the chances of a relapse are relatively low. A study showed that among former smokers who were regular used e-cigarettes, only 6% relapsed back to tobacco after a year. More importantly, among the \"dual users\", an amazing 46% quit smoking after a year. So actually it's the fact that e-cigarettes contain nicotine that makes it a healthier alternative than marijuana. This is because switching to a non-nicotine alternative would most likely lead to nicotine withdrawal and the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal include a series of negative effects: - feeling irritable - feeling or being aggressive - dysphoria - restlessness - poor concentration - increased appetite - weight gain - urges or cravings to smoke - night-time awakenings/sleep disturbance - decreased heart rate Thus by using e-cigarettes one still receives their 'nicotine fix' without the added negative effects that comes with tobacco smoke. A final point is to address the fact that nicotine is not a carcinogen. This means that it does not cause cancer. So the chances of a person acquiring cancer, of any sort, from smoking an e-cigarette would be the same, if not less, than smoking marijuana. Sources: http://alcoholism.about.com... http://www.mhra.gov.uk... http://acsh.org... http://www.nicoventures.co.uk...", "title": "Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes.", "pid": "497a4c74-2019-04-18T16:49:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.43540954589844}, {"text": "cigarette industries pay taxes . Thus they have influence on politics. - find out how many members of your parliaments smoke. You won't get it illegal, as long as people vote for smokers. - there's taxes on cigarettes. So the if the government made smoking illegal, then people would smuggle cigarettes and still smoke. But the state would not get the money.Electronic cigarettes The electronic cigarette allows you to “smoke” to your heart’s content: without inhaling benzene; formaldehyde; cyanide; or any of the 4,000 other constituents of tobacco smoke likely to do you harm. E-cigarettes smoke is not the same as regular smoke....its scentless and doesnt have many health risks. .........http://goeshealth.com...", "title": "Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places", "pid": "9e1b2402-2019-04-18T18:23:00Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.4163818359375}, {"text": "The evidence came from a study from the US Surgeon General's Report, which was cited in my previous argument. Obviously the less smoke you breathe in the less of an effect it willl have, but Con asserts that there is a safe amount that can be taken it. Con asserts that one will never be exposed to the amount of smoke to do enough damage. This does go against the findings of the US Surgeon General Report. Not to mention, further reserach was conducted and even the gaseous phase of cigarette smoke contains reactive oxygen species (a cancer-causing agent) inhibits normal cell function. (1) The study itself found that being exposed to only 2 cigarettes is enough to stop the function of a cell's sodium pump. (1) According to Dr.Rajasekaran regarding the study \"We now know that one need not inhale the particulate matter present in secondhand smoke to suffer the consequence of smoking. Exposure to the gaseous substance alone, which you breathe while standing near a smoker, is sufficient to cause harm.\" (1) The level to which this can be harmful is unknown at this point, but there is no reason to allow this to be done on public property where it can be dangerous to one's health. Not to mention, there's no reason to assume that there won't potentially be a lot of people smoking on public property and if a person comes to the area enough, it could be harmful in the long run. We also don't know what the future of cigarette smoke could hold. It could become much more dangerous in the future. Cigarettes have already become more deadly in the past 50 years and could easily become more of a health risk. (2) If there is no one around, there is no reason to assume the law will be enforced, much in the same way speed limits aren't enforced when no one is around. The amount of people who smoke cigarettes is irrelevent if it is a danger to public health. 1-http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2-http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...", "title": "It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States", "pid": "d1d1ca99-2019-04-18T15:06:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.40867614746094}, {"text": "Yes it is safe too purchase video games online assuming you use a secured site, Like you said steam. But be careful so that you dont work your way off the the site because with redirects and links. READ THE ADDRESS. P. S this isn't really a debate but i figured I might as well lend a hand.", "title": "Video games", "pid": "6706fda2-2019-04-18T11:21:04Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.36691284179688}, {"text": "I don't see how adulthood has anything to do with it. These simulations of cigarettes can be a good replacement for those who are addicted to tabacco. \"The primary therapeutic use of nicotine is in treating nicotine dependence in order to eliminate smoking with the damage it does to health. Controlled levels of nicotine are given to patients through gums, dermal patches, lozenges, electronic/substitute cigarettes or nasal sprays in an effort to wean them off their dependence. Studies have found that these therapies increase the chance of success of quitting by 50 to 70%, Though reductions in the population as a whole has not been demonstrated.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Hookah pens contains far less to no nicotine. http://www.ireachcontent.com... http://www.zamnesia.com...", "title": "Use of E-Cigarettes/Hookah Pens in underage citizens", "pid": "71cb6b31-2019-04-18T14:53:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.31475830078125}, {"text": "My opponent has forfeited all the rounds.", "title": "Smoking Vapor Pens should be legal for kids 16 and up", "pid": "5405a0ae-2019-04-18T15:26:30Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.3142547607422}, {"text": "I think I'll forfeit this one and start another one, Is that okay with you? I will challenge you personally. I'm sorry, I didn't post this correctly.", "title": "Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned.", "pid": "65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.31362915039062}, {"text": "Lester Grinspoon, M.D., Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School. \"Puffing Is the Best Medicine,\" Los Angeles Times. May 5, 2006. - \"[T]here is very little evidence that smoking marijuana as a means of taking it represents a significant health risk. Although cannabis has been smoked widely in Western countries for more than four decades, there have been no reported cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana. I suspect that a day's breathing in any city with poor air quality poses more of a threat than inhaling a day's dose -- which for many ailments is just a portion of a joint -- of marijuana.\"[23]", "title": "The health risks of smoking marijuana are relatively minor", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00132-000", "bm25_score": 212.29307556152344}, {"text": "Um... Forfeit? I'll see what my opponent does next round.", "title": "Smoking Vapor Pens should be legal for kids 16 and up", "pid": "5405a0ae-2019-04-18T15:26:30Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.25997924804688}, {"text": "In order to ban cigarettes completely my opponent needs to explain why we should get rid of all types of cigarettes. Since I've proven at least one type of cigarette that wont bother others or induce a lot of health concerns, Then we should not ban all cigarettes. My opponent has never tackled the fact that the government will raise taxes exponentially to make up for the lost revenue of 19 billion a year. Silence equals concurrence. With that being said my opponent hasn't rebutted any of my points. E- cigarettes don't cause cancer,lung disease nor does it produce an offensive smell that will bother others. Since I have proven a good form of cigarette so say, since I have proven the detriment of banning this I believe that con should win.", "title": "Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places", "pid": "9e1b2402-2019-04-18T18:23:00Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.2371368408203}, {"text": "Just as we can trust fans to avoid screaming directly into their friends or other fans' ears, we can generally trust them to avoid blowing their vuvuzelas directly into the ears of fans and colleagues.", "title": "Fans can be trusted to use vuvuzelas safely.", "pid": "6df5d158-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00057-000", "bm25_score": 212.16038513183594}, {"text": "Well, I agree, But smoking normal cigarettes is still worse.", "title": "Juul Is Bad.", "pid": "17e9941d-2019-04-18T11:19:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.1451873779297}, {"text": "I believe that smoking should be banned.", "title": "Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned.", "pid": "65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.1172332763672}, {"text": "If something is banned then obviously it will cause a effect on things. If we ban smoking completely, then we will loose 19 billion dollars a year.....http://www.nytimes.com...If we ban smoking completely then our government might not be able to fund welfare, and or some other operations of state. Also if we ban this then the government might exponentially raise taxes to make up for this lost revenue.part 2....My opponent agrees with this point and doesn't refute it. e- cigarettes don't produce the smell, or smoke as regular cigarettes. So there is no second hand smoke so say to worry about. Also e- cigarettes don't pose as many health risks.Unless he can defeat all my points then con should win.", "title": "Smoking should be banned from outdoor public places as well as indoor public places", "pid": "9e1b2402-2019-04-18T18:23:00Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.11099243164062}, {"text": "My doctor, Dr. Faux Falls M.D. told me several times that smoking is indeed good for the health, as it has many chemicals which induce cancer, something he told me is very good for the skin, teeth, heart, lungs, bladder, liver and throat. Since he first told me that, I have begun smoking and have gotten skin cancer, which, according to Dr. Falls, improves my health!", "title": "Smoking is good for health!", "pid": "96aec3d0-2019-04-18T15:26:50Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.1055908203125}, {"text": "Thank you for accepting my challenge.Mining ventilation is a significant safety concern for many miners. Without clean air, the miners might suffocate, and harmful gases, dust and heat may cause injury or death. Ignited methane gas explosions are very dangerous and common, which causes lethal coal dust explosions which can also bring along problems such as silicosos, asbestosis and pneumoconiosis. Also, the gases might displace air, causing asphyxaction. All these breathing and lung problems have a huge safety impact on the miners.Thank you.", "title": "Mining is relatively safe.", "pid": "75d64ceb-2019-04-18T16:32:57Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.0759735107422}, {"text": "Adults and other smokers should not be allowed to smoke in a vehicle that has children , or young adults inside. Lung cancer not only affects smokers, but second hand smokers as well. I agree it should be up to the smoker if he/she smokes if they know the consequence and health risks involved but their choices should not affect another human beings health, especially a young child who may not have an understanding of how un-healthy smoking may be, or maybe too afraid to speak up and asked the smoker not to smoke. In a vehicle, the smoke would be allowed to circulate in the car, allowing more of the toxic materials in the smoke to affect a child. This should not be allowed. A child's body is still forming, not just on the outside but on the inside too. Smoke could damage and/or hurt a child's still forming tissue in his/her lungs.", "title": "Adults smoking in a vehicle with children inside", "pid": "e2d0281b-2019-04-18T17:28:40Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.05979919433594}, {"text": "As soon as you specified what kind of substance was being smoked, I as well as most people knew where this is headed. You're advocating for the claim that smoking is good for you, Implying that this activity is beneficial for everyone. Here are my points on why your argument is not viable and justifiable: Your opening segment seems okay and solid. It is a possibility that there are many negative misconceptions associated with smoking cigarettes. Whether are true or not will be determined within this debate and we will both be the judges so I'd appreciate it if you don't troll. Your own testimonial on smoking is subjective and anecdotal. It is also not credible due to the fact that you are, Supposedly, A twelve-year-old kid and that your view on smoking may not be representative or the majority opinion within the smoking community. If you can give me a survey that supports your rhetoric that most smokers love smoking cigarettes and that it's good for them, Then it can be approved. You have established the proven fact that cigarettes alleviate Ulcerative Colitis and that it is not a cause of conditions like Ulcerative Colitis. Superficially, This point effectively supports your claim that smoking cigs are a good way to improve your health. However, If we were to assess the number/efficacy of positive effects in comparison to the number/severity of negative effects in smoking cigarettes, We would conclude that the negatives outnumber and outweigh the positives by a lot. Positive effects include but are not limited to: a false/deluded sense of stress relief and relaxation, Alleviation of IBDs, Low risk of obesity, Lowers risk of Parkinson's disease. Negative effects include: lung cancer, Mouth cancer, Throat cancer, Milanosis, Tooth loss, Tooth decay, \"Smoker's Face\"(premature wrinkling and sallow coloration) birth defects, Stenosis, Periodontitis, Second-hand smoking, Addiction, Stress exacerbation, Increase risk of engaging in substance abuse, Etc. Evidently, The cons to smoking completely overshadow the minute number of pros when it comes to smoking. Furthermore, There is a multitude of alternatives for cigarettes in regards to the list of positive effects of smoking. Substitutes such as taking a break/chewing gum/listening to music/meditation, Medication, Exercise/liposuction/eating healthy, Etc. Are all great ways to reap those benefits in contrast to smoking. And what's so great about these alternatives is that they don't come with the many dangers and lethal side effects that smoking cigarettes have. While tobacco was the basis for the economy that our nation was built off from, It is not the representation of our nation's ethics or at least something that we shouldn't be proud of. Slavery was part of our economy for a while, But we shouldn't uphold that legacy. Besides, We can still use tobacco without putting it in cigs.", "title": "Smoking is good for you, And I love it!", "pid": "545bc510-2019-04-18T11:17:42Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.04434204101562}, {"text": "I know all powerful commands and laws come in groups of multiples of 5 but let's simplify what you're claiming. First, preserving clean air and pollution are shocking similar so let's just combine 5 and 1 to clean air and decrease littering. Next, 2 and 3 are very close so let's cut that down to just what 3 says. And 4 just plain won't work as an ex smoker I know that it will just make me smoke more in one designated place instead of smoking less. So were down to two points of preventing pollution and littering along with attempting to decrease health effects on non smokers. Most smokers don't just throw down their cig. buds if there's an ash tray within a seeable distance it will be placed there. Besides littering is already a fine and doesn't need to be specified to cigarettes. Now, as for pollution a hummer will pump out as much pollution as a cigarette will in ten minutes just by driving by. So treating this as a universal law we must ban any vehicle with as great pollution as a hummer. Moving in to the next portion of your argument (preventing effects to non-smokers) I have already stated that exhaust fumes are just as harmful as exposure to exhaust fumes and a few other activities that involve releasing gas like burning trash. So not only should burning trash be banned but we should ban driving cars with less than 20mpg. My last point will be that if a person wants to smoke, as smoking is an addiction and can by urge make you break the law, they will smoke. Just as anti-drug laws have almost no effect on drug use; smokers will smoke as they please with more awareness on officers a around them. In my experience they will make sure they wouldn't be bothering people but will still smoke of they feel the urge and avoid bothering those people by moving a few feet away.", "title": "Smoking is not a \"right.\"", "pid": "4af5bc02-2019-04-18T16:58:32Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.02169799804688}, {"text": "In conclusion, I would like to show that every single one of my round two (arguments) points were dropped. Only my rebuttals (round 3) were argued. This means my opponent concedes that if a smoking ban occurs:-Cancer rates will drop significantly-Deaths will drop significantly-Dangerous house fires will drop significantly-Risks of second hand smoke will drop significantly-Infants will be safer, as well as children and elderly-Workplaces will be safer, roads will be safer, and people would be safer overall-Animal testing will be (slightly) reduced-Decrease wildlife deaths-Decrease money spent on litter-Decrease contamination throughout U. S-Decrease pet consumption-SIGNIFICANTLY decrease litter-Water and plants would be saferSo in conclusion, my opponent concedes to all of my arguments. Therefore, I have met my BoP. Thank you for reading, and thanks to my opponent for the debate.", "title": "Your Choice", "pid": "f7c3771f-2019-04-18T16:48:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.01715087890625}, {"text": "If you are not going to debate me, don't debate me.In the meantime, Mr. Conway Twitty.http://www.youtube.com...", "title": "Alchohol and Smoking are More Dangerous than Marijuana", "pid": "4bac1b88-2019-04-18T16:56:39Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.01443481445312}, {"text": "I forget that my opponent is functioning on extremely limited time. In the interest of brevity, I will offer only an idealistic summation of my belief. Indeed, my opponent has presented strong evidence that if one was interested in preserving one's health and well-being one would not smoke, and that tobacco products should be regulated to the extent that their use does not effect other individuals who choose not to consumethem. However, this debate regards whether smoking should be banned. My opponent has not presented evidence that a well informed individual (knowing of the risks) should lose his individual autonomy to choose to \"self destruct\" as it were. I ask that further argumentation be framed through this contention- that my belief stems from the ideal that man's autonomy supersedes his personal safety (safety when it violates his own will).", "title": "Contender's Choice", "pid": "6459134b-2019-04-18T16:03:36Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.98593139648438}, {"text": "NotesThanks for this debate. Writing this round has been fun and I hope the next few are equally so.This debate is unavoidably going to be about sources; the method of determining safety of a substance is through research.I will refer to Pro's sources as numbers, by the order they were presented in.DefinitionsMarijuana\"1: hemp 1a, c\"[1]Alcohol\"1b: drink (as whiskey or beer) containing ethanol\"[2]Tobacco\"1: any of a genus (Nicotiana) of chiefly American plants of the nightshade family with viscid foliage and tubular flowers; especially: a tall erect annual tropical American herb (North tabacum) cultivated for its leaves\"[3]Carcinogen\"a substance or agent causing cancer\"[4]RefutationParagraph One (Intro)Just the actual level of danger matters here.Paragraph Two (Benefits)Excerpt from his source 1:“We know that there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes,” researcher Donald Tashkin, MD, of UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine tells WebMD.His own source states that marijuana has just as many or more agents known to cause cancer as cigarettes (not pure tobacco). His source also claims that it is not clear why they achieved these results.Unfortunately, his source 2 provides very little information about the actual study conducted. Regardless, Cancer.org states that \"[e]ven though placebos do not act on the disease, they seem to have an effect in about 1 out of 3 patients.\"[5] So I propose that it is likely his study showed less effectiveness than a placebo. Marijuana reduces ability of bronchial cells to fight tumors, too.[7]Paragraph Three (Other Forms)Pro claims that safety of marijuana smoke says nothing of the safety of its other forms, but fails to show reason as to why vaporized marijuana or marijuana edibles are healthier. Also, this debate is about marijuana, not THC. Pro states that just the THC is extracted to make these other forms. No argument there, but THC is not marijuana. It is one ingredient. Pro is only conditionally supporting the resolution. The marijuana evaluated here should be that smoked from a pipe; it contains all the ingredients of marijuana without extra from a marijuana cigarette or other form of delivery.Paragraph Four (The Dangers of Marijuana)We have to worry about marijuana when smoked. Pro admitted himself that the vapors and edibles are just THC, not marijuana. Many, many more things can be said about the dangers of marijuana use than increased heart rate and cognitive and physical impairment. We have to worry about lung cancer, as marijuana is 20x more likely to cause lung cancer than cigarettes.[6] It also has twice as many carcinogens as cigarettes.[6] So cancer in general is a danger. Marijuana reduces ability of bronchial cells to fight tumors and other possible issues, suppresses the rest of the immune system in general, and speeds up the progression of HIV to AIDS.[7] The article goes on to state that \"[i]t has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia.\" Wow, seems quite a bit worse than just stating, without any sources, that the only issues are \"increase[d] heart rate\" and \"cognitive and physical impairment\".Paragraph Five (Heart Rate Increase)He states that all three substances lead to this. No need for argumentation here.Paragraph Six (\"Cognitive and Physical Impairment\")TobaccoPro states that [p]hysical impairments from [marijuana] are... slightly higher compared to tobacco\" with no other comments on tobacco from him here.AlcoholHe provides no sources to state any physical impairments of alcohol use. So I will ignore the claim that alcohol impairs people physically, as it is unwarranted. Onto the second issue of driving. His source 5 only finds a correlation between states that have medical marijuana and lower traffic-related deaths. If there's a correlation between a society in which people drink juice and a society in which serial killers are rampant, does drinking juice lead to serial killings? His source 6 states that the study \"did find that drivers were more easily distracted when under the influence.\" This is hugely important. Distracted driving accounted for 5,474 deaths and 448,000 injuries in 2009.[8] And the problem is already getting worse without the widespread use of marijuana. There was a 4% increase in the proportion of distracted drivers in fatal crashes from 2005 to 2009.[8] Oh, and also, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states that 6.8% of drivers involved in collisions test positive for THC (once again, not synonymous with marijuana, but a major ingredient of it).[13]Paragraph Seven (Addiction)First of all, nicotine is not addictive.[9][10][11] Onto Pro's claims about alcohol. Because he has no sources, it is hard to determine how addictive alcohol is when it \"has been studied to also show physical dependency [sic].\" I assert that it isn't very addictive with alcohol dependence in 5% of the population[12]. This is opposed to marijuana, with 9% of the total number who will use it, 17% (1 in 6) of the teenagers who start in their teenage years, and 25-50% of daily users estimated to develop dependence.[13]Paragraph Eight (Summary)Fatal marijuana overdoses have been reported.[14] All refuted previously.Paragraph Nine (Types of Tobacco)I'm talking about tobacco, not substances containing tobacco.\"Dip\" tobaccoContains nuclear waste, cyanide, more[15]CigarettesCommon knowledge is that they have more than tobaccoE-cigarettesDo not contain tobacco[16]My CaseObservationThis debate is of which is the safest of the three drugs. If the answer is marijuana, Pro wins. If the answer is alcohol or tobacco, Con wins.C1: Gateway DrugI made a table with statistics of [17]http://tinyurl.com...C2: Dangers of MarijuanaSubpoint A: Medical· 20x more likely to cause lung cancer than cigarettes, twice as many carcinogens[6]· Reduces ability of bronchial cells to fight tumors and other possible issues[7]· Suppresses the rest of the immune system, too[7]· Speeds up progression of HIV to AIDS.[7]· Causes many mental disorders, such as acute toxic psychosis, delusions, depersonalization, depression, flashbacks, panic attacks, paranoia, uncontrollable aggressiveness[7]Subpoint B: OtherApply all non-medical statistics and arguments about the danger of marijuana used in refutationC3: Alcohol and TobaccoApply all statistics and arguments about alcohol and tobacco used in refutationC4: LegalThis one's simple. One should and will not be arrested for use of alcohol and tobacco if one is 21 or older.Unfortunately, I am out of characters to use. In the next few rounds, I intend on elucidating my contention 2, subpoint B and my contention 3. Back to Pro.Again, I thank Pro for the fun debateReferences[1] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marijuana[2] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alcohol[3] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tobacco[4] merriam-webster.com/dictionary/carcinogen[5] cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/TreatmentTypes/placebo-effect[6] foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326309,00.html[7] cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html[8] distraction.gov/research/PDF-Files/Distracted-Driving-2009.pdf[9] statepress.com/archive/node/7194[10] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Psychoactive_effects[11] tinyurl.com/tdiup[12] niaaa.nih.gov/Resources/DatabaseResources/QuickFacts/AlcoholDependence/Pages/abusdep2.aspx[13] drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/marijuana4.html[14] drug-overdose.com/marijuana.htm[15] uihealthcare.com/topics/smoking/smokelesstobacco.html[16] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette[17] marijuanaaddictiontreatment.org/statistics-facts.html", "title": "Marijuana is safer to consume than both alcohol and tobacco", "pid": "f77858a3-2019-04-18T18:32:57Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.9616241455078}, {"text": "There was a time when I completely agreed with you. I understand how vaccines are supposed to work. I understand how herd immunity is supposed to work and how we are supposed to have eradicated many diseases via vaccination. The problem is things are always what they seem. Remember the tobacco companies? Everyone thought cigarettes were okay or even healthy. Doctors smoked, yet later we found out cigarettes were anything but healthy. There is always a chance you are correct, but simply spewing statistics won't change my mind. If you really want to change my mind, watch the three videos and tell me why they are wrong. My predictions based upon empirical evidence is that vaccines will be just like cigarettes. I don't know what your implying with your last sentence. I will tell you that my intentions are good and I want only the best for everyone. https://thinkprogress.org...", "title": "Putin banned western vaccines in Russia.", "pid": "71aefc55-2019-04-18T12:55:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.95498657226562}, {"text": "Again, please do not vote on this. If you do, you are a jerk. This is essentially a debate where we decided that there was too much confusion to debate the topic. I will report any votes on this debate since we both agree to a no contest.", "title": "Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned.", "pid": "65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.94375610351562}, {"text": "Although I see your reasoning, let me tell you a couple things here buddy oh palSmoking from a bong has basically the same effects (if not more negatives) than smoking from normal cigarettes [1]. According to a \"recent study,\" apparently \"water pipe smokers showed respiratory symptoms nearly as severe as cigarette smokers\" [2].I can't help but notice what you said either -\"i get dizzy\" - no matter what you're doing, being dizzy is not a good thing. You get dizzy from the herb and that feels awesome, but it's really not \"good.\" \"I have puked doing this a couple of times tho\" - this in itself should kind of tell you what you're doing isn't that great. Puking from tobacco is not good. The filter in normal cigarettes is a lot better put together than just a water filter.Hope I helped?![1] http://www.forbes.com...[2] http://www.torontosun.com...", "title": "Can anyone give me a reason why smoking tobacco out of a water bong or pipe is worse than normal cig", "pid": "16b328ec-2019-04-18T15:13:42Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.89031982421875}, {"text": "Government propaganda and other conditioning have led people to believe that marijuana is a dangerous substance, when in actuality, it is safer than both alcohol and tobacco. It is stupid of anyone to think that smoking any kind of plant matter is not dangerous. Any smoke being inhaled into your lungs is in some way bad for you. Sure some substances create much more toxic smoke, but smoking should not be seen as harmless. While saying this, it should be noted that marijuana smoke has been researched and seen as far less dangerous than tobacco smoke. Many studies show that there is no relation in cancer and long-term smoked marijuana(http://www.foxnews.com...). Some studies even show a decrease in cancer tumors showing that it may possibly help slow down cancer(http://www.sciencedaily.com...) It is still true though, that marijuana smoke is in no way 100 percent healthy. This does not say ANYTHING about the safety of marijuana or the compounds contained in the plants. There are many more options of consuming marijuana. These include vaporization and edible forms. Vaporization is heating up the plant to a temperature just enough to vaporize the thc/cbd in the plant, but not enough to burn the plant. This means no smoke will be created at all. Edibles involve baking the marijuana to extract the thc into food such as brownies or butter to be added to food. Now without smoke to worry about, what is dangerous at all about marijuana? Two things can be said. A) It increases your heart rate B) cognitive and physical impairment. Since we are relating the safety of marijuana to alcohol and tobacco, the first argument does not really say anything. This is because alcohol and tobacco also increase your heart rate(http://alcoholism.about.com...)(http://www.acde.org...) The second argument could say that marijuana causes cognitive and physical impairments. Short term memory loss is created with marijuana, but it is only temporary and returns after the drug leaves the body. Physical impairments from it are at a much less extreme than alcohol but slightly higher compared to tobacco. Many people just assume because someone is \"high\", it must be like they are \"drunk\", so of course they can't drive. This is untrue though. Studies have proven that there is very little, if any driving problems associated with marijuana.(http://articles.businessinsider.com...)(http://www.insideline.com...). The last negative health effect associated with drugs would be addiction. Nicotine contained in tobacco is one of the most physically addicting substances that is naturally produced on earth. Alcohol, while less than nicotine, has been studied to also show physical dependency. It is not known the physical dependency of marijuana. It is known that if any at all, it is far less serious than of tobacco or alcohol. People that get addicted to marijuana almost always do so because of a psychological addiction, not physical. You can be psychologically addicted to ANYTHING so this is just a way of saying that they have addictive personality. So basically, the only negative health affects from marijuana in vaporized or edible form are only a increased heart rate and temporary \"high\" effects that do not effect driving nearly as much(if at all) as alcohol. It should be noted that overdose from marijuana resulting in death is impossible. Lets compare this to the negative effects of alcohol. This includes DEATH from overdose, long term kidney damage, loss of brain cells, coma from overdose, large amount of physical dependence, large driving risk, etc. Now lets compare this to tobacco. Note that this is based on smokeless tobacco, where smoke tobacco would of course be more dangerous, but I have to be fair due to talking about vapozed and edible marijuana. Smokeless tobacco comes in either \"dip\" which is still VERY dangerous and causes cancer(http://www.cancer.gov...). It can also be vaporized in \"e-cigarettes\". This is much safer, but nicotine itself is also dangerous, and you would be receiving nicotine. Using these e-cigarretes, the safest form of tobacco has shown to STILL cause cancer(http://health.usnews.com...). It also can cause hives, difficulty breathing, and vomiting(http://www.livestrong.com...). Knowing this information, I find it impossible to believe that marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco.", "title": "Marijuana is safer to consume than both alcohol and tobacco", "pid": "f77858a3-2019-04-18T18:32:57Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.87301635742188}, {"text": "Well, forfeit then .", "title": "Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned.", "pid": "65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.87208557128906}, {"text": "I apologize for my forfeit of the last round as I haven't been on in a few days. My opponent also forfeited a round so I suggest that neither of us receive the conduct vote. To summarize, my opponent has merely ranted about how dangerous cigarretes are without regarding how truly dangerous are other products or things advertized such as automobiles or the navy. My opponent also tried to argue that nothing good comes out of cigarretes except for short term pleasure. I don't actually see this as much of an argument in that if we just extend the time scale that would be true for pretty much anything. This argument seems a bit relative to me. My opponent brought arguments which I have refuted and has not provided any legitamite reason for cigarette adds to be banned from the media.", "title": "Cigarette Adds Should Be Banned From The Media", "pid": "eef1da7a-2019-04-18T18:52:32Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.8708953857422}, {"text": "Should the same laws regarding cigarettes be used for the use of smokeless tobacco? I say no. Personally, I'm a supporter of let smokers smoke, but I do understand why they tax cigarettes more heavily than other items. Cigarettes have been proven to harm people other than the person smoking. Second hand smoke has been linked to lung cancer and various other health problems. Third hand smoke is the stuff that lingers on the clothes of a smoker, and it also can cause health problems, especially to infants. However, smokeless tobacco only harms the person who is using the smokeless tobacco. I find it disgusting, but there is no reason to tax smokeless tobacco as heavily as cigarettes and other forms of smoking tobacco. I understand, smokeless tobacco is just as harmful to the person using it as cigarettes, but that's a personal prerogative. If the user chooses to risk his/her life using a product proven to cause gum/mouth cancer and gum disease, then why stop them? They are hurting no one but themselves.", "title": "Smokeless Tobacco", "pid": "11115bac-2019-04-18T18:32:14Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.85096740722656}, {"text": "I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE NEW MICHAEL MYERS MOVIE! I'm going the first night it's out. I love all the Halloween movies except # 3 Like you mentioned science has shown that cigarettes can be bad BUT so is everything else. Too much of anything will eventually kill you. There was a kid last year who drank 12 Nestle ice teas a day for 6 months and completely destroyed his kidneys because of an active ingredient in the tea that crystallized in his kidneys. Now the kid is 22 and will be on dialysis for the rest of his life. Eating too much bacon can cause heart disease. Eating too much of one item can cause stomach cancers. Moderation to anything is the key. And tobacco is the same. If you are smoking less than 6 cigarettes a day it will hardly do anything in your body. I told my doctor I smoke 4 cigarettes a day and he just shrugged his shoulders. It is ironic how many doctors and nurses say cigarettes are bad, Yet if you look in the smoking areas just on the outside of hospital properties they are all smoking. I see doctors smoke all the time, You would think they would have the most knowledge on the subject of tobacco consumption. Smoking can only be bad if you chain smoke over a pack a day, Otherwise having a cigarette, Your body gets rid of the toxins within 2 hours of smoking. We have toxins in Coca Cola, Like sulphuric acid, Citric acid sodium citrate which are very harmful to the body in mass quantities yet nobody is complaining about Coca Cola. Cigarettes are no worse than alcohol, And are way better than meth, Heroin fentanyl, Ecstasy and cocaine. The key to cigarettes as in anything else is moderation. Cigarettes are not bad, And I have pointed out some benefits. I believe all the negative info on cigarettes is just media fear mongering. Cigarettes will never go away just like alcohol, People enjoy it and some may frown but in the end it's a personal choice. mic drop", "title": "Smoking is good for you, And I love it!", "pid": "545bc510-2019-04-18T11:17:42Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.84091186523438}, {"text": "I have done this debate a few times, with less-than-challenging opponents. This debate is open to anyone, however please only accept if you are of the opinion that vaccines are bad or you consider yourself to be an 'anti-vaxxer'. I will borrow from my previous debates in my opening round, and from then on any responses will be driven entirely by this debate. - 10k characters- 4 rounds- 72-hour argumentation- 10-day votingThe resolution is as follows: On balance, vaccination is both safe and effective. I will contend that it amounts to criminal negligence not to vaccinate your children, and that the anti-vaccination movement should be held accountable for murder and crimes against humanity.", "title": "Resolved: Vaccination is, on balance, both safe and effective", "pid": "fd54e53a-2019-04-18T15:45:23Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.8289031982422}, {"text": "For the argument about the topic of asthma, you mentioned that 3,285 deaths are caused by asthma per year. Most asthma attacks can be brought under control. And not all of these deaths are caused by second-hand smoke. Asthma attacks can be triggered by certain things which includes stress, pollens, perfumes, food additives, and much more. Tobacco smoke is only one thing that triggers it. Pollens can be found year round, but sadly we cannot ban those from traveling into public places. We also cannot stop pollutants that trigger asthma attacks. You mentioned while countering my second argument about \"The highest attainable standard of health as a fundamental right of every human being, \"as said by the World Health Organization Constitution. Yes, everyone does have the right to live a full and healthy life. Smoking in public places may damage a human's health, but second-hand smoke will not damage you as much as things we breathe in, absorb and smell all the time. People smoke outside in public all the time and is their choice as a human being, they want to have their \"highest attainable standard\" of health. They also have that right as well. There are usually warning signs to places that allow smoking indoors, so it is the fault of the person coming into the place and inhaling that smoke if they do not read the warning sign. Your rhetorical question more than likely puts that effect and emphasis on why not kill yourself if you smoke. The logic that I was following was the logic that you were sending to me. The electronic cigarettes, rechargeable or not, can be made even better, which includes the electronic cigarette explosions. As soon as electronic cigarettes get more attention, the better and safer they will be. For my conclusion, smoking is a problem that does require attention but can be easily solved by supply and demand. The consumers of the cigarettes have the control on how the rules will be pulled and what will be made in the cigarette industry. America cannot put an ultimate ban on cigarettes in public places because that is what runs America. More than 20% of America smokes cigarettes, and since the taxes on cigarettes are high, cigarette taxes bring in the most revenue. America will always be great, but even greater if we share the innovation and technology of electronic cigarettes and safer cigarettes for the public. If we can do this, this particular argument wouldn't even exist. Sources: http://www.everydayhealth.com... http://dailycaller.com...", "title": "Smoking in public has to be banned", "pid": "3ffe6378-2019-04-18T13:42:05Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.8229217529297}, {"text": "Cigarettes should be banned!", "title": "Toxic Smoke", "pid": "4e7e2b83-2019-04-18T18:31:10Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 211.8145294189453}, {"text": "To pro: It is okay if you take your time, as long as I finish this debate by July fourth, then all will be good.As far my rebuttal, well, a well-informed individual knows not to smoke and has thus chosen to limit their own freedom of choice. Why, the banning of smoke will have absolutely no effect upon those individuals' choices. Don't ban smoke? They don't smoke. Ban smoke? They don't smoke.I extend arguments about cigarette's dangerous chemicals, addictiveness, pretty much 92% loss of freedom of choice, showing the longetivity of cigarette's harm, second-hand smoking, thrid-hand smoking, and finally the financial burden of the families. All of these massive arguments have yet to been refuted. I ask my opponent to take his time on his next round and try to refute these arguments.", "title": "Contender's Choice", "pid": "6459134b-2019-04-18T16:03:36Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.81361389160156}, {"text": "What I mean is that cigars and pipes are 100% tobacco. Most cigarettes are not 100% tobacco and contain 400+ other chemicals. The relevance is that they are all types of tobacco smoking. https://www.rstreet.org... No, we didn't agree that we're only talking about cigarettes, rather pure tobacco as a whole. The old age thing was just a joke, but... https://www.dallasnews.com... A very nice video you should watch:", "title": "Smoking Tobacco Isn't Bad.", "pid": "d291cb2f-2019-04-18T11:24:40Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.8125}, {"text": "Walking outside in a polluted city like San Francisco or Karachi or LA or a city in china(16 of the world's most polluted cities are in China) [[http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028,00.html]], you are already damaging your lungs from all the CO(carbon monoxide fumes) put in the air from car emissions and all the people exhaling Carbon Dioxide(why are very polluted BIG cities, very populated too? people use cars and aeroplanes/airplanes(used by people vacationing to places with cleaner air and traveling businessmen) which cause a lot more pollution than cars[[http://www.ehponline.org/qa/105-12focus/focus.html]]). Cigarettes release chemicals that are bad of course, but they are a preferable means of getting your smoke. Electronic vaporizing cigarettes do not produce second hand smoke and are hugely unpopular but won't be for long. It's better to be the smoker than to be the person whose face is being smoked into(statistically passive smokers are at a greater risk) .", "title": "Cigarettes are just as bad as cars.", "pid": "68d8ce13-2019-04-19T12:45:16Z-00027-000", "bm25_score": 211.79132080078125}, {"text": "Caution! Frequent use of the words \"poop\" \"pooping\". Viewers discretion is advised. Ok. Smoking Kills Ok, you have said that you can smoke when you poop. Smoking kills because it introduces tar and other harmful substances into your lung system and then causes those substances to deposit in your airways which in effect, restricts airflow - which can cause breathing problems and sometimes death. In some cases, it can cause a cell mutation in your lungs- possibly then creating lung cancer. Lung cancer can Kill. Pooping in that sense is therefore bad because it is providing more possiblities for you to contribute to a possible death. http://www.youtube.com... Why people don't nag you when you are pooping: Have you ever wondered why no one will talk to you while you are pooping. Because it would be awkward for that person. Many people view pooping as a matter which is regarded in a sense of privacy. Many people also dont find pooping to be the most pleasant of experiences. People wont generally talk to another person when pooping because it's just considered basic manners and common within both people This is all for now.", "title": "To poop or not to poop, that is the question..", "pid": "11696259-2019-04-18T15:44:43Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.7836151123047}, {"text": "This should be brief so I'll jump right in. My first argument can be summarized with this quote from the American Lung Association's website, \"We caution the public against smoking marijuana because of the risks it poses to lung health. \"[1] Marijuana contains 33 chemicals and cigarettes contain more than 7000. [2] While cigarettes are obviously worse, inhaling any chemicals will still harms your lungs. When the same amount of marijuana and tobacco are smoked, marijuana inhalation brings four times as much tar as tobacco into the lungs. [3] Also, people who smoke only marijuana, have more healthcare visits for respiratory conditions compared to nonsmokers. [4] I may put more arguments in later rounds, but I'll leave it at that for now. 1) . http://www.lung.org... 2) . http://www.lung.org... 3) . http://www.snopes.com... via the ALA 4) Polen MR, Sidney S, Tekawa IS, Sadler M, Friedman GD. Health Care Use by Frequent Marijuana Smokers Who Do Not Smoke Tobacco. West J Med. 1993;158(6):596-601.", "title": "Smoking Marijuana Is Bad For You", "pid": "6c84f2de-2019-04-18T14:34:39Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.7822265625}, {"text": "Obviously, tobacco is bad for you. But that doesn't mean it should be banned. People should still have a right to do what they want to themselves. We've given them several warnings. Now, it's up to them to see if they help or harm themselves.One problem that arises from a total and complete smoking ban is this:HOW COULD WE ENFORCE IT?There's really no way we could. It would just be a continuation of the failed war on drugs. Finally, if people want to smoke, they deserve the consequences.", "title": "The Sale of Cigarettes and Tobacco Products Should be Banned- Speed debate", "pid": "1cde3561-2019-04-18T12:03:01Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.7783660888672}, {"text": "http://www.epa.gov...\"Background/Statistics/ConclusionsIn early 1993, EPA released a report (Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders; EPA/600/6-90/006 F) that evaluated the respiratory health effects from breathing secondhand smoke (also called environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)). In that report, EPA concluded that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in adult nonsmokers and impairs the respiratory health of children. These findings are very similar to ones made previously by the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Surgeon General.The EPA report classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, a designation which means that there is sufficient evidence that the substance causes cancer in humans. The Group A designation has been used by EPA for only 15 other pollutants, including asbestos, radon, and benzene. Only secondhand smoke has actually been shown in studies to cause cancer at typical environmental levels. EPA estimates that approximately 3,000 American nonsmokers die each year from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke.Every year, an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 children under 18 months of age get pneumonia or bronchitis from breathing secondhand tobacco smoke. Secondhand smoke is a risk factor for the development of asthma in children and worsens the condition of up to one million asthmatic children.EPA has clear authority to inform the public about indoor air pollution health risks and what can be done to reduce those risks. EPA has a particular responsibility to do everything possible to warn of risks to the health of children.A recent high profile advertising and public relations campaign by the tobacco industry may confuse the American public about the risks of secondhand smoke. EPA believes it's time to set the record straight about an indisputable fact: secondhand smoke is a real and preventable health risk.EPA absolutely stands by its scientific and well documented report. The report was the subject of an extensive open review both by the public and by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), a panel of independent scientific experts. Virtually every one of the arguments about lung cancer advanced by the tobacco industry and its consultants was addressed by the SAB. The panel concurred in the methodology and unanimously endorsed the conclusions of the final report.The report has also been endorsed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the National Cancer Institute, the Surgeon General, and many major health organizations.Classification of Secondhand Smoke as a Known Human (Group A) CarcinogenThe finding that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults is based on the total weight of the available evidence and is not dependent on any single analysis. This evidence includes several important facts.First, it is indisputable that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer in humans, and there is no evidence that there is a threshold below which smoking will not cause cancer.Second, although secondhand smoke is a dilute mixture of mainstream\" smoke exhaled by smokers and sidestream\" smoke from the burning end of a cigarette or other tobacco product, it is chemically similar to the smoke inhaled by smokers, and contains a number of carcinogenic compounds.Third, there is considerable evidence that large numbers of people who do not smoke are exposed to, absorb, and metabolize significant amounts of secondhand smoke.Fourth, there is supporting evidence from laboratory studies of the ability of secondhand smoke both to cause cancer in animals and to damage DNA, which is recognized by scientists as being an instrumental mechanism in cancer development.Finally, EPA conducted multiple analyses on the then-available 30 epidemiology studies from eight different countries which examined the association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer in women who never smoked themselves but were exposed to their husband's smoke. Since the epidemiology studies are the major thrust of the tobacco industry arguments against the EPA report, these studies are examined in more detail below.\"Thanks for debating I guess...I will repost this topic later for a proper debate.", "title": "Smoking should be permitted in public places.", "pid": "9635403c-2019-04-18T17:08:36Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.77154541015625}, {"text": "In my opinion, I think that smoking in public is a very bad idea. I think this because it will affect the health of children,adults and even OAP's.It could cause serious lung problems or even cause them to die.Also, yes they might already be breathing in the pollution but it wouldn't make the problem any better by smoking, if anything it would make it a lot more worse.", "title": "Smoking in Public", "pid": "26e5fa0c-2019-04-18T16:04:06Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.75958251953125}, {"text": "Paul Boxer. \"It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games.\" NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: \"As policy statements from organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have made clear, violent media represents a real and compelling risk to the behavioral and mental health of children and adolescents. In fact, research studies have yielded the conclusion that the effect of violent media consumption on aggressive behavior is in the same ballpark statistically as the effect of smoking on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure on children’s intellectual development and the effect of asbestos on laryngeal cancer.\"", "title": "Violent video games are real danger to young minds.", "pid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00039-000", "bm25_score": 211.75344848632812}, {"text": "Every week there is always something we learn about either by reading or listening to about how bad something is bad for us actually has beneficial health effects. They say coffee, then pizza - and every other day it's red wine and of course the smoking. I ask myself is this really something that is true? We can always find something wrong with everything if we dig and do enough research on it. Why is it that smoking is one that Pro and others emphasize on even when its stated as a fact that coffee is just as bad? Well the answer is: that depends how you interpret the facts. Pro still is geared towards the health and well being of others by stating facts of how much smokers smoke ie; the average, chain etc…. It's been said by physicians and they'll tell you there are few things you can put in your mouth that are worse for you than a cigarette. By smoking does help the obesity issue which we have now a day's especially in children. This is a health issue as well which are commonly more so than ever in kids from their parent's lack of direction. This is one example of major health issues to come at an earlier age. So as adults if we have the choice to smoke that's our choice and we should not look down at for that. There are many people who never smoked and have cancer and died at young ages. So while smoking isn't all that bad we is it ok to support the obesity issue which is just as equal if not worse than smoking? Drug companies are already researching drugs with nicotine in to help these conditions removed from cigarette smoking and the first one has hit the market. The answer to that is the E-Cig. There is still nicotine in the cigarette but has been much more accepted in the world. Why, because, it does remove the bad smells, second-hand smoke, or cancer causing chemicals. World renown doctor, Dr. Panariello even suggested that while utilizing the electronic cigarette, there is virtually no risk of getting cancer. These conclusions come from studies which show that nicotine is about as equally harmful to your health as caffeine. So knowing this why is the coffee so much more acceptable everywhere. We can still smoke with this electronic cigarette now in airports, restaurants, bars, work place, homes etc… some benefits for this is as follows: •No tar, tobacco, carbon monoxide, or ash. •Get the same amount of nicotine as a regular cigarette. •Each cartridge costs less than $2 and is equivalent to an entire pack of cigarettes. •You can save over $1,000 each year. •You won't \"smell\" like a smoker any longer. •Different flavors are available. •No more second-hand smoke In my conclusion the Pro should stop judging smokers. It's just that simple. http://www.healthreportsdaily.com... Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com... http://www.guardian.co.uk...", "title": "Why Smoking Cigarette is bad for a person well being", "pid": "8a8904c0-2019-04-18T18:21:52Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.75100708007812}, {"text": "1. Most video games aren't multiplayer. Skyrim, a popular game, is an extremely solitary experience. I've wasted hours completing idiotic quests as my social skills declined. 2. So can cigarettes, but it doesn't matter because, in the end, they cause more pain than they are worth. 3. These studies are pretty sketchy, and the authors were probably avid gamers attempting to justify their useless hobby. Having faster reactions and some largely useless skill is not a really of significant benefit, and, as you can see, there also exists numerous reports based on empirical data that have found a serious link with obesity and violent behavior. GG.", "title": "Video Games Are Good for You", "pid": "d5fac21c-2019-04-18T15:06:25Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.74749755859375}, {"text": "I would encourage nobody to vote on this debate. You don't deserve a \"loss\" and I don't deserve a \"win\" when there wasn't really a debate. If you post an new debate and I am opposed to your position, then I will accept. That said, if your position is clear, then we might actually agree and thus not have a reason to debate. :)", "title": "Smoking (All types, Including marijuana and Vapor) should be banned.", "pid": "65de0e0f-2019-04-18T14:18:27Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.7431640625}, {"text": "I would like to begin my arguement with a theory. A family is very concious about their health. When they go to a restaurant, there are ussually two sides, smoking and non-smoking. they would obviously choose the non-smoking side. what if the only thing separating these to sides was a three foot barrier. they would still have a high chance of being affected by the smoke that could easily cross over the barrier to where they are sitting. EPA has discovered that 3,000 adults that do not smoke die because they are near people that do smoke. This affect can be even greater on teens because at least 10 million teens live with one or MORE family member that smokes. EPA also states that children with asthma are greatly affected by second hand smoke. also, if the teens see their parents smoking or an older person smoking in a public area, they would eventually think that it is okay to smoke and lead to circle of smoking in these areas. this could also help in the decrease of smokers and decrease the huge amounts of money spent on those who are severly affected by smoking.", "title": "The V.A. legislature should support Governer Kain's inititive to band smoking in restaurants.", "pid": "451f51d7-2019-04-18T19:32:32Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.73883056640625}, {"text": "Unfortunately, this is only a three round debate. I was looking forward to hearing your counter argument to mine. However; Debating with you was enjoyable and interesting to say the least. For my closing statement, nicotine free cigarettes are now an option. This takes away the addictive quality that tobacco products have. My opponent made the error of generalizing all brands as addictive which is simply not true. This makes his argument invalid.", "title": "cigarette equals", "pid": "30fe2424-2019-04-18T12:49:14Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.7371826171875}, {"text": "People should not smoke cigarettes. When placing a bet, one must consider the following: the wager, the risk, and the reward. The wager, in this case, is one's life, the risk being one's health and livelihood, and the reward a momentary relief of stress or a fleeting conversation at a bar. The bet is not in a smoker's favor. Society has been aware of, for many years now, the effects smoking can have on a person. To be quite blunt: smoking kills. It is as simple as that. If one wants to live healthily, they shouldn't smoke. It's been estimated that each cigarette one smokes takes twelve minutes off their life. Even the occasional cigarette adds up against a smoker. Minutes add up to hours, which add up to days, which add up to months, which add up to years. Smokers that smoke upwards of a pack a day are knowingly shaving time off of their already short lives. Eight out of ten causes of lung cancer can be linked to smoking. Therefore, if one is not a smoker, their chances of obtaining lung cancer significantly drop – and vice versa – if one is a smoker, their chances of obtaining lung cancer drastically increases. There is still no direct cure of lung cancer, and those afflicted on average die within five years of becoming ill with the disease. Smoking cigarettes simply isn't worth one's life, and people shouldn't do it. Quite obviously, cigarette is home to the poison nicotine. One drop, which would be seventy milligrams of nicotine injected into an average sized man, is deadly. Cigarettes can contain between .1 and .22 milligrams of nicotine. This alone is not enough to kill someone, but it does have immediate effects, which are an accelerated heartbeat and incessant hand shaking. Eventually with all of the cigarettes some smokers will smoke, they will reach that magic number of seventy milligrams, and their poor health will reflect it. People should not smoke cigarettes. Not only are cigarettes dangerous to a smoker's health, but to a smoker's surroundings, as well. Fires started by lit cigarettes cause an estimated twenty five thousand deaths a year in solely the United States. One can only imagine what that number would be worldwide. These deaths are in vain and absolutely could have been prevented if smokers realize they shouldn't stop. Over four hundred thousand Americans alone die each year due to cigarette related deaths. These annual deaths rack up more than AIDS, illegal drugs, murders, suicides, alcohol, and car wrecks combined. If people didn't smoke, these death tolls in not just the United States, but the whole world would go down. That seems like a pretty good incentive, no? People should not smoke cigarettes. http://1000-reasons.blogspot.com...", "title": "People Shoudn't Smoke Cigarettes", "pid": "95a04ba1-2019-04-18T18:22:05Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 211.73190307617188}, {"text": "Tobacco should be banned slowly. At first, there will be great taxes and high regulations (i.e., no smoking in public), and then it will become stricter. Eventually a total ban of tobacco will come into play. [An individual has a right to decide what goes into their body] According to this argument, it should be okay to do cocaine, cannabis, bath salts, or drinking in excess. It's not just about the smoker, it's about the poor people who must be exposed to secondhand smoke. No one likes secondhand smoke, but most people have no choice because they have to go somewhere or are in a car. If you smoke at home, it could harm your roommate, family, or pets if you have any. You may not care about the health of those around you, but they do. If you live alone (no family or pets), it could harm whoever must walk into your house. According to the CDC, tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death. More than 440,000 tobacco-related deaths occur per year in the US alone. Of these deaths, 49,400 are from secondhand smoke exposure. Other risks: - Various cancers - Laryngectomy -Use of an artificial larynx, AKA robot voice. - Difficulty breathing - Oral problems -Bad teeth -Bad breath - Bad skin - Cardiovascular problems - Brain problems - Reproductive problems Many smokers were naive when they started. They thought \"Oh hey, one won't hurt\", and then they got hooked and regret it. Banning smoking will stop an addiction before it starts. I coundn't find any reliable sources that listed benefits to smoking. Citations: 1. www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/", "title": "Tobacco should be banned", "pid": "7eec3518-2019-04-18T17:15:01Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 211.73130798339844}, {"text": "Pro says that \"smoking harms people around the smokers.\" I already addressed this above and Pro offered no counterarguments. To reiterate my argument, smoking often does not harm people around them (in the case when there is no one around them) or it often only harms people who are aware of the dangers, have accepted the risk as rational adults, and could leave if they wanted to. If Pro wanted to argue that people should not smoke in certain situations in which people can be harmed unwillingly and do not have a reasonable ability to simply leave the situation, then I could agree with that, but that is not the resolution being debated.Pro says that \"The cigarette's flavour might be pleasant for smokers, yes, but deep down, it affects your health in the bad way.\" As explained in my last argument, this is cost benefit analysis. A lot of decisions have both good and bad consequences. As rational beings, people can decide what risks they are willing to take for what benefit.Pro's anecdote proves absolutely nothing. First of all, I have never made the claim that people should smoke around children or others in a situation in which the person who is potentially harmed cannot just leave. Second, Pro provides no evidence that her father's smoking caused her brother's asthma. As a counter-anecdote, I also got asthma as a child. My parents did not smoke nor did my grandparents or anyone around me. Pro also seems to indicate that her brother got asthma because of one particular incident in which smoke got in her brother's face. While exposure to smoke over a period of time may contribute to developing asthma, it is medically ridiculous to claim that someone got asthma because of one time some smoke went in their face.Pro has failed to address anything I wrote in my argument and has simply presented an anecdote which not only does not prove anything at all but also is an example of a situation which my arguments did not condone. Even if I agree that one should not smoke around children (which I do) it does not affect my argument in the slightest.Pro has failed to provide any evidence or arguments that everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.", "title": "Everyone smoking right now should QUIT IT.", "pid": "ff6b14ca-2019-04-18T17:24:35Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 211.72598266601562}, {"text": "In what follows now, I will refute Pro's arguments and show why they are fallacious. Smoking and HealthPro said that smoking can give over 25 health problems to the smoker. In short, smoking is dangerous and harmful for you. However, although it is true that smoking is dangerous and harmful, it is also true that there are many more other things which are dangerous and harmful, like for example rock climbing, rag racing, motorcycles, surfing, eating a lot of fatty foods, and skate boarding. What would be more reasonable: Completely banning all these things, or just give out the information that these things can harm you and then let people decide for themselves how they want to make use of their freedom of choice? You decide. The fact of the matter is that thousands of things are dangerous and harmful for you, but this doesn't justify the government to take away our personal freedom of choice. The government should only protect us from harm which its purpose is to feel pain - not harm which makes you feel good and happy, and which its bad effects will only come to you many decades latter. To ban smoking just because it is dangerous and harmful, would mean that we would have to ban just about nearly everything else too. Moreover, we should allow people to make their own decisions, even decisions that may be harmful to them, because the US value personal freedom. Of course, smokers should not be allowed to smoke in public places where it may be non-smokers, but they should surely have the right to, for example, smoke at their own home if they choose to do so. Smoking and BeautyPro said that smoking costs the smoker's beauty. However, so does coffee. [2] If we are to follow Pro's logic, then coffee should be banned. In fact, numerous things should be banned, because there are numerous other things that can cost your beauty. Moreover, I don't see how we are justified in completely banning something just because it may cost your beauty. Of course, the government should give the information that this and that may cost your beauty, but not taking away people's freedom of choice. It's your beauty, and if you choose to harm your own beauty, then no one should forcibly stop you from doing that. Smoking and MoneyPro said that smoking costs the smoker's a lot of money. However, should something be completely banned just because it costs a lot of money? This is surely an unreasonable and absurd argument. Thousands of things costs a lot of money, but this doesn't mean that we should ban it. If the individual wants to use his own money on things that costs a lot, then that's his choice. Smoking and IQPro said that smoking can lower your IQ. However, if you read the site in which Pro referenced this claim to, you will read that \"It is unclear whether smoking causes IQ levels to drop or whether less intelligent people are simply more inclined to smoke. \" [3] So basically, the site in which Pro referenced his claim that smoking can lower your IQ, doesn't even know for sure if it is smoking itself which lowers IQ or whether less intelligent people are simply just more inclined to smoke. This claim by Pro is therefore extremely weak. Moreover, even if we assume that it is true that smoking can lower your IQ, this wouldn't in way mean that smoking should be banned. Numerous other things can lower your IQ as well, like for example alcohol and artificial food colorings. [4] Should we completely ban all these things too? Of course not. Smoking and FiresPro said that smoking can create fires. Again, although this is true, in no way does this mean that smoking should be banned. If we are going to ban smoking just because it can create fires, then thousands of other things which can create fires should be banned as well. The fact that something can create fires only means that we must be careful with these things, not completely banning them. Smoking and BabiesPro said that smoking can cause stillbirth, premature delivery, and low birth weight to babies if their mothers smoke during pregnancy. This may be true, but this argument cannot show that smoking should be completely banned. If anything, it can only show that smoking should not be used by a women when she is pregnant. Also, remember that there exist men too. Men don't get pregnant and thus, this argument cannot apply to them. Thus, again, this argument fails to show that smoking should be banned in all states in the US, something which means that nobody - be it a women or a man - can smoke. Smoking and ChildrenPro said that smoking can influence children to smoke. But so does, for example, eating a lot of fatty foods, parachuting, motorcycles, surfing etc. Just because something may influence children, that doesn't therefore mean that we should completely ban that thing. If anything, it only means that we should try to smoke less next to children. Moreover, even if a child is influenced to smoke, it would be very hard for that child to smoke since you must be at least 18-years old in order to legally purchase cigarettes in the US. Smoking and DeathPro said that smoking causes approximately 600,000 deaths of passive smoker. It is true that many people die from smoking, but I contend that this doesn't justify completely banning it. Why? Because if we are to ban something just because it may kill you, then numerous other things should be banned too. For example, there is about 6,000,000 auto accidents in the US every year. Does that mean that automobiles should be illegal? People who surfe always have a risk of dying by drowning. Should we therefore ban surfing and not allow people to surfe? Of course not. Although something can kill you, it should be up to the individual if he wants to buy this thing. We should not stop people from taking risks for themselves, and nor should we take away their personal freedom of choice. Smoking and EnvironmentPro said that to produce cigarettes, trees, energy, and water is wasted. But this doesn't mean that we should ban cigarettes. Of course, things are being used in order to produce cigarettes, but this is true in regards to pretty much everything else. For example, a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers - since a lot of trees are used and wasted in order to create papers, should therefore papers be banned? Of course not. Pro also said that smoking causes air, land, and water pollution. Although this is true, there are also several other things that cause air, land, and water pollution. For example, cars and trucks put a lot emissions of gases into the air. All animals release gases, like methane, which also pollutes the air. If we are to follow Pro's logic, then all animals, cars, trucks, and many other things should be banned because they harm the environment. The fact of the matter is that there is numerous things which are bad for our environment, but this doesn't justify banning it. Moreover, even if we ban smoking, this would help the environment in a very low level. Why? Because millions of people would still smoke. Indeed, smoking is so common now that there is hardly any chance that banning it would stop people from smoking, just like banning some kind of drugs haven't stopped millions of people from still using these drugs. In fact, banning something like smoking would only lead to crime, just like it did when certain drugs were banned - and not to mention the prohibition of alcohol in America in the 1920s. [5]The resolution is negated. _______Sources[1] . http://www.forces.org... Though the risks of smoking are highly publicized, the medical benefits of smoking are rarely mentioned. [2] . http://www.realbeauty.com...[3] . http://doctor.ndtv.com...[4] . http://www.increasebrainpower.com...[5] . http://idebate.org...", "title": "Smoking should be banned in all states in the USA", "pid": "bf051ce8-2019-04-18T18:03:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.71627807617188}, {"text": "You make a good argument, although I think you may have misinterpreted mine a little bit. Maybe I wasn't clear, as I often am not. what I meant was that secondhand smoke at close range is not easily avoided, and any exposure at all to secondhand smoke is dangerous. Yes smoking does cause pollution, and yes, you are correct that it is a negligible amount. We do need to reduce pollution, but that is a different debate. Your other point was pretty good. Maybe I could avoid secondhand smoke if they banned smoking in public places, as they have in Utah, because I don't smoke, and I wouldn't allow anyone to smoke within 15 feet of my house, but what if someone was a smoker that had a child. That child would be unfairly disadvantaged. Compounds in tobacco smoke can cause learning deficiencies, among other things, so the child is already placed at a lower level even before they are born. It doesn't seem fair that, until the child moves out or the parent stops smoking, that child is absolutely disadvantaged. It is horrible for me to think about. Until the child knows that smoking is bad, they can't even tell their parents to stop smoking. Let me tell you a story. When I was about 2 (way too long ago), it must have been my dad's 35th birthday party. I don't remember it at all, but from what he tells me, he was smoking a cigar. He didn't smoke often but he sometimes had a cigar at parties. He had always told me that smoking was bad. A 2 year old version of me walked up to him and reminded him of what he always told me. At that moment, he put down the cigar and never smoked anything again. The reason I shared that story was basically just to show that kids are influenced by their parents' behaviors, and they want their parents to be healthy. Luckily, my dad wasn't addicted, but many parents are, and often times, smoking calms people a bit too much. If you have ever read the book \"Kluge\" by Gary Marcus (if you haven't, I strongly recommend it), you will know that a kluge in the human mind puts present above future, so the parent might say to the child that the cigarettes calm them, instead of listening to a 2 year old lecturing them about how smoking kills. On a fairly unrelated note, I'd like to briefly address the issue of how I would outlaw smoking if I were \"his holiness the supreme divine dictator of the United States of America\" (isn't that a nice title!). Obviously you couldn't just pass a bill that outlaws it. People are addicted, so that bill would work almost as well as prohibition. What I would first do is raise cigarette taxes unfairly. That would cut the numbers down to a reasonable amount, while giving the government a few bucks at the same time. What I then would do is issue every remaining smoker a registration card which expires in 3 months. The only legal way to buy cigarettes is to scan the registration card. The only way to renew it is to join a 12 step program, or something of the like. The cards will be taxed, and the amount of time it is renewed for is based on an evaluation by the stop smoking clinic of how hard you are trying. Once again, the government has an opportunity to make a few bucks. Obviously, however much some people try, they are so hooked that they will not be able to quit. Obviously, if they are that hooked, as long as they make a concerted effort to quit, they can still renew their card for the standard 3 months. Once only those people, and those willing to contribute a fair registration tax every month, will be left, the average life expectancy of smokers are much lower than non-smokers, so within about 50 years, the country will be smoke free. You make a good argument, and I look forward to your rebuttal on this one.", "title": "Smoking should be made illegal", "pid": "e8f9908f-2019-04-18T19:29:00Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.69760131835938}, {"text": "(Con fails to rebut most of my arguments about the dangers of smoke). There's nothing to argue. Many things are dangerous, but are not banned. Alcohol is dangerous. Furniture can be dangerous. Pro basically says that because marijuana has reduced some of the use of it that it will do the same with tobacco products. That is false. It will only push the products underground and into the black market. Tobacco is really addictive and if people are kept away from their addiction, they can show the signs of being clinically addicted and sometimes be aggressive. Smoking should not be banned, it should be controlled in the public. Places like restaurants and bars should be able to chose to be smoke free or not. In public, government funded places it should be smoke free, but even then it's a hard thing to enforce.", "title": "Smoking Ban", "pid": "69f38a86-2019-04-18T15:20:04Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.68612670898438}, {"text": "Vuvuzelas can be blown directly into another person's ear, either accidently or sometimes on purpose (out of ignorance over the effects or out of malice to cause harm). In crowded areas, this occurs with relative frequency during the excitement of the game, particularly for fans seated directly in front of those blowing vuvuzelas. The damage that this can cause should be avoided by banning the vuvuzela.", "title": "Vuvuzelas are very dangerous if blown directly into the ear.", "pid": "6df5d158-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00054-000", "bm25_score": 211.6786346435547}]}
{"idx": 2, "qid": "3", "q_text": "Should insider trading be allowed?", "qrels": {"41e8d87f-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00035-000": 0, "3b255dde-2019-04-19T12:44:21Z-00003-000": 0, "3b255dde-2019-04-19T12:44:21Z-00005-000": 0, "34a77a0a-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00016-000": 0, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "42b2be2d-2019-04-18T18:21:23Z-00003-000": 0, "9c855f56-2019-04-18T13:11:47Z-00002-000": 0, "920c32e3-2019-04-18T13:42:05Z-00002-000": 0, "89802f9e-2019-04-18T16:26:02Z-00005-000": 0, "88fca69b-2019-04-18T16:16:37Z-00001-000": 0, "82973dd4-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00004-000": 2, "82973dd4-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00001-000": 2, "82973dd4-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00003-000": 2, "ff9d7dd1-2019-04-18T17:27:12Z-00002-000": 0, "82973dd4-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00002-000": 2, "758c64cb-2019-04-18T16:21:16Z-00000-000": 0, "758c64cb-2019-04-18T16:21:16Z-00004-000": 0, "6c1e3b72-2019-04-18T16:56:13Z-00003-000": 0, "5e154437-2019-04-18T18:57:34Z-00004-000": 0, "5023cb9c-2019-04-15T20:24:36Z-00024-000": 0, "4c68354c-2019-04-18T13:19:39Z-00000-000": 0, "4852b088-2019-04-18T15:44:20Z-00005-000": 0, "758c64cb-2019-04-18T16:21:16Z-00001-000": 0, "34a77a0a-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00026-000": 0, "34a77a0a-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00068-000": 0, "2473cc48-2019-04-18T15:40:21Z-00001-000": 0, "34a77a0a-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00000-000": 0, "f0bf014b-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00029-000": 1, "ea0427e-2019-04-18T19:28:33Z-00000-000": 0, "ea0427e-2019-04-18T19:28:33Z-00008-000": 0, "ea0427e-2019-04-18T19:28:33Z-00006-000": 0, "db035a1f-2019-04-19T12:45:53Z-00016-000": 0, "d551a373-2019-04-15T20:24:21Z-00009-000": 0, "cf2ed51-2019-04-18T17:32:56Z-00005-000": 1, "c40de107-2019-04-18T12:23:18Z-00002-000": 0, "c40de0c9-2019-04-18T15:41:52Z-00007-000": 0, "f68733ed-2019-04-18T15:40:22Z-00005-000": 0, "b7a04059-2019-04-18T18:01:45Z-00005-000": 0, "bbd58885-2019-04-18T13:27:03Z-00004-000": 0, "2127b44a-2019-04-18T14:02:51Z-00005-000": 0, "1f37e667-2019-04-18T17:51:54Z-00000-000": 0, "1f37e667-2019-04-18T17:51:54Z-00001-000": 0, "a1db94b6-2019-04-18T18:22:29Z-00002-000": 0, "1fba06e8-2019-04-18T18:19:54Z-00003-000": 0, "b004ca79-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00003-000": 0, "b14f10e5-2019-04-19T12:47:23Z-00045-000": 0, "b58ff37e-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00018-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "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.", "title": "A free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy", "pid": "82973dd4-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.29591369628906}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Did George W. Bush Play A Role in 9/11", "pid": "920c32e3-2019-04-18T13:42:05Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.78399658203125}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Israeli Involvement in 9/11", "pid": "a1db94b6-2019-04-18T18:22:29Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.33071899414062}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Sodahead is elitist, and I'll go a step further and say they should be stripped of their money", "pid": "591a6cd7-2019-04-18T17:05:44Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.27455139160156}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Doping should be allowed", "pid": "9a4dadf6-2019-04-18T12:48:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.25790405273438}, {"text": "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.", "title": "A speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable", "pid": "bb884956-2019-04-18T13:35:03Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.24459838867188}, {"text": "Puppies should be allowed to own and operate their own mills. It could really improve the economy and plus be super adorable.", "title": "Puppy mills should be illegal.", "pid": "da54e047-2019-04-18T11:36:09Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.23239135742188}, {"text": "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!", "title": "A speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable", "pid": "bb884956-2019-04-18T13:35:03Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.15750122070312}, {"text": "I accept. Many thanks.", "title": "Monopolies should be illegal", "pid": "8c6b7158-2019-04-18T18:09:29Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.1572265625}, {"text": "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", "title": "Should the U.S. allow Monopolies such as standard oil", "pid": "516d30ec-2019-04-18T17:31:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.98236083984375}, {"text": "Although it saddens me to see that my opponent has once again forfeited the round, I once again reiterate my previous points.", "title": "A speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable", "pid": "bb884956-2019-04-18T13:35:03Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.96322631835938}, {"text": "Data breaches can result in huge amounts of personal data falling into unscrupulous hands", "title": "not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients", "pid": "d9ed761f-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.95382690429688}, {"text": "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...", "title": "A free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy", "pid": "82973dd4-2019-04-18T18:46:16Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.9014892578125}, {"text": "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", "title": "A speculation tax on Wall Street is acceptable", "pid": "bb884956-2019-04-18T13:35:03Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.8243408203125}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Should the U.S. allow Monopolies such as standard oil", "pid": "516d30ec-2019-04-18T17:31:17Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.79551696777344}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Microtransactions Should Be Banned in Video Games", "pid": "f15bcb4a-2019-04-18T11:31:13Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.74208068847656}, {"text": "The sort of information being kept and sold is legitimate for firms to utilize in this fashion", "title": "not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients", "pid": "d9ed761f-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.6925811767578}, {"text": "we think that smoking should be allowed.", "title": "smoking should be illegal", "pid": "9fa51252-2019-04-18T18:39:15Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.6920166015625}, {"text": "Allowing offshore drilling is all about oil company profits", "title": "US offshore oil drilling", "pid": "ffc14fd7-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 211.67897033691406}, {"text": "ACCEPTED!", "title": "Businesses should be allowed to discriminate.", "pid": "1df5a958-2019-04-18T15:23:57Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 211.67408752441406}, {"text": "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?", "title": "Resolved: counterfieting should be legal in the U.S.", "pid": "1f173b8c-2019-04-18T18:45:09Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.6709747314453}, {"text": "Offshore drilling prevents environmentally-unfriendly effects", "title": "Oil Companies Should Not Be Allowed To Drill Offshore", "pid": "840adc3e-2019-04-19T12:45:10Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.6376190185547}, {"text": "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.\"", "title": "A state should be allowed to secede if they wish", "pid": "27d1c5df-2019-04-18T18:12:10Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.63319396972656}, {"text": "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.", "title": "SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS", "pid": "3659b0ea-2019-04-18T19:48:22Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.60726928710938}, {"text": "Uh oh...", "title": "should bitcoin be banned", "pid": "829a0b7f-2019-04-18T16:44:32Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.59803771972656}, {"text": "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.", "title": "should not true stories be aloud in articles", "pid": "176d98d7-2019-04-18T17:03:35Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.593017578125}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Stealing and invading privacy is fundamentally wrong.", "pid": "e6e79224-2019-04-19T12:44:50Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 211.5836181640625}, {"text": "\"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.", "title": "SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS", "pid": "3659b0ea-2019-04-18T19:48:22Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.55921936035156}, {"text": "Consumers tend to feel alienated by spreading of their personal information for profit", "title": "not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients", "pid": "d9ed761f-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.5507049560547}, {"text": "i think assassins should be allowed to be in the world", "title": "should assassins be banded from the world", "pid": "cdf62f41-2019-04-18T18:52:45Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.54782104492188}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Leftists who shop at traditional/capitalist businesses instead of cooperatives are hypocrites.", "pid": "6ce95524-2019-04-18T12:38:26Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.5255889892578}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.", "pid": "adb91485-2019-04-18T19:03:16Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 211.52020263671875}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Doping should be allowed", "pid": "9a4dadf6-2019-04-18T12:48:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.5008544921875}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Anonimity should be a fundamental right", "pid": "67d89c13-2019-04-18T14:17:09Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.49717712402344}, {"text": "I will let my opponent go first.", "title": "Cigarets Should Be Illegal.", "pid": "224229b9-2019-04-18T14:58:07Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.49716186523438}, {"text": "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...", "title": "The US should subsidize the development of a national commodity exchange", "pid": "4f5bb166-2019-04-18T16:02:32Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.4762725830078}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.", "pid": "adb91485-2019-04-18T19:03:16Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 211.4744873046875}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Allow hack backs (retaliatory attacks) against the Chinese government", "pid": "2c3ec91-2019-04-18T12:59:15Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.46359252929688}, {"text": "I think not.We are at an impasse.", "title": "should selt belt be illegal", "pid": "fe9f01c7-2019-04-18T14:56:45Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.4583740234375}, {"text": "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.", "title": "SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS", "pid": "3659b0ea-2019-04-18T19:48:22Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.45790100097656}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Sarbanes Oxley and All Similar Legislation Should Be Repealed", "pid": "733b8b20-2019-04-18T19:31:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.4490966796875}, {"text": "Monopolies should be illegal. For the purpose of this debate, monopolies are businesses that have no competition in their field.", "title": "Monopolies should be illegal", "pid": "8c6b7158-2019-04-18T18:09:29Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.42428588867188}, {"text": "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!", "title": "Should Jews be allowed in the USA", "pid": "4f781dea-2019-04-18T14:29:48Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.39810180664062}, {"text": "I think self belt should be illegal", "title": "should selt belt be illegal", "pid": "fe9f01c7-2019-04-18T14:56:45Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.39678955078125}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Resolution: Allowing deep water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States", "pid": "bb480ce7-2019-04-18T19:03:16Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.3761444091797}, {"text": "Pokemon should be allowed in school, its fun and entertaining for children before school.", "title": "Pokemon should be allowed in school.", "pid": "eb077f3d-2019-04-18T12:32:07Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.3695831298828}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Companies and governments should be allowed to collect private data without permission or a warrant.", "pid": "d59ddc44-2019-04-18T17:16:41Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.3679962158203}, {"text": "Ext", "title": "Tobacco Should Be Illegal.", "pid": "3342901e-2019-04-18T18:46:28Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.36785888671875}, {"text": "Ext", "title": "Tobacco Should Be Illegal.", "pid": "3342901e-2019-04-18T18:46:28Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.36785888671875}, {"text": "Offshore drilling has global economic benefits", "title": "Oil Companies Should Not Be Allowed To Drill Offshore", "pid": "840adc3e-2019-04-19T12:45:10Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.3663330078125}, {"text": "Offshore drilling can cripple local economies.", "title": "Oil Companies Should Not Be Allowed To Drill Offshore", "pid": "840adc3e-2019-04-19T12:45:10Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 211.3656005859375}, {"text": "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", "title": "creation of stocks should be banned", "pid": "d39bdac6-2019-04-18T17:47:29Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.35269165039062}, {"text": "Top reasons why : https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be...", "title": "Too stupid not accept the idea that 9/11 was an inside Job!", "pid": "9fd16655-2019-04-18T14:15:05Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.3409423828125}, {"text": "Top reasons why : https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be...", "title": "Too stupid not accept the idea that 9/11 was an inside Job!", "pid": "9fd16655-2019-04-18T14:15:05Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.3409423828125}, {"text": "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", "title": "creation of stocks should be banned", "pid": "d39bdac6-2019-04-18T17:47:29Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.33843994140625}, {"text": "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...", "title": "Microtransactions Should Be Banned in Video Games", "pid": "f15bcb4a-2019-04-18T11:31:13Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.333984375}, {"text": "ROFL... Anywho, I cordially accept and look forward to a stellar round. Good luck! Bench, you have the floor.", "title": "Resolved: Allowing deep-water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.", "pid": "e6216256-2019-04-18T16:48:00Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.33041381835938}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Homosexuality should be illegal", "pid": "249fd7f8-2019-04-18T17:21:16Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.32196044921875}, {"text": "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?", "title": "Yes, it should be banned", "pid": "cc393e78-2019-04-19T12:45:20Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.32130432128906}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "Unregulated capitalism is amoral", "pid": "9cc13a6a-2019-04-18T17:49:14Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.31993103027344}, {"text": "I haven't heard a single good argument for it so someone who supports it give me some points and I'll respond", "title": "Should Don't ask don't tell be allowed", "pid": "69bb6bca-2019-04-18T19:21:39Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 211.31076049804688}, {"text": "\"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.", "title": "\"Profit is inherently dishonest.\" -- Mindjob", "pid": "6fd8ab72-2019-04-18T19:49:29Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.30374145507812}, {"text": "Con has forfeited Round 3.", "title": "Cigarets Should Be Illegal.", "pid": "224229b9-2019-04-18T14:58:07Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.29673767089844}, {"text": "Many with experience doing interrogations have found that aggressive tactics are the best, and somet...", "title": "Torture in Interrogation Should Be Allowed", "pid": "604f9d8e-2019-04-19T12:48:03Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.28262329101562}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Those countries which do not allow intercept evidence have created a bizarre form of legal limbo in ...", "pid": "d7639a3f-2019-04-19T12:47:41Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 211.27667236328125}, {"text": "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.", "title": "It is wrong to place economics over human rights when weighing up the right foreign policy choices. ...", "pid": "2394fe8c-2019-04-19T12:48:02Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 211.2754364013672}, {"text": "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'", "title": "Companies and governments should be allowed to collect private data without permission or a warrant.", "pid": "d59ddc44-2019-04-18T17:16:41Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.26339721679688}, {"text": "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.", "title": "open voting on debate.org should be abolished or curtailed", "pid": "812a4400-2019-04-18T20:00:19Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.2533721923828}, {"text": "Yes but if we banned weirdos, people like einstein would never succeed. Weirdness is not sufficient grounds to render something illegal.", "title": "Incest with contraception should be allowed, as long as you abort if pregnant.", "pid": "8bf5ce0e-2019-04-18T18:06:18Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 211.2528839111328}, {"text": "I will accept the challenge and I hope for a fair debate", "title": "The Free Market Should Be Restricted", "pid": "4e582ea7-2019-04-18T11:34:11Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.24783325195312}, {"text": "Change is inevitable... except from a vending machine.", "title": "Gambling casino should be allowed in the USA.", "pid": "a41861f2-2019-04-18T19:13:49Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.24452209472656}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Porn should be legal", "pid": "c5320307-2019-04-18T18:34:20Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 211.2431640625}, {"text": "Offshore drilling poses environmental risks", "title": "Oil Companies Should Not Be Allowed To Drill Offshore", "pid": "840adc3e-2019-04-19T12:45:10Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 211.23794555664062}, {"text": "Pro Dropped all arguements.", "title": "Business should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they wish in the private sector", "pid": "6cc047cc-2019-04-18T18:57:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.2376708984375}, {"text": "The topic of debate is absurd statement made by my liberal friend, Mindjob. I'd like to see him defend it.", "title": "\"Profit is inherently dishonest.\" -- Mindjob", "pid": "6fd8ab72-2019-04-18T19:49:29Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.23703002929688}, {"text": "Opponent gives round to me via concession.", "title": "I believe that 9/11 was an Inside Job!", "pid": "55a3fd02-2019-04-18T14:12:44Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.2327117919922}, {"text": "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.\"", "title": "Should the U.S. allow Monopolies such as standard oil", "pid": "516d30ec-2019-04-18T17:31:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.22604370117188}, {"text": "It is all delaying and worsening the innevitable", "title": "Oil Companies Should Not Be Allowed To Drill Offshore", "pid": "840adc3e-2019-04-19T12:45:10Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 211.21920776367188}, {"text": "Economy", "title": "Junk Food Should Be Banned", "pid": "e8fec7bb-2019-04-19T12:44:44Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.2178497314453}, {"text": "Pro has forfeited Round 2.", "title": "should selt belt be illegal", "pid": "fe9f01c7-2019-04-18T14:56:45Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.2154083251953}, {"text": "Pro has forfeited Round 4.", "title": "should selt belt be illegal", "pid": "fe9f01c7-2019-04-18T14:56:45Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.21539306640625}, {"text": "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!", "title": "It should be legal to sell cytoplasmic hybrid animals to the general public", "pid": "80078b73-2019-04-18T19:12:32Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.20864868164062}, {"text": "..", "title": "Tobacco Should Be Illegal.", "pid": "3342901e-2019-04-18T18:46:28Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.20700073242188}, {"text": "Done", "title": "The United States should regulate trade.", "pid": "ae4b012b-2019-04-18T15:31:51Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.20654296875}, {"text": "OOXML Must be good somehow Is legal should have second vote over 50% support it only 25% don't want it GO OOXML!!!", "title": "OOXML should not be approved as an ISO standard.", "pid": "18c89a24-2019-04-18T19:55:46Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.20632934570312}, {"text": "England Summary", "title": "Oil Companies Should Not Be Allowed To Drill Offshore", "pid": "840adc3e-2019-04-19T12:45:10Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.20071411132812}, {"text": "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. \"", "title": "Ban Trade With China", "pid": "d5890587-2019-04-18T18:15:39Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 211.19329833984375}, {"text": "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.", "title": "US policies established after 9/11 have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts on the US", "pid": "38d612f6-2019-04-18T19:06:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.18804931640625}, {"text": "Pro forfeited Round 3.", "title": "should selt belt be illegal", "pid": "fe9f01c7-2019-04-18T14:56:45Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.18788146972656}, {"text": "Collecting and selling personal information is a major violation of privacy", "title": "not allow companies to collect/sell the personal data of their clients", "pid": "d9ed761f-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.1812744140625}, {"text": "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...", "title": "Resolved: The U.S. should allow all imports of goods and capital.", "pid": "89e69a16-2019-04-18T15:23:55Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.1746063232422}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Israeli Involvement in 9/11", "pid": "a1db94b6-2019-04-18T18:22:29Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.1724090576172}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Exploiting people's superstitions for profit should be made a criminal offence", "pid": "a54bc083-2019-04-18T19:22:40Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.1683349609375}, {"text": ">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.", "title": "Sarbanes Oxley and All Similar Legislation Should Be Repealed", "pid": "733b8b20-2019-04-18T19:31:33Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.16610717773438}, {"text": "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?", "title": "Anabolic steroids should not be allowed for use in professional sports.", "pid": "e8bee87e-2019-04-18T19:38:55Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.1589813232422}, {"text": "of course they should", "title": "social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces", "pid": "4c2a61b5-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.1568603515625}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Only smart people can make a smart decision", "pid": "119f2027-2019-04-18T18:39:12Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 211.1566162109375}, {"text": "Banned*. And that just adds some drama to the Games, it'll be great! Knock em back I say.", "title": "Should steroids be allowed in the Olympics", "pid": "105813f3-2019-04-18T16:27:58Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.15560913085938}, {"text": "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.", "title": "The US Government should not allow failing financial institutions to go bust.", "pid": "7bd04cab-2019-04-18T19:37:09Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.149169921875}, {"text": "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.", "title": "This House Would Allow Secret Topics on DDO!", "pid": "fa260277-2019-04-18T15:38:52Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 211.1460418701172}]}
{"idx": 3, "qid": "4", "q_text": "Should corporal punishment be used in schools?", "qrels": {"68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00000-000": 0, "7ce82ca6-2019-04-18T15:40:03Z-00007-000": 1, "78228fa3-2019-04-18T19:32:37Z-00004-000": 0, "78228fa3-2019-04-18T19:32:37Z-00006-000": 0, "6e08c139-2019-04-18T17:29:42Z-00000-000": 2, "579727b-2019-04-18T16:09:13Z-00003-000": 1, "573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00005-000": 0, "8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00003-000": 2, "47ee6bf7-2019-04-18T16:34:13Z-00008-000": 0, "21d6875b-2019-04-18T16:29:45Z-00001-000": 1, "44bcb84a-2019-04-18T15:24:41Z-00000-000": 0, "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00006-000": 0, "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00004-000": 2, "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00076-000": 2, "1db9e12f-2019-04-18T14:56:22Z-00000-000": 0, "1db9e12f-2019-04-18T14:56:22Z-00003-000": 2, "1db9e0f1-2019-04-18T17:33:47Z-00000-000": 0, "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00031-000": 1, "8e9af3ad-2019-04-18T17:07:58Z-00000-000": 0, "4c68354c-2019-04-18T13:19:39Z-00000-000": 0, "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00006-000": 2, "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00001-000": 2, "a490cf84-2019-04-18T18:48:15Z-00001-000": 0, "c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00002-000": 2, "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00011-000": 0, "b9f16e7f-2019-04-18T19:50:47Z-00001-000": 2, "b9f16e7f-2019-04-18T19:50:47Z-00000-000": 2, "c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00003-000": 2, "c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00002-000": 2, "c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00001-000": 0, "c802e9cf-2019-04-19T12:48:03Z-00008-000": 0, "c802e9cf-2019-04-19T12:48:03Z-00016-000": 0, "c93845a0-2019-04-18T15:10:52Z-00001-000": 2, "cb52628f-2019-04-18T11:53:57Z-00002-000": 2, "d4e75d9a-2019-04-18T12:24:09Z-00002-000": 0, "e7b98175-2019-04-18T14:36:18Z-00002-000": 2, "f788467e-2019-04-18T15:05:59Z-00004-000": 2, "fc7870ae-2019-04-18T16:55:12Z-00008-000": 0, "ae6800c0-2019-04-18T18:37:05Z-00001-000": 0, "fc7870ae-2019-04-18T16:55:12Z-00009-000": 0, "b9bce4a8-2019-04-18T14:58:47Z-00003-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Accepted.Corporal punishment should be used in schools.Corporal punishment is defined as:\"Physical punishment\" http://www.google.ca...;", "title": "Corporal Punishment in schools", "pid": "6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 221.57797241210938}, {"text": "PositionCorporal Punishment should not be a tactic used by teachers to recieve the expected behavior of a student. R1: Acceptance + Position (No addition arguments, refer above for an example)Thank you and good luck in advance to Pro.", "title": "Corporal Punishment in schools", "pid": "6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 221.1125030517578}, {"text": "My support for corporal punishment in school rests on a single premise. There may be times even if rare when the use of the strap or other implement is necessary and beneficial.", "title": "Corporal punishment in schools.", "pid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 220.6256561279297}, {"text": "This is going to suck. Wish he replied. My previous argument stands was. 100 character limit sucks.l", "title": "should schools use corporal punishment", "pid": "8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 220.32652282714844}, {"text": "I am going to go pro on this on, but not all the way. Let me explain, I believe that some slight forms of corporal punishment should be allowed, but not to the extent that you are talking about in your argument. In schools, children do not learn as much when they are being disrupted by other classmates. If a classmate is being a distraction, the others don't learn. If there are some very mild forms of punishment like a slap on the rust with a ruler or some other form of mild physical punishment, the student will be more likely to stop and quit being a distraction at other times. If physical punishment is only used as a last resort, being punished will become a thing that students (especially young students) not want. If a student knows they will only be lectured, they will be less likely to stop behaving that way than if they were lectured and mildly punished physically. When a student wants attention, sometimes they act out to get it. If they gen punished corporeally they wont resort to acting out in school to get the attention that they yearn. Also if it is used less often, and more conservatively, the student will not be psychologically harmed in the process.", "title": "Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school", "pid": "c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 220.2017822265625}, {"text": "My argument stands, and screw this 100 character limit. really makes me angry. To bad my opposition didn't respond.", "title": "should schools use corporal punishment", "pid": "8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 220.1931610107422}, {"text": "No becuase it's just another form of bullying and bullying is wrong so if Corporal Punishment is used it makes things worse for a bullied child", "title": "Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school", "pid": "c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 220.1793670654297}, {"text": "Before I start this debate, I want to define the topic. First of all corporal. Punishment and schools a place where children get their education. So if you define the topic, it'll come out like this. Should places where they give children education use punishments. I think that we should use this corporal punishment. Corporal punishment has been use for a long time and nothing bad happened.", "title": "should schools use corporal punishment", "pid": "8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 220.14962768554688}, {"text": "First I agree with Corporal Punishment should not be the only way to \"encourage\" pupils.. In my point of view, physical punishment should not only include hitting but should also include other kinds of physical actives; e.g running laps. In the modern society, as in more developed countries, Teachers will get in deep trouble for any corporal punishment towards their pupils, however, in many family, they still believe corporal punishment is the quickest way to punishment misbehaving child. If a child is about to preform a dangerous move, enforcing corporal punishment will make them remember better not to perform a certain activities in the future. Secondly, if verbal warning or shouting cannot stop the pupil misbehaving, physical punishment should take place. To argue your point on ruining the child teacher relationship, I believe as long as the reason of punishment was correct, it should not be any problem because there is a good purpose for the punishment.", "title": "THW reinstate Corporal Punishment in schools", "pid": "d5f20e4-2019-04-18T17:16:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 220.1305694580078}, {"text": "We see that at the moment most punishment systems at schools simply DO NOT work, my teacher fully agrees with this idea. And believes in the fact that it is good \"conditioning\" for pupils I (being a pupil) beg to differ", "title": "THW reinstate Corporal Punishment in schools", "pid": "d5f20e4-2019-04-18T17:16:50Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 220.04164123535156}, {"text": "I will let my opponent start out with arguments and definitions. Therefore my opponent is the affirmative and I am the negative. Please post.", "title": "Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment", "pid": "573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.9623565673828}, {"text": "The general standard of student behaviour and test results in many schools has declined since the state banned corporal punishments. Many teachers (in Britain) believe that is because corporal punishment was an efficient way of dealing with misbehaving students. Corporal punishment should be an option available to teachers – but not the only option and not one to be used all the time. A ban on corporal punishment would simply takes away from teachers a very effective disciplining method.", "title": "If teachers and parents weren’t allowed to hit children, they would discipline them in better ways.", "pid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00076-000", "bm25_score": 219.91087341308594}, {"text": "I will begin my side by saying corporal punishment is highly unnecessary, and doesn't do anything besides implant more negative behavior. Also since you didn't specify what type of education, I must assume all grade levels(excluding college), and thus we will debate on that. First off, corporal punishment is a unnecessary act, and the schools have no right to hit a kid without consent of parents. Also since you never specified whether school had the parent consent. You have so many more punishments such as : Detention, sat. detention, in school suspension, suspension, and expulsion. I don't see why you need to enter the fist of \"justice\" into the picture. Secondly, striking the child isn't going to solve anything, all it is going to do is embarrass the child, and cause possible physcological problems. Also if the child is in high school and gets hit, then he or she may strike back. Also the allowing of corporal punishment in school leads to child abuse. What stops a teacher for beating the kid, or a student beating a teacher back in self defense. Thirdly, violence does not belong in the classroom. It does not help the education, and in fact probably harms it. The child will be more afraid of the teacher, they won't pay attention to the lesson plan. Also most associations are against corporal punishment, the one that caught my eye was The American School Counsellor Association. Hmmm, counsellors against the beating of children, didn't see that coming. If the people who are suppose to watch and help guide our children oppose why should it be used?", "title": "should schools use corporal punishment", "pid": "8baf5944-2019-04-18T19:55:55Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.79583740234375}, {"text": "We need it back in school to allow teachers the ability to immediately address situations that require attention. Our kids today are not held accountable for their actions. This generation capitalizes on the inability of teachers to enforce rules and apply consequences for breaking such rules.", "title": "Reinstate corporal punishment in schools", "pid": "f21ee3ae-2019-04-18T11:25:06Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.740966796875}, {"text": "I will concede the debate. I prefer debates as an exchange of opinions and not as a listing of competing links. That's fine but I prefer debating our own opinions not posting those of others and calling them facts. In addition Con had the much stronger case. As a general rule corporal punishment in schools is a poor idea. But that doesn't mean there aren't times when the strap or other implement shouldn't be used.", "title": "Corporal punishment in schools.", "pid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.69570922851562}, {"text": "Seeing as my opponent has forfeited. , failed to follow he rules of the debate, and has not defended his case. I will urge a con ballot. I have followed the rules of the debate, I have argued every round, I have defended my own case, and I have attacked my opponents case, I believe that corporal punishment should not be implemented in schools.", "title": "Corporal punishment in schools.", "pid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.6171875}, {"text": "cor\"po\"ral pun\"ish\"ment noun 1.physical punishment, such as caning or flogging. implemented: Verb 1.put (a decision, plan, agreement, etc.) into effect. School corporal punishment refers to causing deliberate pain or discomfort in response to undesired behaviour by students in schools. It often involves striking the student either across the buttocks or on the hands, with an implement such as a cane, wooden paddle, slipper, leather strap or wooden yardstick. Less commonly, it could also include spanking or smacking the student with the open hand, especially at the elementary school level. As of 2015, 31 states and the District of Columbia have banned corporal punishment in public schools, though in some of these there is no explicit prohibition. Corporal punishment is also unlawful in private schools in Iowa and New Jersey. In 19 U.S. states, corporal punishment is lawful in both public and private schools. Years ago, it was acceptable for a husband in the United States to beat his wife in order to get her to do what he wanted or to punish her. His asserting his authority through corporal punishment was accepted as a social norm. Should we be teaching school children that in this day in age it is appropriate for them to be hit when someone disagrees with them and their behaviour. Physical punishment can easily escalate and cross the line to abuse and serious injury, particularly when an instrument is used and public schools are required to use a paddle or ruler to implement corporal punishment. An estimated 1 to 2 percent of physically punished students in the United States are seriously injured, to the point of needing medical attention. According to the AAP and the Society for Adolescent Medicine, these injuries have included bruises, abrasions, broken bones, whiplash injury, muscle damage,brain injury, and in a few cases death. I am aware that this data is out of date but we should not ignore the fact that through the ages the number of children being smacked by their superiors is large during the 2005-2006 school year, 223,190 children had corporal punishment implemented in schools. It is because of these reasons I do not believe it moral to implement corporal punishment in schools. Sources: http://centerforparentingeducation.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cnn.com... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com... Society for Adolescent Medicine https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Corporal punishment in schools.", "pid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 219.61605834960938}, {"text": "round 2 speaker 1 (me): present argument/case round 2 speaker 2 (you): present argument/case NO REBUTTING IN THIS ROUND YOU MAY NOT ATTACK MY CASE IN ANY WAY YOU MAY ONLY PRESENT YOUR CASE. round 3 speaker 1: attack your case round 3 speaker 2: attack only case not my rebuttal. round 4 speaker 1: attack/defend rebuttal round 4 speaker 2: attack/defend rebuttal round 5 speaker 1 : conclusion round 5 speaker 2: conclusion I do not believe corporal punishment should be implemented in schools. Please always state sources. if you run out of space you may post them in the comments with a note on the formal statement that you are doing so.", "title": "Corporal punishment in schools.", "pid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 219.6118621826172}, {"text": "http://abcnews.go.com... This article shows the ineffectiveness of corporal punishment in schools. In closing, corporal punishment should be banned because it is ineffective and lowers students' IQ's. Other forms of punishment should be explored and tested. Good luck.", "title": "Corporal punishment should be banned from schools", "pid": "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.5942840576172}, {"text": "Everyone enjoyed my Christmas dinner. I've just taken an apple pie out of the oven, so I'm finished in the kitchen now. Merry Christmas to all at DDO.Right...I'll start by summing up the scientific evidence.Studies of corporal punishment show that those who are so disciplined have significantly higher lifetime rates of anxiety disorders, alcohol abuse, and one or more externalising problems. Those who are spanked are significantly more likely to become wife beaters.Other studies show that children who are disciplined with corporal punishment are more aggressive.These effects remain when studies discount those who have been abusively hit.Research indicates that corporal punishment in schools can lead to students having a negative self-image, and can negatively affect school achievement. There is a correlation between the use of corporal punishment and increased truancy, drop-out rates, violence, and vandalism.In the short term, corporal punishment has been shown to be no more effective than other methods of discipline.Even if corporal punishment did not cause the above mentioned problems, then it would still be ineffective at preventing them. However, there is a body of evidence and theory which shows that corporal punishment is a stressor and can lead to a violent reaction. This establishes causation beyond mere correlation.My opponent failed to show that any of the things he claimed were linked were in fact linked.There is also the human rights issue which speaks against corporal punishment. My opponent has been unable to say why it is not okay to hit others, including prisoners, but it is okay to hit children. That is because it is not okay. Violence against children must stop.", "title": "All schools should bring back corporal punishment", "pid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.58718872070312}, {"text": "You have in a way tried to change my resolution to something I am not interested in debating. I was looking to debate against someone who has the belief that it is good to use corporal punishment and you I am sorry to say have just demonstrated not to be that person. I am going to forfeit further rounds and I hope you will do the same seeing as you never had the intention of debating my resolution. I also would like to say that the reason for my rules is in no way a statement against christians and their holy book, I have however had opponents in my debates who say that my argument is false and the reason for that is because god said so or because it's in the bible my idea is correct. I do not believe in a god and I am not interested in debating religious beliefs. I also wish to make sure that my opponent will provide me with actual studies and not made up ones that is why I ask for sources. Thank you for your time and perhaps we will debate another topic someday.", "title": "Corporal punishment should be implemented in a school setting", "pid": "dab6c791-2019-04-18T12:50:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.54385375976562}, {"text": "Before I start, let me just say this much: I'm against corporal punishment, this is just for fun since we just did this debate at school. Corporal punishment is when a teacher punishes a student physically for a mistake, and it needs to be brought back to schools. It is true that it has been misused in the past, but with new rules, corporal punishment would be a new and healthy part of a student's life. In this case, the ruler shall not be used, or any other tool used to strike the student, including the hand of a teacher. Instead, the punishment will be carried out in the form of running. Depending on the severity of the student's mistake and his/her physical status, the student will be required to run a certain distance. By doing this, it will not only ensure the student will not be abused by a teacher, and it is also good physical excersize. According to http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au..., running will help build strong bones, strengthen muscles, improve cardiovascular fitness. burn plenty of kilojoules. and help maintain a healthy weight. This way, not only is the student punished, it also helps maintain a student's good health. This form of punishment will also avoid missing classtime, which is a problem caused by detention or suspension. The running will be done before or after school, therefore no classtime will be missed, allowing the student to learn everything he/she is supposed to learn. It also costs no money to use this form of punishment. It is efficent both time and money wise. Therefore, corporal punishment should be brought back to schools in the form of running.", "title": "Corporal Punishment be Brought Back to Schools", "pid": "c93845a0-2019-04-18T15:10:52Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.51092529296875}, {"text": "I would like to start off with the definition of corporal punishment, acquired from [1]. \"Corporal punishment, physical chastisement of an offender. At one extreme it includes the death penalty (see capital punishment), but the term usually refers to punishments like flogging, caning, mutilation, and branding. Until c.1800, in many parts of the world, most crimes were punished thus, or by such practices as confinement in the pillory or stocks, which combined physical chastisement with the humiliation of an individual possible in a relatively small, cohesive society. Flogging was especially prevalent, being used also to keep order among the institutionalized insane and in schools and the armed forces. \" I would like to remind the voters that this argument is based on corporal punishment in schools, not military, law enforcement, insane institutions, etc. I begin my argument with a list of the pros of corporal punishment in schools, which is what I will base my argument on. These are found on [2]. Teaches students discipline Deters bad behavior No suspensions Limits amount of educational disruptions These are several pros that can be justified in any modern day school system. With students today becoming more rowdy and rude towards teachers, less time is used for teaching, and more is used for issuing detentions, write ups, scolding in class, or other forms of punishment. This naturally would hardly deter any common misbehavior, as they would soon go back to their usual antics. Looking at the graph on [3], this illustrates how education in The United States has dropped from 1900 to present day. Keep in mind, the beginning of the 1900's to the late 1970's, corporal punishment was a widely used form of punishment in all schools across America. The message sent was clear. You go to school to learn, and you respect the teachers who give you this information. If the respect is not given, then you were punished. This undoubtedly kept students in line, a reason for the higher test scores. [4] shows the states who still use the method of corporal punishment, rarely, yet still in effect. For those who think corporal punishment allows for students to be physically \"beat\" I would like to use this next topic to show what forms of corporal punishment there are, and the restrictions. [5] lists the types of corporal punishment, and although many seems harsh, the most commonly used forms are that of canning, paddling, flogging and saucing. There are, however, restrictions set on corporal punishment, as seen in [6]. Such restrictions include male teachers not being permitted to use this punishment on female students, and vice versa with female teachers to male students. I end my debate here, as I still would like to include more arguments in my next round. I again thank Con for his acceptance to the debate, and hope for a fun clean interesting debate. I would like to remind voters that I am simply playing the devil's advocate and minority voice, and that the arguments may not reflect my personal opinion. I ask that you vote based on content and not beliefs, as these may not directly resemble my values. 1. . http://www.infoplease.com... 2. . http://www.ehow.com... 3. . http://www.google.com... 4. . http://www.infoplease.com... 5. . http://privateschool.about.com... 6. . http://www.educationrightscenter.org...", "title": "Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools", "pid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.47056579589844}, {"text": "It should be aloud in school so children will have better discipline and pay attention more. Studies show that since corporal punishment was banned discipline in children has gone dramatically down.", "title": "Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school", "pid": "c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.41160583496094}, {"text": "Rules: 1. Bible is not a valid source 2. ALWAYS STATE SOURCES (if you do not give sources you automatically lose) 3.", "title": "Corporal punishment should be implemented in a school setting", "pid": "dab6c791-2019-04-18T12:50:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.40386962890625}, {"text": "Thank you for the debate. I will offer an opinion on corporal punishment in school which supports its us", "title": "Corporal punishment in schools.", "pid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 219.3424530029297}, {"text": "Teachers can be trusted to use corporal punishment as an option. They will think about what to do on a case-by-case basis and try to understand why a child is behaving a certain way. Then, if they think it is appropriate and it would help, they may choose to physically punish the student. Sometimes students who misbehave come from families who are too soft on them and do not discipline them enough, so their teachers need to take the task of setting boundaries. For this type of students, corporal punishment may be very helpful.", "title": "Many students who misbehave in school come from unstable families", "pid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00072-000", "bm25_score": 219.29330444335938}, {"text": "Corporal punishment has shown to be ineffective by many studies and health care experts. It has also shown that students that have been subjected to corporal punishment have lower IQ's. while it is on the decline it is STILL legal in 19 states including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. In all 50 states it is illegal to hit a prisoner, animal, or someone in the military, yet it is perfectly legal in those 19 states to strike a child. I welcome your arguments.", "title": "Corporal punishment should be banned from schools", "pid": "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.2133026123047}, {"text": "Thank you for accepting. What we see in today's society child abuse is shunned upon and i personally believe that this must have some backing behind it after all if a person simply hits a child because they get an answer wrong or do not do their homework or misbehave is simply wrong. I shall be looking at the two role players in this argument namely the teachers and pupils: The teachers I see this as the teachers easy way out, rather than just trying to find out why this child is misbehaving,not doing his homework and trying to find out his problems the teacher just hits the child and solves his troubles. This will ruin the child teacher relationship and ruin the child's trust in the teacher and hinder creative thinking", "title": "THW reinstate Corporal Punishment in schools", "pid": "d5f20e4-2019-04-18T17:16:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.19705200195312}, {"text": "Should corporal punishment be be banned or kept in schools, daycares, etc? I am a student and I think that with the way children/teens act in today's society they need to be disciplined in some way shape or form. Give me your opinions, should we bring it back or not? If we have more punishment in schools and daycares just think how much more respect kids would give their parents. I think it should be brought back, and kept .", "title": "corporal punishment", "pid": "1db9e12f-2019-04-18T14:56:22Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.1549072265625}, {"text": "Hello all. This debate is on whether or not corporal punishment should be reintroduced into the education system, to be used by teachers and school administrators. I will be arguing in the negative, and my opponent will argue as a proponent of the reintroduction of corporal punishment into the school system.Definitionscorporal punishment: a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain in order to punish a person convicted of a crime or as retribution for a perceived offence, including physical chastisement such as spanking, paddling or caning of minors by parents, guardians, or school or other officials.school: an institution for educating children. For the purposes of this debate, we will assume that this policy will apply to all of these institutions, not just ones under the jurisdiction of the state.FormatR1: AcceptanceR2: All Main Arguments and ContentionsR3: RebuttalR4: Response and Summary of Previous Rounds/ConclusionPlease note that this debate will be conducted in a formal, respectable manner with extended and well-developed arguments. Each debater will be allowed 8,000 characters to formulate a statement for each round.-----------------------I await my opponent's acceptance.", "title": "The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment Into Schools", "pid": "e7b98175-2019-04-18T14:36:18Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.14645385742188}, {"text": "I disagree with this statement because teachers at school have no right to hit someone for any reason. If you don't get hit by your parents which created you why should a teacher hit you.", "title": "Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools", "pid": "8e9af3ad-2019-04-18T17:07:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.13027954101562}, {"text": "First i'd like to start out with a definition. \"Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable. The term usually refers to methodically striking the offender with an implement, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings. \" Next ill post a practical example. Lets say a teacher is teaching a class. A student in the class talks out of turn. He is given a WARNING, and then he does it again and is given another WARNING, now, he talks out of turn again, he is called up to the front (or after school, at the teachers discretion) and the teacher would use a ruler to hit the students palms. There, end of story! This is the only way to speak to children these days because if they were punished orally or given detention the student would be more likely to repeat that mistake again. Now, i will bring some evidence to support my arguments. An editor from childdisciplinewithlove. com states \"[Corporal Punishment] That's the only language children understand, and they understand it instantaneously. That's how you can prevent children from spoiling. I'm good and successful today because my parents hit me when I did something wrong. That's why I'm doing well in life. I suffered no harm from my parents having beaten me. It has deterrent effect as well. If you beat one child in front of other children, not only that child learns to behave, others also learn a lesson to behave. Children try and test your limits. Show them some physical punishment so that they know it very clearly that each mistake of theirs will attract some physical punishment. •It is only fear which restrains children from misbehaving. Show the something to be afraid of and they will behave. Corporal punishment has instantaneous effect. Children obey and behave absolutely right when punished. Pampering and talking to them lovingly spoils them. There is no point in talking to them regarding solving any of their behavior problem because they are young and have no understanding of the worldly wisdom. So it's better not to waste time on taching them through talking. Just show them the fear of doing something wrong and they will do everything right. History of corporal punishment suggests that it has taught children to behave over last so many ages. \" If you look at his last points it states that not only the child being faced with the punishment will learn but other children in the classroom will learn. Thank You.", "title": "Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment", "pid": "573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.0802459716797}, {"text": "So we see that con has also brought into this scene that corporal punishment is physical use so i simply see that this would not work because it hardly benefits the student being punished and it also doesn't teach him that what he was doing was wrong. Secondly we see that this is a mistrust issue thus far and i see that the child would resent the teacher for and we cannot deny this fact because we are talking about teenagers at the moment and they are at a stage of mistrust and hatred to most figures in their lives. Now onto how I believe it will affect the child. I see that this entire idea of corporal punishment revolves around the fact that it creates a strict environment but i see that you cant create a safe learning environment out of fear children wont seek to do their best, learn what they can and wont try to be creative because of the fact that they will be scared that these ideas will result in corporal punishment. It oppresses the children and creates an environment where they can as parents think it is fine to do something similar to their children if they had it done to them. Rather i see that by giving them positive reactions to their positive behavior over punishing their negative behavior they will strive to be better and do positive things thank you", "title": "THW reinstate Corporal Punishment in schools", "pid": "d5f20e4-2019-04-18T17:16:50Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.06906127929688}, {"text": "I graciously accept.", "title": "Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools", "pid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.0396270751953}, {"text": "I believe that children are rude, selfish, irritating and ignorant because they have no accountability anymore. When I went to school children respected; each other, other parents, teachers and principles. I believe that spanking and such helped keep that respect. No whiny little brats want to shoot someone when there poor little feelings get hurt because they have had no structure in school or at home. I don't believe the child should have to bend over, it pushes the spine into a vulnerable area, I don't believe the paddle should be made of a totally ridged (hard) substance and I believe only the same sex should do the spanking 1 to a maximum of 3 hits.", "title": "All schools should bring back corporal punishment", "pid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 219.029296875}, {"text": "I appreciate the chance to argue this topic. For semantic clarity, the two possible debate-friendly meanings of this debate's title read as follows: \"Corporal punishment is being reintroduced to schools\" - versus \"no it isn't.\" \"Corporal punishment should be reintroduced to schools\" - versus \"no it shouldn't.\" \"Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools\" is like saying \"Flowers being picked.\" One cannot agree or disagree, the sentence is worded as hypothetical. Based on my opposition's first round arguments, until otherwise specified, I will assume he means to use the latter, *should be* phrasing. That said, although public schools do not typically practice corporal punishment, it was never legally un-introduced from schools. 1. Parents are entitled to corporal punishment \"Corporal punishment of minors within domestic settings is still lawful in 49 of the United States. Delaware outlawed it as child abuse in 2012\" http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Teachers are entitled to the same teaching methods as parents according to \"In loco parentis,\" a legal doctrine adopted by both the United States and Britain. \"this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held themselves out as the parent\" http://en.wikipedia.org... A doctrine that was never removed cannot technically be reintroduced. To 'reintroduce' corporal punishment, we would have to first ban it, then reintroduce it. I argue that we should not reintroduce it because that would require us to take the time to unnecessarily ban it.", "title": "Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools", "pid": "8e9af3ad-2019-04-18T17:07:58Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.99423217773438}, {"text": "Pro begins his argument by listing the supposed \"pros\" of corporal punishment. 1) Yes it can be argued that corporal punishment teaches kids discipline but I think that the reasons why it teaches discipline is appalling. Corporal punishment teaches kids to be disciplined out of nothing else but fear. There is no real or valid motive for a child to be disciplined as a result of corporal punishment apart from fear of physical pain. This is in effect isn't teaching children genuine discipline or the importance of discipline. Here are some other proven to work alternatives of disciplining students other than physical abuse (. http://www.webmd.com...). Why would corporal punishment need to be enforced as a means of discipline when there are plenty of other means. Not to mention the sheer problems associated with corporal punishment mentioned in my round 2 arguments. 2) You have no sources to back up the claim that corporal punishment actually deters bad behaviour. This article argues that corporal punishment doesn't deter bad behavior. (. http://getreadyforcollege.wordpress.com...) several case studies show that by repeated physical tortures children usually become even more adamant and might also start hating their elders as they do not understand the reason that why doing certain things are intolerable. On the other hand, disciplining without hitting would mean to first make the child understand that why certain behavior is acceptable and some are not. Teach the child some basic rules of the society and why are they to be followed. It has often been found that by giving logical reasoning to your child's answers, they can be stop many wrong deeds. This is also educating the child about conduct instead of making the child fear constantly. Here is a case study on both the negative physical and mental effects of corporal punishment:(. http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org...) 3) I'm not sure how \"no suspensions\" is such a pro of corporal punishment. Firstly students can still get suspended if corporal punishment exists in their school but surely suspension is more beneficial to a child than corporal punishment. Suspension 1)Removes a problematic student from school. 2)Provides temporary relief to frustrated school personnel. 3)Raises parental attention to their child's misconduct. It does all these things without the physical and physocological effects of corporal punishment. 4) Also I don't see how corporal punishment limits the amount of educational disruptions. Taking the time to give out corporal punishment in whatever form is much more of a disruption than telling a student to be quiet for example. Again there are many other effective means of punishment other than having to resort to physical violence, which as I have shown, has a great amount of disadvantages. Pro tries to argue that there are restrictions to corporal punishment e. g male teachers not being permitted to use this punishment on female students, however I do not see this as a valid argument. There may be restrictions to corporal punishment but this isn't really making a case on your stance that it should be enforced in school. I would like to state that The United States is the only nation in the western world which still permits corporal punishment in its schools. And even having said that, corporal punishment is banned in schools in 31 states. Statistics show that corporal punishment is on a decline. (. http://www.corpun.com...) This is another point for my case. There is obviously a reason for this decline. People are coming to their senses are realizing that the disadvantages of corporal punish enormously outweigh whatever advantages there might be, which I feel I have shown I look forward to the final round.", "title": "Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools", "pid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.97869873046875}, {"text": "Round One: Acceptance Round Two: Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals/New Arguments Round Four: Rebuttals, No Further Arguments", "title": "Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools", "pid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.9442901611328}, {"text": "bad behaviour is on the increase in the class room", "title": "Corporal Punishment Should Be Reintroduced", "pid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00026-000", "bm25_score": 218.91488647460938}, {"text": "Corporal punishment means physical torture. This could be in the form of beating, canning, thrashing or even whipping. Corporal punishment is a common feature in schools. Several incidents of such punishment have been reported in the newspapers. Such kind of punishment can physically impair a student for his whole life. It may also affect him psychologically, disturb his mental balance. This kind of punishment should be stopped immediately. The method to discipline a child through corporal punishment was first practiced during the medieval period and is old-fashioned. Teachers should deal with their students patiently, advising and guiding them in every sphere of life. The term, 'Corporal punishment' means 'physical punishment'. It is a kind of punishment that affects the human body adversely. This could be in the form of beating, thrashing or even whipping'. Thus, punishment of this kind is physical torture to a student and should be condemned and stopped immediately. Moreover, such kind of punishment may sometimes physically impair a student for his whole life. Psychologists are of the opinion that such a punishment can affect a student mentally, for a very long period of time. In India Corporal punishment has become a common feature in schools. Several incidents of physical assault have been reported in the newspapers. For instance, a student of class XII from a popular school in Udaipur and a student from Delhi Municipality Corporation School died due to the beating, they received from their school teacher. This is shocking. In another incident, a class XI student in Ahmedabad accused a teacher of having hit him so hard that he suffered a temporary loss of hearing. Making a student kneel down or stand for hours, pinching and slapping are all set to be banned under plans to widen the definition of Corporal punishment in schools. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has suggested a code of regulations on the conduct of teachers in schools. A standout feature of the code is a total ban on corporal punishment. So far, only six Indian states have banned the cane in schools. Corporal Punishment is just another form of physical violence and has no place in an enlightened society. However there are numerous instances of milder punishment that go unnoticed. There is enough evidence to suggest that teachers, including those at elite schools, physically and verbally intimidate children, some of whom could be as young as five years old. There is unfortunately no national law banning cruel or unusual punishment in schools. The National Policy on Education merely says that corporal punishment is not permissible. Discipline is a must for students in schools and colleges. However, enforcing it through Corporal punishment is highly objectionable and rather, inhuman. This kind of punishment was generally practiced during the medieval period, and is very old-fashioned. Moreover, this is not the right procedure or technique to discipline a student. Teacher should realize that children at the school level are at an impressionable age. If they are subjected to such kind of physical torture, they may develop a fear (phobia) to approach or meet a teacher, or even attend the school. They will never respect and love their teachers which is very essential for the overall development of a student's personality. This is because a guru or a teacher is a role model for a student. He must set an example for his students through his behavior and actions. He must deal with his students patiently, advising and guiding him to excel in every sphere of life such as academics, sports, music and various other extra-curricular activities. A student must also be free and friendly with his teachers, ask questions, clarify his doubts etc. At the same time, he should always respect and obey his teachers. However, this obedience and respect cannot be demanded forcibly through corporal punishment. It can only come spontaneously through deep regard for one's teachers. Supreme Court states that 'children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and the they should receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear. National Policy on Education directs the school authority to take necessary action in the matter, so that the pernicious practice of affecting physical and mental health of children can be nipped in the bud. Corporal punishment does not have any positive effect on a student. If further worsens the situation. For instance, a student who is very naughty, or least interested in studies, when subjected to corporal punishment, may become more aggressive in nature. He may even leave the school and studies. Nonetheless, such a drastic decision can be disastrous for a child's future. Corporal punishment may even cause permanent physical disorders in a child. For example, hard slapping upon the ears can make him totally deaf for the rest of his life. Harsh whipping and canning in the hands and legs can damage the bones and muscles paralyzing him completely. There are some people who would say scolding of school children and verbal intimidation should not be outlawed. This argument is flawed. Verbal abuse could be as damaging and humiliating for children, especially the younger ones, as physical punishment. Parents often complain to schools authorities against abusing their children in school. But they are too often cowed by school authorities to raise their voice. In such a situation, there is no alternative but for the state government to interfere. To conclude, it must always be borne in our mind that teaching is one of the noblest professions where one imparts knowledge to others. The teacher must consider his students as his own children, and treat them as lovingly and caringly as possible. He should applaud a student's achievements, and help him to overcome his shortcomings by motivating him to pursue his interests. A teacher should be there to guide a student to become responsible, educated and a well-groomed citizen of a country. While handling students, it must always be kept in mind that they are like flowers. They have to be nurtured with great care to help them blossom and spread their fragrance.", "title": "Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school", "pid": "c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.87652587890625}, {"text": "Corporal punishment means physical torture. This could be in the form of beating, canning, thrashing or even whipping. Corporal punishment is a common feature in schools. Several incidents of such punishment have been reported in the newspapers. Such kind of punishment can physically impair a student for his whole life. It may also affect him psychologically, disturb his mental balance. This kind of punishment should be stopped immediately. The method to discipline a child through corporal punishment was first practiced during the medieval period and is old-fashioned. Teachers should deal with their students patiently, advising and guiding them in every sphere of life. The term, 'Corporal punishment' means 'physical punishment'. It is a kind of punishment that affects the human body adversely. This could be in the form of beating, thrashing or even whipping'. Thus, punishment of this kind is physical torture to a student and should be condemned and stopped immediately. Moreover, such kind of punishment may sometimes physically impair a student for his whole life. Psychologists are of the opinion that such a punishment can affect a student mentally, for a very long period of time. In India Corporal punishment has become a common feature in schools. Several incidents of physical assault have been reported in the newspapers. For instance, a student of class XII from a popular school in Udaipur and a student from Delhi Municipality Corporation School died due to the beating, they received from their school teacher. This is shocking. In another incident, a class XI student in Ahmedabad accused a teacher of having hit him so hard that he suffered a temporary loss of hearing. Making a student kneel down or stand for hours, pinching and slapping are all set to be banned under plans to widen the definition of Corporal punishment in schools. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has suggested a code of regulations on the conduct of teachers in schools. A standout feature of the code is a total ban on corporal punishment. So far, only six Indian states have banned the cane in schools. Corporal Punishment is just another form of physical violence and has no place in an enlightened society. However there are numerous instances of milder punishment that go unnoticed. There is enough evidence to suggest that teachers, including those at elite schools, physically and verbally intimidate children, some of whom could be as young as five years old. There is unfortunately no national law banning cruel or unusual punishment in schools. The National Policy on Education merely says that corporal punishment is not permissible. Discipline is a must for students in schools and colleges. However, enforcing it through Corporal punishment is highly objectionable and rather, inhuman. This kind of punishment was generally practiced during the medieval period, and is very old-fashioned. Moreover, this is not the right procedure or technique to discipline a student. Teacher should realize that children at the school level are at an impressionable age. If they are subjected to such kind of physical torture, they may develop a fear (phobia) to approach or meet a teacher, or even attend the school. They will never respect and love their teachers which is very essential for the overall development of a student's personality. This is because a guru or a teacher is a role model for a student. He must set an example for his students through his behavior and actions. He must deal with his students patiently, advising and guiding him to excel in every sphere of life such as academics, sports, music and various other extra-curricular activities. A student must also be free and friendly with his teachers, ask questions, clarify his doubts etc. At the same time, he should always respect and obey his teachers. However, this obedience and respect cannot be demanded forcibly through corporal punishment. It can only come spontaneously through deep regard for one's teachers. Supreme Court states that 'children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and the they should receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear. National Policy on Education directs the school authority to take necessary action in the matter, so that the pernicious practice of affecting physical and mental health of children can be nipped in the bud. Corporal punishment does not have any positive effect on a student. If further worsens the situation. For instance, a student who is very naughty, or least interested in studies, when subjected to corporal punishment, may become more aggressive in nature. He may even leave the school and studies. Nonetheless, such a drastic decision can be disastrous for a child's future. Corporal punishment may even cause permanent physical disorders in a child. For example, hard slapping upon the ears can make him totally deaf for the rest of his life. Harsh whipping and canning in the hands and legs can damage the bones and muscles paralyzing him completely. There are some people who would say scolding of school children and verbal intimidation should not be outlawed. This argument is flawed. Verbal abuse could be as damaging and humiliating for children, especially the younger ones, as physical punishment. Parents often complain to schools authorities against abusing their children in school. But they are too often cowed by school authorities to raise their voice. In such a situation, there is no alternative but for the state government to interfere. To conclude, it must always be borne in our mind that teaching is one of the noblest professions where one imparts knowledge to others. The teacher must consider his students as his own children, and treat them as lovingly and caringly as possible. He should applaud a student's achievements, and help him to overcome his shortcomings by motivating him to pursue his interests. A teacher should be there to guide a student to become responsible, educated and a well-groomed citizen of a country. While handling students, it must always be kept in mind that they are like flowers. They have to be nurtured with great care to help them blossom and spread their fragrance.", "title": "Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school", "pid": "c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.87652587890625}, {"text": "Corporal punishment means physical torture. This could be in the form of beating, canning, thrashing or even whipping. Corporal punishment is a common feature in schools. Several incidents of such punishment have been reported in the newspapers. Such kind of punishment can physically impair a student for his whole life. It may also affect him psychologically, disturb his mental balance. This kind of punishment should be stopped immediately. The method to discipline a child through corporal punishment was first practiced during the medieval period and is old-fashioned. Teachers should deal with their students patiently, advising and guiding them in every sphere of life. The term, 'Corporal punishment' means 'physical punishment'. It is a kind of punishment that affects the human body adversely. This could be in the form of beating, thrashing or even whipping'. Thus, punishment of this kind is physical torture to a student and should be condemned and stopped immediately. Moreover, such kind of punishment may sometimes physically impair a student for his whole life. Psychologists are of the opinion that such a punishment can affect a student mentally, for a very long period of time. In India Corporal punishment has become a common feature in schools. Several incidents of physical assault have been reported in the newspapers. For instance, a student of class XII from a popular school in Udaipur and a student from Delhi Municipality Corporation School died due to the beating, they received from their school teacher. This is shocking. In another incident, a class XI student in Ahmedabad accused a teacher of having hit him so hard that he suffered a temporary loss of hearing. Making a student kneel down or stand for hours, pinching and slapping are all set to be banned under plans to widen the definition of Corporal punishment in schools. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has suggested a code of regulations on the conduct of teachers in schools. A standout feature of the code is a total ban on corporal punishment. So far, only six Indian states have banned the cane in schools. Corporal Punishment is just another form of physical violence and has no place in an enlightened society. However there are numerous instances of milder punishment that go unnoticed. There is enough evidence to suggest that teachers, including those at elite schools, physically and verbally intimidate children, some of whom could be as young as five years old. There is unfortunately no national law banning cruel or unusual punishment in schools. The National Policy on Education merely says that corporal punishment is not permissible. Discipline is a must for students in schools and colleges. However, enforcing it through Corporal punishment is highly objectionable and rather, inhuman. This kind of punishment was generally practiced during the medieval period, and is very old-fashioned. Moreover, this is not the right procedure or technique to discipline a student. Teacher should realize that children at the school level are at an impressionable age. If they are subjected to such kind of physical torture, they may develop a fear (phobia) to approach or meet a teacher, or even attend the school. They will never respect and love their teachers which is very essential for the overall development of a student's personality. This is because a guru or a teacher is a role model for a student. He must set an example for his students through his behavior and actions. He must deal with his students patiently, advising and guiding him to excel in every sphere of life such as academics, sports, music and various other extra-curricular activities. A student must also be free and friendly with his teachers, ask questions, clarify his doubts etc. At the same time, he should always respect and obey his teachers. However, this obedience and respect cannot be demanded forcibly through corporal punishment. It can only come spontaneously through deep regard for one's teachers. Supreme Court states that 'children are not subjected to corporal punishment in schools and the they should receive education in an environment of freedom and dignity, free from fear. National Policy on Education directs the school authority to take necessary action in the matter, so that the pernicious practice of affecting physical and mental health of children can be nipped in the bud. Corporal punishment does not have any positive effect on a student. If further worsens the situation. For instance, a student who is very naughty, or least interested in studies, when subjected to corporal punishment, may become more aggressive in nature. He may even leave the school and studies. Nonetheless, such a drastic decision can be disastrous for a child's future. Corporal punishment may even cause permanent physical disorders in a child. For example, hard slapping upon the ears can make him totally deaf for the rest of his life. Harsh whipping and canning in the hands and legs can damage the bones and muscles paralyzing him completely. There are some people who would say scolding of school children and verbal intimidation should not be outlawed. This argument is flawed. Verbal abuse could be as damaging and humiliating for children, especially the younger ones, as physical punishment. Parents often complain to schools authorities against abusing their children in school. But they are too often cowed by school authorities to raise their voice. In such a situation, there is no alternative but for the state government to interfere. To conclude, it must always be borne in our mind that teaching is one of the noblest professions where one imparts knowledge to others. The teacher must consider his students as his own children, and treat them as lovingly and caringly as possible. He should applaud a student's achievements, and help him to overcome his shortcomings by motivating him to pursue his interests. A teacher should be there to guide a student to become responsible, educated and a well-groomed citizen of a country. While handling students, it must always be kept in mind that they are like flowers. They have to be nurtured with great care to help them blossom and spread their fragrance.", "title": "Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school", "pid": "c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.87652587890625}, {"text": "Oh gosh. Alright. Let's get this over with. When I was in fifth grade, I was going through severe depression and suicidal thoughts. I was acting out of line because of things happening at home, and if corporal punishment was allowed do you think that would help me in any way? Here's the answer: NO. Children can learn their lesson without physical pain. It's not so much that the teachers can't enforce rules because the punishment is weak, no. Instead, it's because some teachers are pushovers. Will corporal punishments help them not be pushovers? Likely not. Could the power be easily abused? Absolutely. My mom and dad have their experiences that they've shared with me. They find today's methods to be better and effective. And what about people with autism or bipolar disorder? Some of them aren't put into special classes. If they're in normal classes (which is more common than one may think), do you think they should suffer physical pain because of a mental illness? What if they're shutting down and don't respond? Oh, well, for giving your best efforts to keep calm, rather than being asked what's going on, you get your wrist smacked with a ruler and a wooden oar smacked against your a$$. Doesn't that sound pleasant and completely utterly reasonable? It shouldn't. Many teachers at the schools I've been to are hesitant to give a student punishment no matter how badly they're acting up. I'm not sure that corporal punishment would make a big difference, as they would probably avoid that. Gosh, sitting outside in the hallway was enough for a kid to learn their lesson the first time; it's humiliating. Though I haven't been there many times, a few of my classmates have and they always feel embarrassed. Always. So imagine that I'm teaching a class and you and a friend are talking. Oh no, the horror. How will the class ever survive? Well, it won't. So obviously you need to learn your lesson. I take a ruler and smack your wrist with it ten times, then go back to teaching. Now, you have a bruise on your wrist when instead you could've simply been told to stop talking.", "title": "Reinstate corporal punishment in schools", "pid": "f21ee3ae-2019-04-18T11:25:06Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.86727905273438}, {"text": "NOTE: You didn't say USA only so I shall use statistics and facts from aroudn the globe (mainly UK).Now onto the main debate. In a survey completed by the Times Educational supplement [1], 6000 teachers were questioned. One in five believed that class room behaviour had deteriorated since the abolition of corporal punishment and they believed the education system would improve with the re-introduction of corporal punishment. We should adhere to the teachers requests.It is inevitable that bad classroom behaviour will filter into life outside school. You only have to look at the crime statistics to see that crime has increased dramatically since the abolition of corporal punishment. Between 1981, when corporal punishment was legal and in 1997, after the abolition of corporal punishment, there was a 67% increase in crime [2]. Children’s behaviour has been adversely affected by the rights culture we have in Britain. A teacher cannot threaten a detention, something they are allowed to do, without the retort of “but you can't take away my freedom”, “you have no right” or “I have rights”. In fact children are acutely aware of how much power they have over the teachers by way of laws and rights, and they use every opportunity to remind the teachers of that fact. If we re-introduced corporal punishment this back chat would cease and the power would be retained by the teachers. Detention is not going to be taken seriously by anyone. What does detention do other than waste your time? If you have ADHD or a creative mind you'll have a blast, effectively learning nothing to *correct* your behavior. If this is the only effective authority a teacher has for an out of control student then that teacher is and probably knows his/her authority is rather pitiful. Sources[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...", "title": "Corporal punishment should be banned from schools", "pid": "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.839599609375}, {"text": "My opponent supplies us by a new article from the famously liberal abc news. (I'm liberal myself but for this debate I have to admit that this is an extremely biased source). They essentially tear apart the idea of corporal punishment based on the 'theory' (for which no evidence is supplied) that corporal punishment increases aggression in children (which is ironic because you'd think having felt the force of violence that children would be less aggressive).Now I shall explain exactly why corporal punishment needn't be banned from SCHOOLS despite it's rightful ban in other places.As I said in round 1, \" A teacher cannot threaten a detention, something they are allowed to do, without the retort of “but you can't take away my freedom”, “you have no right” or “I have rights”. In fact children are acutely aware of how much power they have over the teachers by way of laws and rights, and they use every opportunity to remind the teachers of that fact.\" corporal punishment would allow the teacher, in a strictly monitored manner, to spank the child for not only the original reason but for the rudeness of the remark, is rather ineffective and useless (and my opponent supplied zero evidence otherwise).Also,, was my contention that \"If we re-introduced corporal punishment this back chat would cease and the power would be retained by the teachers. Detention is not going to be taken seriously by anyone. What does detention do other than waste your time? If you have ADHD or a creative mind you'll have a blast, effectively learning nothing to *correct* your behavior.\" The only point against this was that my opponent claimed to have first-hand seen reduction in repeats of detention as opposed to spanking issues but this easily could be because of more lenience in the school when it had detentions.I re-iterate that Between 1981, when corporal punishment was legal and in 1997, after the abolition of corporal punishment, there was a 67% increase in crime. (Source R#1)", "title": "Corporal punishment should be banned from schools", "pid": "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.82894897460938}, {"text": "Many students who misbehave in school come from unstable families", "title": "Corporal Punishment Should Be Reintroduced", "pid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.82339477539062}, {"text": "Well this is dissapointing. I was expecting my opponent's rebuttals. Anyways, my arguments stand as is. They have not been refuted.", "title": "Corporal Punishment in schools", "pid": "6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.814697265625}, {"text": "Definition: No problems there. \\\\\\Next ill post a practical example. Lets say a teacher is teaching a class. A student in the class talks out of turn. He is given a WARNING, and then he does it again and is given another WARNING, now, he talks out of turn again, he is called up to the front (or after school, at the teachers discretion) and the teacher would use a ruler to hit the students palms. There, end of story! This is the only way to speak to children these days because if they were punished orally or given detention the student would be more likely to repeat that mistake again./// You have not stated any evidence that this is the only way to speak to children. Because you have no evidence I will provide it. Wife beating is no longer acceptable, but in 23 states it is legal for school teachers and officials to spank and paddle kids, a form of corporal punishment. \"When a girl is spanked by her father or paddled by a male school teacher, she is being trained to submit,\" says Jordan Riak, a retired school teacher and the executive director of Parents and Teachers Against Violence in Education, a California-based nonprofit group dedicated to getting corporal punishment banned in U.S. schools. \"When a school district permits teachers to paddle girls, it is setting those girls up to be victims of future male authority figures, whether it be a boyfriend, husband or employer,\" Riak claims. \\\\\\That's the only language children understand, and they understand it instantaneously.That's how you can prevent children from spoiling./// There is the assertion, now where is the reasoning and evidence? \\\\\\I'm good and successful today because my parents hit me when I did something wrong. That's why I'm doing well in life. I suffered no harm from my parents having beaten me./// Good and successful is from a point of view, and you have no clear evidence that because your parents hit you it is why you are successful. You may have not suffered any harm but you dont know about other kids who have different minds, a personal experience in this case is irrelevant. Finally, this debate is about schools, not your family. \\\\\\It is only fear which restrains children from misbehaving. Show the something to be afraid of and they will behave. Corporal punishment has instantaneous effect. Children obey and behave absolutely right when punished./// It has been proven, even in government, that it is wrong to rule with an iron fist. You should rule with reasoning, such as \"If you disrupt the class again you will be given after school detention on the minimum day\" Or \"You will have extra homework\" definitely not saying \"if you don't shut your trap you're gonna get a beatin'!\" Because after a while, kids get immune to the pain. \\\\\\Pampering and talking to them lovingly spoils them./// You don't pamper and spoil them if they did something wrong! \\\\\\History of corporal punishment suggests that it has taught children to behave over last so many ages/// I agree! Golden eras such as the Nazi rule of Germany, where the kids in the Hitler youth were shot with automatic rifles if they deserted, that kept them faithful to Hitler! But seriously it has not helped... ==Points== I. Morally wrong Now, in 2010, physical punishment is considered too severe for serial killers, murderers, criminals of all kinds and ages, including juvenile delinquents, too demeaning for soldiers, sailors, servants and spouses. But it remains legal and acceptable for children who are innocent of any crime! There are laws preventing child abuse, therefore my opponent's case is not only immoral, but illegal too. There are no reliable statistics on the extent of crime a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago. From all reports, however, crime in the U.S. was extensive, especially violent crime and crimes among the young. The good citizens of 19th century America were also alarmed. They looked back to the good old days of simple rural life, before the growth of the cities. The crowded and crime-ridden Eastern cities were contrasted unfavorably with the \"wide open spaces\" of the West -- the West, that is, of Jesse James and Billy the Kid! Discipline in the one room schoolhouses was violent. Often the teacher engaged in a bare knuckle fight with the biggest student as a warning to the others of what would happen to them if they provoked his wrath. Horace Mann, the Father of American education, fulminated against the number of floggings per day, sometimes more than the number of scholars. Most of our great grandparents were satisfied with a fourth grade education and eighth grade was the end for all but five percent. The lawless mountain men of the Old West were recruited from the 14-year olds who high tailed it after one thrashing too many. Bands of outlaws stole horses, and plagued the defenseless. Public hangings and Iynchings were commonplace while pickpockets worked the crowds. Only the militia and the sheriff's posse maintained any semblance of order. I do not call this productive. II. Evidence Against Adrenalin output increases sharply during fear, anger and physical punishment. When this is prolonged or often repeated, the endocrine balance fails to return to baseline. The victim becomes easily angered and prone to poor impulse control and spontaneous violent outbursts. Car crashes caused by drunk driving are increased by a hidden factor. Bottled up anger, when combined with alcohol is the largest cause of the highway death toll which comes to 25,000 deaths every year, or one every 20 minutes. An investigation by Donald C. Pelz of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan in 1973 led to his finding that: \"For the young male, anger toward the adult world is likely to find vent in dangerous driving ... Hostility tends to multiply with their attitude toward the educational system ... Those who had rejected the school system ... are likely to reject the highway system. \" In fact he concluded that abiding anger was even more dangerous than drinking per se, but that the combination was the most deadly. The insult to high school boys of an embarrassing paddling raises the adrenaline level, which if repeated often enough stays high all the time. They are the timebombs whose battlefield casualties litter the roads and intersections of our country. A survey of 3,900 people in Houston as to what effect school corporal punishment had on their lives found that 76 percent of them said the effects had been negative and that they continued to resent what happened to them. That leaves about a fourth of them who were able to shrug it off and a mere handful who felt grateful for the timely punishment that \"saved me from a life of crime.\" Thus, the one who testifies that \"I was paddled when I was a kid and I turned out okay,\" must be labelled a survivor and congratulated on the strength of character that enabled him to make a life in spite of early mistreatment.", "title": "Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment", "pid": "573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.81134033203125}, {"text": "As my opponent had posted an argument in round one, albeit a cursory one, I did the same. May I suggest for future debates that my opponent state that round one is for acceptance and avoid making an argument in round one.School shootings are obviously largely an American phenomenon. My opponent is going to have a hard time linking them to bans on school corporal punishment, for two simple reasons. One is that school corporal punishment has been banned in many countries, where school shootings are either very rare or have not even occurred at all.[1] The other reason is that there are nineteen US states where school corporal punishment has not been banned at all.[2][3][4]I am amused that my opponent has used a debate as a source. Not only is it a secondary source, it provides rebuttals for me of any points he gleans from it.Via my opponent's own source, in defence of corporal punishment:In a survey completed by the Times Educational supplement, 6000 teachers were questioned. One in five believed that class room behaviour had deteriorated since the abolition of corporal punishment and they believed the education system would improve with the re-introduction of corporal punishment.[5][6] Shrewd observers will have worked out that the large majority, four in five, believed that class room behaviour had not deteriorated and that education would not improve with the reintroduction of corporal punishment!I suggest the minority of teachers are the ones whose methods of discipline are ineffective and need more training at the very least.In the US, the National Association of Secondary School Principals has expressed its opposition to corporal punishment in schools.[7]Via my opponent's source, we can see that if there is any correlation between corporal punishment and crime, it is that use of corporal punishment coincides with crime. Of the states with the ten highest murder rates in the United States, educators paddle children in eight of them.Of the states with the ten lowest murder rates in the US, educators paddle children in one of them.Of the ten states with the highest percentage of the population in prison, educators paddle children in nine of them.Of the ten states with the lowest percentage of the population in prison, educators do not paddle children in any of them.[8]Crime in the UK (which is what my opponent is referring to with his 67% increase) has been rising since 1918. Plainly banning corporal punishment is not the reason for an upwards trend. Corporal punishment was actually banned in 1986.[9][10][11] There would then be a delay until children reached typical criminal age. Citing the crime increase since 1981 doesn't tell you anything useful.Part of the reason crime statistics have risen sharply is an increase in the reporting of crime. The British Crime Survey showed that the number of crimes was far higher in 1981 than that recorded by the police. There were three times as many thefts, twelve times as much vandalism, three times as many sexual offences, nine times as many robberies, and twice as many burglaries as the official statistics recorded.[12]\"Children\"s behaviour has been adversely affected by the rights culture we have in Britain\"Assertion not backed by evidence.My opponent claims that corporal punishment would be effective against bullying. Is my opponent claiming that bullying is a recent phenomenon, and does not actually occur in places which still have corporal punishment?My opponent claims that corporal punishment \"worked for 7000 years.\" What does my opponent mean by \"worked\"? Does he want to hold up 5000 B.C as a glowing standard? Surely all my opponent can mean by \"worked\" is that the human race continued to exist. Anyhow, tradition is no reason to continue a practice. We can imagine a man in Mexico arguing for the reintroduction of human sacrifice on the basis that it was an honourable tradition.Violence committed by adults on defenceless children is not defensible. If an adult assaults an adult in this manner it is criminal. Guards are not permitted to paddle prisoners. Why is this seen as an acceptable way of disciplining children? If we cannot treat adults in this way, if to do so is abuse, why do some think children should be so dealt with? Also, what lesson can children possibly learn from corporal punishment, except might makes right?My opponent has failed to engage with the scientific literature that says corporal punishment achieves the opposite to its aims. If they cannot do so, everything else is moot. The debate is over. I'll add a couple of more sources for my opponent to engage with.Research indicates that corporal punishment may adversely affect a student's self-image and his or her school achievement.[13] Research has also shown a correlation between the use of corporal punishment and increased school truancy, drop-out rates, violence, and vandalism.[14]I note that my opponent wishes to blame the hippies for everything, but that would be another debate.[1] http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org...[2] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...[3] http://www.stophitting.com...[4] http://abcnews.go.com...[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[6] http://debatewise.org... [7] http://www.principals.org...[8] http://www.nospank.net...[9] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[10] http://news.bbc.co.uk...[11] http://moourl.com...[12] http://www.historytoday.com...[13] Society for Adolescent Medicine, Ad Hoc Corporal Punishment Committee. (2003). Corporal punishment in schools: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, pp385–393.[14] Strauss, M. A. (2000). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families and its effects on children. (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.", "title": "All schools should bring back corporal punishment", "pid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.79965209960938}, {"text": "I will now present my argument as defined. Arguments Against Corporal Punishment being enforced in school. 1). The more \"spankings children\" experience, the greater the chance that they will become aggressive and engage in other anti-social behavior. Source: (Study reported in Archives of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, August 1997 by Murray A. Straus, David B. Sugarman, and Jean Giles-Sims) 2). Poor children, minorities and children with disabilities are hit more regularly in schools, sometimes at 2-5 times the rate of other children. Source: (U. S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, Surveys from 1976-2003, Center for Effective Discipline. ) 3). Corporal punishment teaches children that violence is a way to solve problems. Research shows that this is indeed the message that kids receive whether it's inflicting, receiving or witnessing . Source: (Eron, Walder & Lefkowitz, 1971; Hyman & Snook, 1999; Lahey, Moffit & Caspi, 2003, Reid, Patterson & Snyder, 2002. ) 4). Studies have shown that corporal punishment of children is related to decreased morality, increased aggression, more antisocial behavior, increased criminality, decreased mental health outcomes, increased adult abusive behaviors, and increased risk of being victimized by abusive relationships in adulthood. Source: (Meta-Analysis of 88 corporal punishment studies (Gershoff, E. T. 2002). ) 5). Some statistics here: 78% of corporal punishment states achieved below the national average at the fourth grade level in reading. 75% of the corporal punishment states achieved below the national average in eighth grade level reading (Center for Effective Discipline, year: 2004). Sixty-seven percent of Ohio corporal punishment schools fell in the lowest 25% of schools on state school report cards in the 99-00 school year (Center for Effective Discipline, year: 2001). 6). Injuries often occur e. g bruises, broken bones. Children's deaths have occurred in the U. S. due to school corporal punishment. (hearing before the Juvenile Justice Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate. October 17, 1984) 7). Corporal punishment enforces physical aggression as an acceptable and good means of getting rid of unwanted behavior in our society. (Position paper opposing school corporal punishment by the Society for Adolescent Medicine (Greydanus, DE. et al, 2003). ) 8). More school shooting deaths were found in states allowing school corporal punishment than those who do not. (D. Arcus, 2002. ) 9). There is evidence that harsh physical punishments are damaging to children, emotionally as well as physically. (Mohr, WK and Anderson, J. A. 2002. ) Facts: 10). Schools are the only institutions in America in which striking another person is legally sanctioned. It is not allowed in prisons, in the military or in mental hospitals. 11). Many alternatives to corporal punishment have proven their worth. Alternatives teach children to be self-disciplined rather than cooperative only because of fear. (No source here, just kind of general knowledge). These are the main reasons why I believe that corporal punishment should not be enforced in schools. I look forward to the next round. Further online source: (. http://www.neverhitachild.org...)", "title": "Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools", "pid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.77484130859375}, {"text": "Walter Williams. \"Making a Case for Corporal Punishment\". Bnet. Sept 13, 1999: \"Regardless of what the experts preached, the undeniable fact is the 'uncivilized' practice of whipping children produced more civilized young people. Youngsters didn't direct foul language to, or use it in the presence of, teachers and other adults. In that 'uncivilized' era, assaulting a teacher or adult never would have crossed our minds. Today, foul language and assaults against teachers are routine in many schools. For some kinds of criminal behavior, I think we'd benefit from having punishment along the lines of Singapore's caning as a part of our judicial system.\"", "title": "Corporal punishment is a good tool for disciplining unruly children", "pid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00041-000", "bm25_score": 218.65460205078125}, {"text": "My arguments are not plagiarized, they are quoted BIG DIFFERENCE. I specifically quoted and gave sources while you simply copy pasted and didn't even give an immediate source or use quotes. =Hitler= I think that is unfair to compare Hitler to a teacher. Simple as that. --If you have been beaten in your life by a parent you do not forget. It is a fearful memory that is full of pain, I am sure you would not forget this very quickly.-- Look, there are alot of things in life you don't, remember when you had to learn how to swim? If you get this memory, you will never repeat this mistake again and it will teach you a lesson to. =Blind Statements= I use an actual man that has grown up with corporal punishment, you state something completely out of the blue with nothing to support it with. The site I state also has statistics as well as REAL people talking about their experiences if you looked closely. =Suspensions= Oh My Gosh, REASONING! Look, if your taken out of school will you learn? No. If your punished right there and right in the middle of class the learning environment only gets disrupted for a couple minutes at most! =Refuting my closing statement= Don't be stupid. I have refuted all of CONS points and have supported my arguments accordingly. ====VOTE PRO====", "title": "Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment", "pid": "573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.6312255859375}, {"text": "Ruptured eardrums, brain damage and other bodily injuries and death in some instances are some of the bad and tragic effects of corporal punishment. While the physical damage done to the body can be treated, the emotional and psychological effects can affect the survivor deeply. Corporal punishment is the hitting of a person with a hand or an object such as a cane or belt. It is also kicking, burning, shaking or throwing of a person with the intention of inflicting pain on them. Pinching or pulling the hair, forcing one to sit in uncomfortable or undignified positions, or forcing one to take excessive physical exercise as a way of disciplining them is tantamount to corporal punishment. Although prohibited by law in Zambia as a way of disciplining children in schools, corporal punishment is still widely practised by teachers and by parents in homes. This is because no measures have been taken to ensure that legislation is implemented and the behaviour of perpetrators changed. Corporal punishment is still widely practised by teachers and parents as reflected in a qualitative and quantitative survey of 2,705 boys and girls aged between six and 18 years. The objective of the survey was to explore a diversity of experiences; views and feelings related to corporal punishment and other forms of humiliating and degrading punishment of children. It was also intended to estimate the levels of corporal punishment in schools and homes in the country. The study looked at corporal and humiliating and degrading punishment of children over a period of two weeks. It was conducted in 2005 in all the nine provinces of Zambia by the Zambia Civic Education Association and commissioned by Save The Children Sweden. According to the survey, corporal punishment and other forms of degrading and humiliating punishment are still widely practised in Zambia both at school and at home. Children are often hit with a hand, a stick or hosepipe in schools when they do wrong. At home they are hit with sticks, belts, hands and in some cases denied food. Some parents and child tenders alike practise corporal punishment because of the belief that children do not grow to be well-mannered adults if they are not spanked or beaten when they make mistakes. Some even say that abolishing corporal punishment is a Western-centric concept that will cause havoc in African cultures and lead to moral decay. The study also established that corporal punishment is more pronounced in low-income environments than in affluent communities. This can be attributed to poverty and its effects like stress and high illiteracy levels in these communities. Such factors tend to have an effect on how adults discipline children. Whatever reasons, parents and teachers and indeed other care-givers may have to justify corporal punishment as a form of child discipline. It should be noted that its effects on survivors are damaging. According to Father Derrick Mewing, an assistant priest at the Anglican Cathedral of The Holy Cross Lusaka, corporal punishment only induces fear and distorts reasoning. \"Beating or treating children in a degrading manner are ineffective ways of disciplining them because they only save as quick fixes that are detrimental to a child and do not provide a lasting solution to a problem. In schools for instance, teachers should tell pupils the benefits of possessing a good character coupled with good academic performance and also the consequences of one not possessing them. This approach installs a sense of responsibility in them. On the other hand corporal punishment induces fear and distorts reasoning. Fr Mewing asserted: \"Children need discipline but they need to learn self-discipline. There is need to encourage non-violent and non-humiliating ways of instilling discipline in them.\" Corporal punishment does not help a child to develop into an adult with self-discipline and respect for other people. Instead, it distorts sound judgement and creates anti-social behaviours. Fr Mewing further asserted that some people have taken biblical scriptures literally. He cited Proverbs 11: 7, which says \"spare the rod and spoil the child.\" According to Fr Mewing, the portion of the scripture in question does not literally mean what most people perceive it to entail \"This does not literally mean what it has generally been perceived to mean. In this case the rod is the code of conduct. The psalmist says, Thy rod and thy stuff they comfort me. How can something comfort and cause you pain at the same time? The rod referred to in the Bible is the code of conduct that is meant to guide and instruct one in the right path for them to have a disciplined and fulfilling life, Fr Mewing said. And according to the same study, corporal punishment is used more frequently on younger children (6-12 years) than on older children (13-18 years). Older children experience humiliating and degrading treatment to a larger extent. There was also a small but consistent trend for boys to be subjected to corporal punishment while older girls experienced humiliating and degrading punishment in the form of verbal abuse to a larger extent. Corporal punishment works against the process of ethical development. It teaches children not to engage in a particular behaviour because they risk being beaten. But it does not teach them the reasons and ethics for not behaving in a particular manner. It is said that violence breeds violence. The use of corporal punishment on children contributes to a perception from an early age that violence is an appropriate response to conflict resolution and unwanted behaviour. It teaches them that it is acceptable for powerful persons to be violent towards the weak and to resolve conflicts through violence. The escalating levels of gender violence especially against women and children are evidence of this archaic and despicable method of disciplining young people. Children exposed to non-peaceful ways of conflict resolution often become perpetrators of gender violence in their adulthood. Exposing children to violence can make them potential perpetrators of such vices later in life. Notwithstanding its devastating effects on survivors and society at large, it is disheartening to note that less than 20 countries globally have adopted legislation to prohibit corporal punishment of children. Some countries have even outlawed corporal punishment of children in schools and other institutions. Corporal punishment violates human rights to physical integrity and human dignity, as upheld by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, as well as the Zambian Constitution. Often times, children are viewed as second-class humans, but they are as much entitled to their equal enjoyment of rights just as adults. For some reasons, corporal punishment of children has not been given the seriousness it deserves. This has caused a lot of children to suffer silently. Children too have the right to be heard. But more often than not, society does not want to accord them the opportunity to do so. This is because adults tend to think that children are incapable of reasoning and hence cannot be consulted even on issues concerning them. Given a choice, children would prefer to be disciplined in non-violent and non-humiliating ways. According to the same study, approximately 70 per cent of the children found corporal punishment in the home and at school unacceptable. Their sentiment was the same for humiliating punishment, which approximately found 79 per cent unacceptable as evidenced by the study that showed 75 per cent of the children were against corporal punishment. The children said that the practice is harmful both physically and emotionally and that it induces fear in them and thereby reduces their concentration. The majority of children said that they would prefer parents and teachers to talk to them and explain what they did wrong instead of beating them or using other forms of humiliating and degrading punishment as a way of disciplining them. Given the children's response, it can be said therefore that children would prefer to be treated with respect just like everyone else. Thus, to have adults listen to them and to be given a better understating of what they have done wrong instead of rushing into beating or treating them inhumanely. However, eleven per cent of the children preferred corporal punishment when being disciplined. This option was more favoured by children from low-income environments. A possible sad explanation to this perception could be that these children live in environments where violent forms of discipline are acceptable and they are so used to violence as a way of correction such that they cannot imagine any other forms of discipline. Zambia Police Service Victim Support Unit coordinator, Peter Kanunka said most cases of corporal punishment go unreported unless in situations where a teacher physically and emotionally hurts a pupil. Unfortunately, even such cases are in most cases not reported, therefore, perpetuating the menace of corporal punishment as a form of punishment. \"Survivors grow up traumatised as a result of physical and emotional pain inflicted on them,\" Mr Kanunka said. Unfortunately, the ban on corporal punishment in schools has not been followed up by measures that offer alternatives to the vice. Many teachers feel that the Government prohibited corporal punishment without providing them with proper guidelines and training on alternative methods of discipline. The lack of skills to manage discipline through non-violent ways and cultural beliefs that tend to encourage the beating of children as a way of disciplining them have perpetrated the practice. There is need to provide teachers with some form of training in disciplining children by using positive and non-violent ways that can be incorporated in the teachers' training curriculum.", "title": "Discipline should be instilled by parents not school.", "pid": "f788467e-2019-04-18T15:05:59Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.63055419921875}, {"text": "Let me begin by saying that you have no evidence to support your claim. Your entire argument (despite how small it is) it is based entirely on an opinion. If we are spouting opinions I do not think hitting someone is necessary. I believe other punishments can be found for the child other than causing physical pain. \" even if rare\" If it is a punishment is with rare benefits, than you should weigh the estimated 2230 children in need of medical attention in 2005 alone, the 2 that died, and however many more that are emotionally scared by corporal punishment experiences. http://centerforparentingeducation.org...... https://en.wikipedia.org...... http://www.cnn.com...... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...... Society for Adolescent Medicine https://en.wikipedia.org...... https://en.wikipedia.org......", "title": "Corporal punishment in schools.", "pid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.6143798828125}, {"text": "If teachers and parents weren’t allowed to hit children, they would discipline them in better ways.", "title": "Corporal Punishment Should Be Reintroduced", "pid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.5689697265625}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment Into Schools", "pid": "e7b98175-2019-04-18T14:36:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.50082397460938}, {"text": "Corporal punishment is the most effective way of maintaining school discipline and dealing with juvenile crime. I went to an inner city co-educational primary school in an industrial area during the late 1950s/early 1960s. Academic standards were high. Between 30% and 35% of its pupils passed the 11+ and went to grammar school. Discipline was strict. The headmistress caned or slippered boys and girls on the bottom. Corporal punishment was used for minor infringements of rules, for deliberate defiance and to prevent prosecution for criminal offences. It was more of a deterrent for girls than it was for boys who were always challenging authority and getting into mischief. I and three other boys received “six of the best” for disrupting lessons and refusing to do homework. Not wanting to be caned again, we settled down, worked hard and passed the 11+. The school's major disciplinary problems were caused by ten and eleven year old C stream pupils who lived on a new council housing estate At the beginning of the autumn term, the boys organised playground protection rackets. Some carried flick knives or knuckledusters given to them by elder brothers who had been in prison or borstal. One teacher was attacked with a broken bottle. Although uninjured, he had a nervous breakdown and was away from school for two terms. Girls had jam and marmalade rubbed into their hair. Both boys and girls had their clothes slashed with flick knives. Classrooms were vandalised and on two occasions boys were caught setting fire to coats in the cloakroom. At the time children as young as seven could be prosecuted and sent to approved school. The head was put under great pressure by the staff and the local authority to involve the police in these incidents but she always refused. Unlike many head teachers, she accepted responsibility for her pupils’ behaviour out of school hours. Most weekends she was called to the police station to deal with girls caught shoplifting and boys arrested for assault or vandalism. Often the only way she could persuade the victim to withdraw the charges was to agree to cane the delinquents and the punishments were carried out at school with parental consent. Using corporal punishment efficiently and effectively, she kept the members of the school’s criminal fraternity out of the justice system giving them a chance to escape from their back grounds and make something of their lives. One boy who was caned for vandalism obtained a degree in engineering. Another who had been whacked for rubbing marmalade into a girl’s hair went to university and graduated with a degree in economics. Because Dr. Phil is such an expert I guess his expertise is wiser than our ancestors and our elders who have effectively used corporal punishment to discipline their children- our parents and grandparents even. If we were to listen to them they would tell us that corporal punishment is not for everybody because some children can be settled with a reprimand and disapproving look. That being said, they would still rely on the expediency of the cane because all some of these bad kids need is a good spanking.", "title": "it works!", "pid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00042-000", "bm25_score": 218.48910522460938}, {"text": "The Christian Science Monitor, 1989-MAR-21: \"The fundamental need of American education is to find ways of engaging today's children in the thrill of learning. Fear of pain has no place in that process.\"[10]", "title": "Corporal punishment represents failure to engage students", "pid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00071-000", "bm25_score": 218.4766845703125}, {"text": "In this debate, I will be arguing that corporate punishment in schools, homes, or other places is a wrong way to teach your child a lesson. Definition, according to dictionary. comnoun 1. Law. physical punishment, as flogging, inflicted on the body of one convicted of a crime: formerly included the death penalty, sentencing a term of years, etc. 2. physical punishment, as spanking, inflicted on a child by an adult or authority. I will be mostly targeting home and school corporal punishment.", "title": "Corporal Punishment Is Wrong", "pid": "cb52628f-2019-04-18T11:53:57Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.4740753173828}, {"text": "Damn, hard to comment after that. I am sorry you went thru that. Looks like things are looking up for you now tho. Learn from all of that experience and be a better parent when its your turn. Your situation was lame. No doubt. There are exceptions to every rule. And a broad application of corporal punishment obviously does not work for all. However, like you said, kids learn from each other also. If one acts up and others see the acting up kid go unpunished, they see that and learn that also. On compounds the problem. You made some great points. Take care.", "title": "Reinstate corporal punishment in schools", "pid": "f21ee3ae-2019-04-18T11:25:06Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.4703826904297}, {"text": "School and home corporal punishment(example spanking) on children should be banned. I will let my opponent present his/her arguments first or to simply accept and then me present my arguments.", "title": "Corporal punishment", "pid": "4d028cd3-2019-04-18T18:37:10Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.4485626220703}, {"text": "Note: This is actually my 2nd attempt at this debate, as my first debate had that glitch when my opponent forfeited on Round 3. In this debate, I will be arguing that corporate punishment in schools, homes, or other places is a wrong way to teach your child a lesson. Definition, according to dictionary. comnoun physical punishment, as spanking, inflicted on a child by an adult or authority. I will be targeting home and school corporal punishment.", "title": "Corporal Punishment Is Wrong", "pid": "cb5262ae-2019-04-18T11:53:44Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.44825744628906}, {"text": "Here is a paragraph by paragraph response to your opening argument #1-- pertaining to the definition of corporal punishment: broadly defined corporal punishment includes torture and the death penalty. With that in mind opponents of corporal punishment of children and adolescents will define it as broadly as possible and in ways unfavorable to the use of corporal punishment. Most people understand when we talk about spanking a 16 year old girl we are not talking about torture and can distinguish the difference #2 To equate the corporal punishment of adults to that of children is simply an invalid analogy. Children are different then adults and can be treated differently. Yes it is true physical correction of adult women by their husbands is much less acceptable than it used to be but it is also true in the past adult women needed to get the husband's consent for a range of activities outside the home-- including but not limited to-- a driver's license, employment, a bank account. A minor still requires a parents consent for much of this. #3 Yes there are some risks involved in the administration of corporal punishment. But so are there risks in other disciplinary approaches some of which can be serious. Such risks can be minimized if strict rules as to the administration of corporal punishment are closely followed. These would include the strap or other implement be applied only to the child's or adolescent's buttocks, the implement not be such that when applied routinely will not cause any injuries besides some reddening of the skin and perhaps a few welts that will dissipate within a few hours There is also a risk that if used as the primary means of discipline corporal punishment will gradually become less effective and as a result the severity of it will need to increase. This is why corporal punishment should never be the preferred means of correcting children and teenagers #4 What is the definition of a serious injury? There is general acceptance when distinguishing between corporal punishment of a child and adolescent and the abuse of such that a serious injury means a fracture, an internal injury, or any injury to the head. When these happen it is usually the result of excessive force being used, an inappropriate implement being used or the child not being properly restrained when receiving correction. There are less serious injuries which opponents of corporal punishment will construe as serious but really aren't when what one is describing is an isolated incident or two.", "title": "Corporal punishment in schools.", "pid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.44012451171875}, {"text": "Also, I am only talking about the US. While one in five is a lot, has the students' academic record changed? I'm assuming you're from the UK so I pose this question to you, do parents have the option as to whether or not their child can be paddled? Here in the South most of the schools have forms stating the guidelines of corporal punishment. Speaking of detention, there are numerous ways you can make it effective. I'm in college now, but when I was in school, detention was copying the handbook. Most students were never back in that detention room. Most students who were paddled, however, were in there lots of times because once again I will say this, corporal punishment is ineffective. Once again, thank you for debating me.", "title": "Corporal punishment should be banned from schools", "pid": "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.42959594726562}, {"text": "Hello to everyone reading. In this debate, I will be arguing that it is inappropriate and irrational to introduce corporal punishment into the entirety of the education system. I claim that corporal punishment is ineffective (and in most cases, harmful), leaves indelible psychological stains, and undermines the respect and benevolence within a teacher-pupil relationship. With the following contentions, I will elaborate on these claims.ArgumentsC1: Prohibiting Corporal Punishment Reduces AbuseWe can see in countries across the world that have prohibited corporal punishment in schools that this ban has reduced rates of abuse in the home. Since Sweden banned the use of corporal punishment in education institutions in 1979, the rates of support of this practice among parents have dropped form 50% to 11%, and in correlation with these rates, domestic abuse rates have fallen. By this example, we can conclude that when corporal punishment is banned in school, it reduces domestic abuse rates in the home, and is therefore productive and beneficial.C2: Corporal Punishment Has Long-Lasting Psychological EffectsBeing punished physically, even in a controlled, academic environment, is a shock to the system. This shock is amplified in young children. It has been concluded in numerous studies that corporal punishment increases the risk of dangerous and threatening behavior developing in the punished child. Corporal punishment has been linked to addiction and various other serious mental disorders.A study affiliated with the American Academy of Pediatrics found the following:\"Harsh physical punishment was associated with increased odds of mood disorders, anxiety disorders, alcohol and drug abuse/dependence, and several personality disorders after adjusting for sociodemographic variables and family history of dysfunction (adjusted odds ratio: 1.36–2.46).\"This psychological harm can cause a growing resentment to authority, making it more challenging for the teacher to effectively impart knowledge to the students. Evidently, corporal punishment is ineffective in the short-term and long-term, and outweighs any of the (apparently) few benefits. As psychologist Elizabeth Gershoff writes:\"Until researchers, clinicians, and parents can definitively demonstrate the presence of positive effects of corporal punishment, including effectiveness in halting future misbehavior, not just the absence of negative effects, we as psychologists can not responsibly recommend its use.\"C3: Corporal Punishment Undermines the Student-Teacher RelationshipStudents learn when they feel supported and comfortable in the teaching environment. Especially when the teacher utilizes corporal punishment, the students' trust in the teacher is severely damaged. As Edward Clark explains in his work \"Creating a Context for Teaching and Learning\", students do their best work when they are given positive reinforcement for successes rather than negative reinforcement for mistakes.Furthermore, when teachers attempt to impart lessons of acceptance and tolerance, students will not take these lessons to heart. Students will begin to associate teachers with the same type of violence they suffer at the hands of bullies and others which abuse them. This association, along with the natural resentment to authority explained in C2, effectively undermines the student's relationship to a teacher.C4: Corporal Punishment Can Be Used As A Tool for Non-EngagementCorporal punishment often draws away from the true nature of the problem, and instead focuses on the pure deterrence aspect. According to a principal of a school which uses capital punishment, many of the most commonly punished students are from struggling households where corporal punishment is more often administered. Physically punishing perhaps the most vulnerable students is not effective at teaching the underlying problem with their actions, often, it just escalates the problem itself.In states which allow corporal punishment as a means for teachers, 36% of these are above the national mean of state composite test scores, while 89% of the states that have banned this practice in schools are above the mean. This disparity has often been attributed to a lack of engagement to the student body by teachers, who use corporal punishment instead of engaging to find the root of the problem.-------------------------Overall, it has been proven and supported that banning corporal punishment reduces abuse in the home, and instituting this form of punishment in schools has negative psychological effects, undermines the relationship between students and teachers, and can be used as an excuse or cop-out for teachers instead of engaging with misbehaving students.It is resolved that the reintroduction of corporal punishment into schools would be inappropriate and irrational, for the above-mentioned reasons.-------------------------Sources(1) http://www.nospank.net...(2) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...(3) http://www.apa.org...(4) http://ojs.great-ideas.org...(5) http://www.newsweek.com...(6) http://www.gundersenhealth.org...", "title": "The Reintroduction of Corporal Punishment Into Schools", "pid": "e7b98175-2019-04-18T14:36:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.42599487304688}, {"text": "Before I really get started I want to comment on the rules. Rule 1, the Bible is not a valid source. Why would this be a rule? Does my opponent have a bias against the religious text that most Christians follow? Why does my opponent care so much about that with regards to this issue? That seems rather condemning of my opponent's biases. Rule 2, always state sources (if you do not give sources you automatically lose). This too is an interesting rule. Is there something magically true and perfectly right about sources? What if my source is a KKK website? I can still win the argument because I cited my source! This seems to betray another interesting bias. A bias towards automatic acceptance/reliance on \"scientific\" studies. No one can win a debate against someone who has already denied the validity of anything that is against what they already believe. Though I guess, to be fair, I'm not really aiming my arguments at convincing my opponent so much as you, the readers. And what am I going to try to convince you of?Well, first off, I know I'll never win on the very strong position \"corporal punishment should be implemented in a school setting.\" There's no way I could convince you that public school teachers should spank (or otherwise physically punish) their students. I don't want that any more than you or my opponent does. What I will be arguing for is the more modest idea, \"corporal punishment should NOT be OUTLAWED in a school setting.\" Study after study, which I'm sure my opponent will reference has shown that physically punishing children can have harmful results. I have no doubt that that general point is true. However, I would argue, and this is the main crux of my position, all those studies have been aimed at the wrong idea. They seem to be aimed at proving what we all know intuitively. That is, the more an adult hurts a child the worse that child will behave/develop. But, that's not what corporal punishment should be. The position paper of the Journal of Adolescent Health on this topic defines it as this: \"Corporal punishment refers to intentional application of physical pain as a method of changing behavior [1].\" (They're referencing Straus MA, Mouradian VE. Impulsive corporal punishment by mothers and antisocial behavior and impulsiveness of children. Behav Sci Law 1998;16:353–74.) Sure this is a fine general definition, but look at the source, \"Impulsive corporal punishment by mothers ...\" Corporal punishment cannot be impulsive. The effectiveness of any punishment system is in its comprehensiveness and consistency. If an authority says, \"Don't do that or I'll ...\" and then doesn't follow through and lets the child slide and continue to get away with whatever behavior the adult is trying to change, it'll never work. It doesn't matter if the threat is physical or non-physical punishment, if it's not carried out consistently and fairly, it's worthless. Impulsive punishment also won't work (again whether it's physical or otherwise). What is the goal of punishment/discipline? Are those two the same?Let's look at the issue from a totally different perspective. Let's think of discipline and punishment as two very different things. Discipline is a way to change behavior and is generally not physical. Punishment is retribution or the base result of breaking the rules/laws/regulation. Punishment can lead to or even cause a person to change his/her behavior, but that's not the primary goal of punishment. The goal of punishment is to mete out the consequences of wrong actions. Given that view, the goal of corporal punishment isn't to change behavior at all. Which means all those studies that my opponent will undoubtedly speak about, are wrong-headed in the first place. Discipline should use various methods get a child to change his/her own behavior. Punishment is the consequences for not changing one's behavior. Punishment need not be physical, and I would readily admit that in today's culture, physical punishment would probably lead to more problems than necessary. That's why I think the issue shouldn't be the encouragement of corporal punishment in schools, rather the permissibility of it. Think about how it looks from the unruly student's position if the worst punishment for misbehavior is expulsion from school. Taking away corporal punishment leaves school punishment toothless. The worst punishment for misbehavior at school is, not having to go to school anymore?! In many cases that's what the unruly student wants in the first place! Discipline should be multifaceted and non-physical to encourage growth and self-discipline. That's the goal after all, to get the child to control him/herself so as to not get punished because he/she doesn't do anything wrong. Discipline says, change, change, change, and here's how we, as your leaders, will help you change. Punishment says, you've done wrong, here are the consequences.Let's not hamstring the people who are supposed to be leading our children, in fact let's not hamstring ourselves by not meting out punishment when it is deserved.Sources:http://www.adolescenthealth.org...http://www.apa.org...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://www.newsmax.com...http://www.psychpage.com...;", "title": "Corporal punishment should be implemented in a school setting", "pid": "dab6c791-2019-04-18T12:50:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.421142578125}, {"text": "We are debating corporal punishment. \"As I said previously, research indicates that corporal punishment may adversely affect a student's self-image and his or her school achievement. This is a school study. [1] Anyhow, can my opponent give a substantive difference between corporal punishment at home and corporal punishment at school, whereby the deleterious effects of corporal punishment at home somehow transmute into positive effects when delivered by a teacher? \"Then you cut and paste corporal punishment to reduce anti social behavior. That is not what a school would spank for. \"Does my opponent doubt that antisocial behaviour occurs in schools, or does he think that it is not an infraction of school discipline? Or is he claiming that schools who practice corporal punishment only do so for sociable violations? My opponent has yet to show that school shoootings and lack of corporal punishment are linked, especially bearing in the mind the two problems I pointed out that he has to overcome. \"I've never heard a child justify hitting another child by saying that it's OK because mom and dad hit me. \"Unlikely that they do justify it at all. However, it has been shown that corporal punishment leads to increased aggression in children. \"Properly done, spanking causes no lasting physical damage. \"The issue is psychological damage. My opponent raises concerns about correlative studies. Studies linking smoking and lung cancer are correlative. We could argue that people who are prone to lung cancer are more likely to smoke. However, we also have a better causal mechanism that explains the link. We understand the concept of carcinogens. It is the same for corporal punishment. There is a link between spanking and increased aggression. We could argue that children who are likely to become more aggressive are more annoying and are more likely to get spanked, but there is a body of theory that explains spanking as a causal factor. Aside from violence being known to be a stressor, corporal punishment itself is understood to be a stressor. [2]In a summary of scientific research, Elizabeth Gershoff explains some of the causal mechanisms:\"Social cognitive theory suggests that children who are hit by their parents (and thus physically hurt by them) will develop a tendency to make hostile attributions about others that, in turn, increase the likelihood that they will behave inappropriately in social interactions. Finally, attribution theorists argue that, because corporal punishment uses physical force, its use by parents constitutes an external source to which children can attribute their compliance; corporal punishment does not promote internalized reasons for behaving appropriately. Children who have not internalized the reasons for behaving pro-socially thus have no reason to behave appropriately when their parents are not there to provide an external reason for doing so. \"[3]Of the association between behavioural and emotional difficulties,\"There is significant theoretical and empirical justification for assuming that at least some important part of this association is due to the causal impact of corporal punishment\"[2]The use of Corporal Punishment has been associated with anger, fear, and humiliation in the child. Also of concern is the issue of trust between children and adults, and the child's ability to deal with situations without resorting to violence. [4]There is a link between corporal punishment and later wife beating. We could argue that children who are likely to beat their wives when they grow up are worse behaved than other children, but we have a body of theory that explains corporal punishment as a causal factor. Importantly, even if causation were not established, corporal punishment is ineffective at preventing children from growing up to be wife beaters, alcoholics, depressives, and suicide risks. So what is the use of continuing the practice? \"would it mean that all forms of corporal punishment cause emotional and behavioral problems or only the more severe, abusive forms like hitting on the head or boxing the ears? \"How is one form of attack abuse and not the other? What is \"acceptable\" violence against defenceless children? Anyhow, several of the studies I have presented have been specifically on spanking. Strassberg et al. (1994) found that milder forms of spanking in the home correlated with aggressive school behavior to a significant degree, and that child abuse correlated with aggressive behavior at school to an even more significant degree. Any child who had been abusively \"hit\" even once in their life was excluded from the \"spanked\" group, yet the correlation between spanking and school aggression remained significant. [5] A 2006 review found that\"Research on the long-term effects of physical punishment are consistent, and overwhelmingly negative over a wide variety of child development outcomes. \"[6] Lazelere has no case. \"Parents that love their children and are involved in their lives may use spanking, but they will never use spanking in a way that harms their children. \"My opponent confuses intention with outcome. However,\"Rather than serve as a buffer, high parental support may create a context in which the child experiences incidences of physical punishment as inconsistent, confusing, and especially distressing. \"[2]My opponent's hyperlink is broken. Corporal punishmment is not more effective even in the short term than other measures. [3][7] There is no case for it at all. [1] Society for Adolescent Medicine, Ad Hoc Corporal Punishment Committee. (2003). Corporal punishment in schools: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, pp385–393. [2] Turner, H. , and Finkelhor, D. (1996). Corporal Punishment as a Stressor among Youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 58 (1):155-166. Order (CV10) . http://www.unh.edu...[3] . http://scholarship.law.duke.edu...[4] . http://csmh.umaryland.edu...[5] Strassberg, Z. ; Dodge, K. A. ; Petit, G. S. & Bates, J. E. 1994. \"Spanking in the Home and Children's Subsequent Aggression Toward Kindergarten Peers. \" Development and Psychopathology, 6:445-461. [6] . http://www.msd.govt.nz...[7] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "title": "All schools should bring back corporal punishment", "pid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.4033966064453}, {"text": "I forfeit this round", "title": "Corporal punishment in schools.", "pid": "4712ec0a-2019-04-18T12:53:28Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.33981323242188}, {"text": "Sorry for forfeiting but I was stuck without Internet for about one week because there were some malfunctions without the connection. Pro says that corporal punishment is quick and effective, but it's not. Kids start to feel bad and there is a point when some decide that they will not take that anymore and rebel or start to react negatively which prove that in long term cases it does not work effectively. Aldo the other oart may go into depression because when they get hit or spanked they feel worse than when you talk to them and explain them what they did wrong and why it is wrong. Pro also states that undisciplined kids may Become tyrants. Well you can discipline your students without using corporal punishment, for example, in school today they don't use corporal punishment and kids turn out okay. EXTRA ARGUMENTS: 1. Even in school when beating is uses the kids lose respect for the adult who is inducing the beating, also they lose self-respect and they start act mischievously. 2. They learn that it is not wrong to use force in human interactions. 3. Kids also make many visits to the hospital for nerve damage or even broken bones.", "title": "Corporal punsihment for children", "pid": "ec0930ea-2019-04-18T18:58:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.30328369140625}, {"text": "You have supplied zero evidence. I, for now, will remakr that we can consider all your assertions of corporal punishment's ineffectiveness and detention's effectiveness false.You are not permitted to suddenly limit it to one nation unless it is in you rdebate guidelines, which it wasn't.", "title": "Corporal punishment should be banned from schools", "pid": "91279d46-2019-04-18T17:53:34Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.29931640625}, {"text": "One in five teachers? That is the also the figure then of how many teachers need more training! The only reason why a minority of teachers want to see a reintroduction of corporal punishment is because they do not have any effective discipline methods under their belts. The answer? More training, not resorting to corporal punishment. Also remember that school is for learning and it is the teachers job if the students are doing poorly. Corporate Punishment is just and excuse for teachers to whip and hurt people", "title": "bad behaviour is on the increase in the class room", "pid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00027-000", "bm25_score": 218.29879760742188}, {"text": "First of all, not all children can run, thus it would make any form of punishment unfair. 1 mile for a fit student is not the same punishment as 1 mile for a overweight student, but giving a child a larger punishment for being physically fit is also discrimination. Secondly, teachers would need training in this area which would cost money. Third, If a student had an injury or anything went wrong parents could sue costing schools more money. Fourth, just because rules are in place doesn't make it impossible for abuse of laws. Teachers hit students all the time. As a student who has to do 16 hours of service for texting while on a school sponsored volunteer trip, I know that schools can abuse the punishments, but imagine having to run 16 extra miles or something that could put your health at risk. The system that we have now is not perfect, but there is not a cure all for punishment and detentions and suspensions are the only way for schools to enforce rules with out putting the school or the students at risk.", "title": "Corporal Punishment be Brought Back to Schools", "pid": "c93845a0-2019-04-18T15:10:52Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.29046630859375}, {"text": "Walter Williams. \"Making a Case for Corporal Punishment\". Bnet. Sept 13, 1999: \"During my youth, I might have been doing something mischievous, such as throwing stones. An adult would come over to me and ask, 'Does your mother know you're out here throwing stones?' I'd reply, 'No sir or no ma'am,' and hope that the matter ended there. [...] Today, it's quite different. An adult correcting a youngster risks being cursed and possibly assaulted. That's a sad commentary. Adults are justifiably afraid of children. Do we Americans as parents, teachers, principals and others in positions of authority have the guts and willpower to control our youngsters?\"", "title": "Corporal punishment helps protect teachers and adults", "pid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00070-000", "bm25_score": 218.28948974609375}, {"text": "I will bring up my own points and rebut some of my opponent's points. I will elaborate on my rebuttals in future rounds, as I ran out of room. I would like the readers to notice that my opponent is often the logical fallacy called \"Appeal to Emotion\". I will expand on this accusation later in the debate. Before I begin my debate, I would like to say that I am not arguing for an extreme. I will be arguing for a moderate amount of corporal punishment. My 5 contentions will be:1. Corporal punishment serves as a deterrent2. Corporal punishment saves the child's future3. Corporal punishment is not abuse4. Corporal punishment increases productivity5. The Bible supports corporal punishmentBefore anybody starts bashing me on my biblical argument, I would like to point out that my opponent has not set any criteria for available arguments. Therefore, I will use whatever I want. The Bible is provided as more of a \"bonus\" contention. C1:Corporal punishment serves as a deterrentCorporal punishment by itself, is not different that another type of punishment. It is clear to everybody that punishment serves as a deterrent. If my opponent's tries to negate this, then he will have a very hard time. Just the idea alone makes sense. If I add a punishment onto an action, the person will be less likely to commit the action again. This applies to corporal punishment. If a teacher slaps person X for verbal abuse, then he will most likely not do it again for fear of being slapped. These practices successfully transition into a child's later life. .. . leading me to my next point C2: Corporal punishment saves the child's future Corporal punishment, in moderation, early in a child's life helps save their future. Dr. Walter E. Williams, a famous economist says (2):\"Today, it's not uncommon for young criminals to be arrested, counseled and released to the custody of a parent 20 or 30 times before they spend one night in jail. Such a person is a very good candidate for later serving a long prison sentence or, worse, facing the death penalty. If you interviewed such a person and asked: \"Thinking back to when you started your life of crime, would you have preferred a punishment, such as caning, that might have set you straight or be where you are today? \" I'd bet my retirement money that he'd say he wished someone had caned some sense into him. That being the case, which is more cruel: caning or allowing such a person to become a criminal? \" \"Experts theorize that corporal punishment helps create more disciplined and hard-working students and civilians that develop to be more prudent financially. When a nation develops its students into responsible citizens, the entire nation ultimately benefits through increased productivity and efficiency in the economy. Students learn through corporal punishment that there are greater objectives and goals beyond themselves. They ultimately learn to contribute to the economy in a positive way. \"(5)I know that we are talking about corporal punishment in schools, but this directly relates back to it. \"Whipping\" out any bad practices early in a child's life is acceptable as it saves them from committing the same mistake in a unforgiving and cruel adult world. Many children that would be corporally punished in schools are the \"back-talkers\", the interrupters, and verbal abusers. It is better to prevent these practices in childhood. In the adult world, verbal abuse and \"back-talking\" to your superiors is not tolerated. These practices can cause a child to lose their job, and even worse, their future. This discouragement of bad habits sets children up to succeed. Children are more impressionable than adults. Therefore, these effects will be amplified in them. (3)C3: Corporal Punishment is not abuseMy opponent's main arguments are centered around abuse and corporal punishment. Abuse is: \"Use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose\" (3) To prove that a corporal punishment is not abuse, I must show that there is at least one positive effect of corporal punishment. I have shown that corporal punishment saves a child's life in the future (and I will show how it increases productivity). Therefore, corporal punishment is not abuse. The logic goes as follows:1. Abuse consists of using something for a bad purpose of effect2. Corporal punishment helps children later in their life3. Therefore, corporal punishment is not abuse. This negates many of my opponent's points about abuse. C4: Corporal punishment increases productivityCorporal punishment increases productivity. According to Surinder Kahai: \"Contingent punishment behaviors also have been found to be beneficial by promoting group drive and productivity\"(6)\"Contingent reward behavior has been found to promote group drive, cohesiveness, and productivity. Contingent punishment behaviors also have been found to be beneficial by promoting group drive and productivity \" (6)This debate is not whether contingent punishment or contingent rewards are more efficient, simply about whether contingent punishment increases productivity. However, corporal punishment also serves as a incentive. Not everybody is going to get corporally punished. Corporal punishment also serves as a stimulant for those who don't misbehave. By not getting punished, they think that they are doing the correct thing. Therefore, they will keep doing it. This promotes good behaviour in those who already have it, and reduces bad behavior in those who misbehave. C5: The Bible promotes corporal punishmentThis serves as a \"bonus\" contention. According to the Bible:Proverbs 23:14. The authorship is traditionally attributed to King Solomon: \"Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. \"\"He who spareth his rod hateth his son, but he who loveth him is chasteneth him betimes. \" (King Solomon, in the Book of Proverbs [13:24]. \"Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him. \" (Proverbs 22:15)\"Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod. And deliver his soul from hell. \" (Proverbs 23:13)RebuttalTrust IssuesI fail to see how trust issues with teachers relate to students. A teacher is not there to provide a source of comfort, merely a source for teaching and learning. A school has guidance counselors which the students can go to if they have issues, not the teachers. I assume that we are not talking about corporal punishment in the very low grades. Since about Grade 3/4 and up, student/teacher relationships are merely focused on teaching. In Junior High School, High School and University, there is virtually no student/teacher relationship. Corporal punishment would not damage any trust issues with teachers as there aren't any. If the student has problems, there is always a guidance counselor. Family/Peer IssuesI would like to point out that my opponent is using \"Appeal to Emotion\" in this subtopic as he is listing random sad stories of children getting abused. My opponent has also listed statistics (which I doubt are correct, but I will accept them for this point) that are completely irrelevant to this topic. I have shown how Corporal Punishment is not abuse, therefore negating many of my opponent's points. ConclusionI am running out of room so I will quickly wrap this up. I have shown how corporal punishment serves as a deterrent to future misbehaving, saves the child's future, is not abuse, increases productivity, and the Bible promotes it. Vote PROGood luck to CON(2). http://findarticles.com...(3)http://www.kuluttajavirasto.fi...(4)http://goo.gl...(5)http://www.ehow.com...(6)http://www.leadingvirtually.com...", "title": "Corporal Punishment in schools", "pid": "6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.26205444335938}, {"text": "Why did you just post your argument a second time, I would like you to reply to what I have said, because I fell I made a valid argument.", "title": "Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school", "pid": "c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.25465393066406}, {"text": "Who cares people might grow up not being a bunch of p*ssies now.", "title": "Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school", "pid": "c6b278de-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.240478515625}, {"text": "Good luck, Lordknukle.*******Why shouldn't it be legal?Trust IssuesCorporal punishment in school facilities involves the hitting/beating of a student if they have disobeyed class room or school rules. If corporal punishment were to be implemented as a form of disciplinary action, there is no doubt that students would cease to disobey rules. However, this method can and will severely damage a student's trust with their teachers. As a result of this, the student loses that connection with their teacher to the point where they can't go to them a source of comfort. For example: James, 13 years old, has continuously interrupted the teacher with his distracting behavior. As punishment the teacher hits James in the face and is sent back to his seat. Because this damages their teacher-student relationship, the student will most likely avoid using that teacher as a source of comfort for other issues he may be having (bullying, grades, etc).Family/peer issuesI believe that is either extremely disobedient in class or has bad grades has either or both of these: Abuse/neglect at home Bullying inside and outside of school At home: Lets refer to the year 2006. This year, 61% (or 1.25M) children were victims of some form of neglect. These include not only physical, but mental, educational, emotional, and even sexual (http://pediatrics.about.com...). Neglect and abuse at home has a tremendous effect on a child, and to prove this, please take the time to read some of these stories: http://www.forthechild.org... For more statistics: http://www.childhelp.org... These children (mostly young) were all subject to some form of abuse. I'd like to point out one girl's story: Judy: This young girl (age 10) was moved to 20 different foster homes. Her crazed step father had sexually and physically abused her for many years. As a result she threatened to commit suicide in a school bathroom (no relativity). Take Judy's story and add the factor of corporal punishment in school. This would only add to here extremely bad situation and would have most likely ended up worse than it did.Bullying: http://www.makebeatsnotbeatdowns.org.... This link provides statistics on bullying. Feel free to scroll through. There is no doubt that students in fear of any form of bullying would not want to be beaten by their teacher for disobedience because: 1. Teachers and school faculty are the \"bully police\", so to speak. If they are physically punishing their students, the victims of bullying are less likely to go to those people for assistance. 2. Along with bullying, corporal punishment can cause the student to suffer from a depressive state of mind, resulting in possibly lack of loyalty and decline in curricular performance. Lesson learned...?What does corporal punishment in schools (and everywhere for that matter) accomplish? As I've said before, it is used to gain the expected behavior of the target. However, if this does work, another problem unveils itself. Not only does this inflict harm on the student, but it also teaches the student that you need to use physical violence to resolve disputes with peers, family, etc. This especially would become a problem when they are put in a position of authority.ResolutionOther methods (detention, suspension, etc.) can be far more effective, and for that matter, safer. Things like detention and suspension will not teach the student to resolve issues violently and will most likely not provoke depression (if not already being experienced from other matters). For detention especially, the teacher can assign tasks such as cleaning the desks, extra class work/homework, all the things that a student without detention would not want to do. As a result, the disobedient student would cease to break faculty rules.********Looking forward to your argument.Sources listed: http://www.forthechild.org... http://www.childhelp.org... http://pediatrics.about.com... http://www.makebeatsnotbeatdowns.org...", "title": "Corporal Punishment in schools", "pid": "6110d4e2-2019-04-18T18:37:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.22959899902344}, {"text": "There is a real feeling amongst those who are bullied that telling the teacher will worsen the problem, not make it better. Victims of bullying fear repercussions. However, if there was a system of corporal punishment behind the teachers, then something could be done which would scare the bullies out of their bullying ways. This would open bully victims up as they would discuss bullying issues with teachers knowing that something definitive could be done. If a child thinks it's okay to hit because a teacher or adult uses corporal punishment then that child is slow and fails to realize the purpose and meaning behind such an action. Besides a good and effective teacher is not going to use corporal punishment all the time, but as a last resort when all else fails. A threat is no good unless there is some fearful truth behind it. Also, teachers are only ignorant to bullying matters because they know they cannot realistically do much to stop it. So in effect, bullying has gotten a lot meaner.", "title": "it will improve the lives of those who are bullied", "pid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00038-000", "bm25_score": 218.1793212890625}, {"text": "Thank you Con for the swift response. I apologize it took so long for my answer, as weekends can be a bit hectic. Con states in his argument for number one that \"The more \"spankings children\" experience, the greater the chance that they will become aggressive and engage in other anti-social behavior.\" Con supplies this quote with a source that includes a study done. I would like to point out to the voters that this study may be misleading, as the point of corporal punishment is to enforce order in the classroom. This sense of order may include students not talking, or being \"anti-social\" as Con states. Con's second argument states that children with disabilities get punished more than other children. This, my friend, is against the law. This is considered assaulting a cripple, or simply put Assault and Battery, \"Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.\" [1] Con's third argument is solid, and without flaw. Or one thinks when first reading it. For this argument, he states that students find the message that violence is the answer. This is almost comparing the case of violent video games increasing the chance of violent children. This has been debunked on more than one occasion, and whether or not you agree with the statement, in the analogy of video games, if a parent does not agree with the \"rating\" of the game, they remove the child from the situation. This can be done with schools as well. If a parent feels that their child is not going to develop well in a school, they remove their child from the situation. As for Con's arguments in 4 and 5, if the voters will note all sources listed, they have dates of more than a decade ago. These are not entirely reliable sources, as science has made and will continue to make new discoveries, therefore changing the statistics shown and stated by Con. Con fails to point out in six that again, this would be against the law. Bruises may occur, but for breaking a child's bones, this is classified as Assaulting a Minor and Child Abuse. The case of the child's death, is second degree murder. [2] Remember voters, the objective of corporal punishment is not to beat a child senseless, but to give spankings or paddlings for inappropriate behavior in the classroom. In argument 7, Con states that due to corporal punishment, it gives an acceptable means of aggression to solve problems in our society. This will simply be preparing students for the real world. Our society is filled will people who believe aggression solves problems. These people are called politicians, and often, these politicians make the decisions for our country, and will invade foreign countries. They do this in the belief that America can enforce what they want when they want on who they want due to their aggressive and gigantic military. Argument 9 is a bit humorous to the argument. The point of corporal punishment is not to tickle students and reward them for misbehavior. It is simply to show them the superiority and wrongdoing of their actions through a physical punishment, which will probably physically harm them, and embarrass the student, emotionally harming them. This is simply just the point of corporal punishment. But there is one simple solution to this problem. Students who don't misbehave don't get punished. The problem does not go back to the teachers, but to the students. Under Cons facts, Con states that schools are the only legal place that it is permitted to strike another. Con has obviously never watched a hockey game. Schools are one of many institutions where others can get hit, home is another one of these, again under the parents discretion. Con states in 11 that \"Many alternatives to corporal punishment have proven their worth. Alternatives teach children to be self-disciplined rather than cooperative only because of fear. (No source here, just kind of general knowledge).\" While Con's \"general knowledge\" might be correct from where Con lives, it certainly is not general knowledge across the country. He proves no information on detentions working. I'm sure many of the voters have seen \"The Breakfast Club.\" The Criminal, played by Judd Nelson, obviously has no problem with getting Saturday after Saturday detentions. But later in the movie, when the principle brings him into his office, and they get ready to duke it out, Judd stands down giving the man the respect he desires. I thank Con for the debate acceptance and look forward to next round. Again voters please keep in mind this may not directly reflect my personal opinions on the matter of Corporal Punishment. 1. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://criminal.findlaw.com...", "title": "Corporal Punishment Should be Enforced in Schools", "pid": "2fc6200f-2019-04-18T17:01:39Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.1658935546875}, {"text": "Corporal punishment must be used as part of a wider strategy and at the correct time: when other immediate discipline has failed; when the child understands their behaviour and has had an opportunity to explain it; and after an initial warning and opportunity for the child to repent. Crucially, the person delivering the punishment must not be angry at the time. This undermines much of the hysterical argument against corporal punishment.", "title": "Corporal punishment can be regulated within orderly framework.", "pid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00064-000", "bm25_score": 218.16241455078125}, {"text": "Teachers in academies and schools use corporal punishments to change student's behaviour, but as soon as children get punished that way, the child will get mad and depressed. The child will start thinking that he is a bad person and a useless person. If they get punished like that too much they will become violent, and also they will become aggressive to their friends. Instead or punishing the teachers and parents should emphasis good behavior and applause them when they do something good, so they will feel better when they are prasied and will try better when their doing something positive. For example when a student is late for class the teacher should tell him or her to come a bit earlier next time. When teachers tell students to do something they will resist and maybe even ignore what teacher said if the teacher hits them instead of saying it in a good way. Some teachers hit them again if they don't listen. Then the student will try to quit the academy and if their parents are hitting them they might even decide to leave home.", "title": "Should corporate punishment be allowed in schools or academies", "pid": "b9f16e7f-2019-04-18T19:50:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.15328979492188}, {"text": "Delaware children are too soft for corporeal punishment, but many children in other parts of the nation have much duller feelings. There's a plague infecting close to one fourth of Oregon that causes the auditory perception of children under eight years old to undergo static overload when verbally instructed to change their behavior, and they can become lost souls without getting other clear forms of communication from adults, such as all-out beatings. The ones in my home state of Texas are made of rubber, and punching and scratching are our 27th and 28th letters of the alphabet - we would lose a historically significant portion of our culture without it. We need to continue to bridge the generation gap between adults and their children, and corporeal punishment is a key element of that plan.", "title": "Corporal punishment being reintroduced to schools", "pid": "8e9af3ad-2019-04-18T17:07:58Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.0946502685547}, {"text": "I stated it worked and stand by it. If it didn't work then why would it have continued? Why is it since the bans started children have become incorrigible and school shootings, gang rapes and other things have become more and more popular. Almost weakly we read about; rapes, gang rapes, assaults and even murder. Those things did not happen back in the 60's and 70's when I went to school and bullying was very, very rare. Although I am sure things did happen in some parts of the country it was virtually unheard of. History - I just snagged this real quick from wikipedia. Corporal punishment was recorded as early as c. 10th Century BC in Book of Proverbs attributed to Solomon: He that spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes. Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell. It was certainly present in classical civilisations, being used in Greece, Rome, and Egypt for both judicial and educational discipline. Some states gained a reputation for using such punishments cruelly; Sparta, in particular, used them as part of a disciplinary regime designed to build willpower and physical strength. Although the Spartan example was extreme, corporal punishment was possibly the most frequent type of punishment. In the Roman Empire, the maximum penalty that a Roman citizen could receive under the law was 40 \"lashes\" or \"strokes\" with a whip applied to the back and shoulders, or with the \"fasces\" (similar to a birch rod, but consisting of 8\"10 lengths of willow rather than birch) applied to the buttocks. Such punishments could draw blood, and were frequently inflicted in public. I don't know why you would be amused with my using a debate. It brings into play other opinions. I have no problem sharing my sources and even encourage you to use them. This topic has been debated since the days of the first real republic Greece. Like all republics, the softer they got and they more entitlements the weaker the empire and eventual collapse. I happened in Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, British and now the USA. When I mentioned the 6000 teachers I guess I was wrong in believing you would understand it. I thought it was obvious and easy to understand. England is a very liberal country. They have many entitlements and have been pushing for all types of entitlement reform since the 1750's. (Don't go getting political I am using the word entitlement because the English believe they are \"entitled\" certain things. Politics is another subject). For a union (liberal) organization such as teachers and living in a liberal society such as England it is AMAZING that 20% of the teachers would say they think it should be brought back. The article doesn't say how may had no opinion or had a different position. Skewing facts does not make a case. Being spanked has never been proven to cause violence when a person becomes an adult. There are a ton of psychology papers on the internet talking about this subject but they never went out, grabbed 100,000 people, sat them all down and ask who had been spanked, who has been violent and do they feel there is a connection. What they do is visit people in prison, who are always innocent and ask about their childhood and being spanked. Then they claim that spanking damaged them!!! Yelling at a child causes more mental damage than spanking. However, a parent who calmly spanks a child after explaining why the child is being spanked and does so only to create a foundation for other primary methods of discipline (such as Time Out) is never going to develop a pattern of violence in the child. Never. The American Academy of Pediatrics admits that spanking can stop a child from misbehaving in the short-term. Exactly. During that initial short-term period, parents should transition to Time Out to train their child to obey and respect others. Many children respond to self-controlled, reasonable spanking with an adjustment in their attitude toward parents. http://drpaterno.blogspot.com... Here are the states with corporal punishment still allowed, then the rank in violent crime, then the major cities in those states, and then the percentage of whites in those cities. We know violent crimes are highest in major cities, especially the inner cities. We also know that violent crimes are committed disproportionately by minorities and people who come from broken homes. The violent crime has nothing to do with spanking. States with corporal punishment Rank Major cities % white population in city Alabama 23 Birmingham,Montgomery 35.0 47.6 Arizona 16 Phoenix, Tucson 46.5, 47.2 Arkansas 11 Little Rock, N. Little Rock 49.4, 61.55 Colorado 25 Denver, Aurora 52.2, 61.1 Florida 4 Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa 55.1, 11.9, 46.3 Georgia 19 Atlanta, Augusta 50.7, 39.1 Idaho 42 Boise, Nampa 91.5, 83.45 **** Indiana 29 Indianapolis 58.0 Kansas 24 Wichita, Kansas City 64.5, 40.2 Kentucky 40 Louisville, Lexington 71.7, 81.04 Louisiana 5 New Orleans, Baton Rouge 33.0, 37.8 Mississippi 31 Jackson, Gulfport 18.0, 56.86 Missouri 12 St. Louis, Kansas City 42.2, 54.9 New Mexico 9 Albuquerque, Las Cruces 42.1, 37.5 * North Carolina 18 Charlotte, Raleigh 45.1, 53.3 Ohio 27 Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati 59.3, 33.4, 48.1 Oklahoma 17 Tulsa, Oklahoma City 57.9, 68.7 South Carolina 1 Columbia, Charleston, N. Charleston 49.6, 52.2, 40.6 ** Tennessee 2 Memphis, Nashville 29.5, 56.3, Texas 15 Houston, San Antonio, Dallas 26.0, 26.6, 28.8 *** Wyoming 43 Cheyenne, Casper 87.4, 92.3 **** * http://www.newmexico-demographics.com... ** http://www.southcarolina-demographics.com... *** Houston, San Antonio and Dallas are around 50% until the white hispanics are removed from the non hispanic. **** These were not listed with white hispanics removed. I see 5 in the top 10 and 3 in the bottom 10. Maine #50 is 94.4% non hispanic white. New Hampshire #48 is 92.3% and Vermont #47 is 94.3. I realize that spanking is not allowed in schools in these states but home spanking is. A liberal made a motion to ban home spanking and it was heavily defeated!!! http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "All schools should bring back corporal punishment", "pid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.08334350585938}, {"text": "O Observations My opponents title: 1.\"Corporal punsihment for children\" Has the word punishment misspelled. 2.We will be focusing on corporal punishment in schools \"This debate will be more about how corporal punishment works at schools\". I am free to assume that there's no corporal punishment outside of school and vice versa. 3.I can begin in round one \"My opponent will start this debate with his arguments\" O Burden of Proof Is equal. O Definitions Corporal Punishment: \"physical punishment, as spanking, inflicted on a child by an adult in authority.\" Dictionary.com Child: \"a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.\" Dictionary.com O Notes Interestingly my opponent said \"Corporal punsihment for children\". That's right we're talking about punishment for children and not against them. One must realize that corporal punishment and child abuse are two different things .One acts as an attention getter in a controlled atmosphere, while the other is used intentionally to harm the child in a physical manner. My opponent may not under any circumstances say what kind of corporal punishment I support. In this debate you have mentioned no specifics hence I get to add my own details. O Arguments 1. Quick and Effective Corporal punishment is quick and effective. I don't think that this can be argued. 2. Being Spoiled Undisciplined children are in danger of becoming tyrants. Todays society is a good example: http://www.leaderu.com... 3. Parents We can argue until the bears take over this site but ultimately its our parents choice: \" Many school districts also offer parents an opportunity to state whether or not they wish corporal punishment to be used on their sons and daughters. Typically, the parents fill out a form which is filed in the school office. In many districts this is an \"opt-out\" system. In others an \"opt-in\" system applies, whereby no student is so punished without explicit parental consent.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you", "title": "Corporal punsihment for children", "pid": "ec0930ea-2019-04-18T18:58:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.0602264404297}, {"text": "I end my argument. I feel that everything important to say has been said.", "title": "Should Corporal Punishment be allowed at school", "pid": "c6b2791c-2019-04-18T14:59:08Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.0585479736328}, {"text": "My opponent is a hypocrite, around the same amount of his arguments are PLAGARIZED also. \\\\\\First Of I would like to state a major flaw in my opponent(s) arguments, THEY ARE PLAGIARIZED. 75% of his points can be found here: http://www.naturalchild.org...... This is poor sportsmanship but I would still like to continue./// They aren't plagiarized unless I do not state my source and I am going to state all my sources at the end of my rebuttal. I do not know if my opponent knows the definition of plagiarism but this is not what it is. \\\\\\Repeatedly, my opponent has dressed his arguments by using slashes and back slashes. That is not the point of the matter right now but it just goes to show how he wants to \"cover up\" his \"MISTAKE\"/// My god, you really are new... Those are pointing out what you said, and it helps organize my refutations, they stand out more than quotation marks, many debater on this site use them. \\\\\\Look, Hitler was different, he was a crazy radical that trained kids to kill the Jews, but this doesn't count as corporal punishment, ITS REFERRED TO AS WAR!/// You obviously did not read my argument carefully, I was using the Hitler Youth as an example, which there in the Hitler youth was, for a crime you were punished with bullets in your face. Crimes would include desertion, insubordination (back talk) and pretty much anything you can be given detention in school. \\\\\\Like I have stated before, if kids are given a punishment that they will probably forget within the week it is most likely they will repeat that mistake./// If you have been beaten in your life by a parent you do not forget. It is a fearful memory that is full of pain, I am sure you would not forget this very quickly. \\\\\\Next, he also states \"Kids become immune to pain\" that is a completely blind statement, and is obviously very opinionated./// Funny coming from someone who brought up personal experience as a point. This is not blind, if you are beaten repeatedly over the course of your childhood, you learn to take the punishment, as many kids have with other things. \\\\\\I would like to state, YET AGAIN, this is an editor from childdisciplinewithlove.org who is using his experiences IN SCHOOL to show how he became a better person./// Ironic, an opinionated argument coming from the accuser of opinionated arguments. Personal experiences should not be used as evidence. Statistics should be used as evidence. \\\\\\Out-of-school suspension and expulsion interrupt students' educational progress and remove students from school at a time when they may most need stability and guidance in their lives. Repeated out-of-school suspensions may make it impossible for students to keep up with the curriculum, complete class assignments, and advance from one grade to another./// Keyword \"MAY\" this MAY make it impossible to keep up with assignments? These are not statistics, this is an assertion, clearly my opponent cannot even follow the basic A.R.E. format and cannot identify statistics. I have refuted all of your assertions, now where is your reasoning and evidence? \\\\\\Thank You, I am carman16 on the motion that schools should have the option to use corporal punishment./// yes you are The motion is negated. My points still stand. This is why the Negative has won this debate ===VOTE-CON===", "title": "Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment", "pid": "573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.00367736816406}, {"text": "My opponent believes some negative things about children, but gives no evidence that children are worse than in previous generations. He presents no evidence that lack of corporal punishment is a factor in shootings. His whole paragraph is mere hidebound opinion.Let's look at some actual evidence. The most cited studies of spanking almost all found that spanking is detrimental to discipline:\"Among the respondents without a history of physical or sexual abuse during childhood, those who reported being slapped or spanked \"often\" or \"sometimes\" had significantly higher lifetime rates of anxiety disorders , alcohol abuse or dependence and one or more externalizing problems, compared with those who reported \"never\" being slapped or spanked.\"[1]\"The results generally indicated a linear positive association between physical punishment and child aggression.[...]The combination of infrequent reasoning and frequent spanking was associated with dramatically increased aggression.\"[2]\"The findings were consistent with a socialization model in which higher levels of severity in parental punishment practices are associated with higher levels of children's subsequent aggression toward peers. Findings indicated that children who had been spanked evidenced levels of aggression that were higher than those who had not been spanked, and children who had been the objects of violent discipline became the most aggressive of all groups.[...]The findings suggest that in spite of parents' goals, spanking fails to promote prosocial development and, instead, is associated with higher rates of aggression toward peers.\"[3]\"When parents use corporal punishment to reduce ASB [anti-social behaviour], the long-term effect tends to be the opposite. The findings suggest that if parents replace corporal punishment by nonviolent modes of discipline, it could reduce the risk of ASB among children and reduce the level of violence in American society.\"[4]My opponent doesn't say why he thinks it is necessary to physically punish children rather than warn them, reason with them, remove them from the situation, or otherwise discipline them. As a parent, I never found it necessary to spank my child. I fail to see what possible benefit can be derived from an adult inflicting violence on a defenceless child. How this is supposed to make a child reasonable is not explained by proponents of corporal punishment.I'm sure readers have seen on the streets parents losing their temper with their children and smacking them. Approval of corporal punishment gives an adult license to act out of temper. Anyhow, my opponent has to engage with the scientific studies presented to him.[1] http://www.cmajopen.com...[2] http://link.springer.com...[3] http://journals.cambridge.org...[4] http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com...", "title": "All schools should bring back corporal punishment", "pid": "29b5e1ff-2019-04-18T17:57:40Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.99923706054688}, {"text": "There are always ways to discipline children that do not involve violence, and which are inherently superior than resorting to violence. Resorting to violence is the lazy way out for parent or teachers.", "title": "Better ways exist; corporal punishment is lazy way", "pid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00063-000", "bm25_score": 217.95928955078125}, {"text": "David Benatar. \"Corporal Punishment Social Theory and Practice\". Social Theory and Practice. Summer 1998: \"Opponents of the corporal punishment of children are rightly critical of its extensive use and the severity with which it is all too often inflicted. They have been at pains to show that corporal punishment is not used merely as a last resort, but is inflicted regularly and for the smallest of infractions.(1) They have also recorded the extreme harshness of many instances of corporal punishment.(2) [...] I have no hesitation in joining the opposition to such practices, which are correctly labeled as child abuse. Where I believe that opponents of corporal punishment are wrong is in saying that physical punishment should never be inflicted.\"", "title": "Corporal punishment should be limited, but not abandoned", "pid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00054-000", "bm25_score": 217.91815185546875}, {"text": "Corporal punishment helps protect teachers and adults", "title": "Corporal punishment of children", "pid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 217.88436889648438}, {"text": "Even the power of physical punishment to teach a child the difference between right and wrong is dubious; a young child may learn that the adult is displeased, but not why. Spanking will cause a state of extreme distress and confusion which makes it less likely they will analyse their behaviour with clarity. In older children disciplined at school, a physical punishment is likely to provoke resentment and further misbehaviour.", "title": "It is dubious that corporal punishment helps discipline children.", "pid": "1d10487f-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00045-000", "bm25_score": 217.8767852783203}, {"text": "It increases the rate of crime and violence.", "title": "Corporal Punishment Should Be Reintroduced", "pid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 217.87112426757812}, {"text": "it works!", "title": "Corporal Punishment Should Be Reintroduced", "pid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00019-000", "bm25_score": 217.86471557617188}, {"text": "This debate will be more about how corporal punishment works at schools and why it is incorrect, rather than at home. How can children know the difference between right and wrong, and how can teacher ensure and establish order in class as well as an appropiate environment for learning. My opponent will start this debate with his arguments. Than you for accepting this debate and Happy Holidays!!", "title": "Corporal punsihment for children", "pid": "ec0930ea-2019-04-18T18:58:19Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.86317443847656}, {"text": "First Of I would like to state a major flaw in my opponent(s) arguments, THEY ARE PLAGIARIZED. 75% of his points can be found here: http://www.naturalchild.org... This is poor sportsmanship but I would still like to continue. Repeatedly, my opponent has dressed his arguments by using slashes and back slashes. That is not the point of the matter right now but it just goes to show how he wants to \"cover up\" his \"MISTAKE\" Now on to some refutes, my opponent has repeatedly stated that I have no evidence, if he had read my argument closely you would be able to see that I am quoting actual PEOPLE! He also made a ridiculous refute by comparing this to the age of Hitler? Look, Hitler was different, he was a crazy radical that trained kids to kill the Jews, but this doesn't count as corporal punishment, ITS REFERRED TO AS WAR! Now my opponent states: \"It has been prove, even in government, that it is wrong to rule with an iron fist. You should rule with reasoning, such as \"If you disrupt the class again you will be given after school detention on the minimum day\" Or \"You will have extra homework\" definitely not saying \"if you don't shut your trap you're gonna get a beatin'!\" Because after a while, kids get immune to the pain.\" Like I have stated before, if kids are given a punishment that they will probably forget within the week it is most likely they will repeat that mistake. Next, he also states \"Kids become immune to pain\" that is a completely blind statement, and is obviously very opinionated. Lastly, I would like to have my opponent clarify the following: \\\\\\I'm good and successful today because my parents hit me when I did something wrong. That's why I'm doing well in life. I suffered no harm from my parents having beaten me./// Refute: Good and successful is from a point of view, and you have no clear evidence that because your parents hit you it is why you are successful. You may have not suffered any harm but you don't know about other kids who have different minds, a personal experience in this case is irrelevant. Finally, this debate is about schools, not your family. I would like to state, YET AGAIN, this is an editor from childdisciplinewithlove.org who is using his experiences IN SCHOOL to show how he became a better person. This is clear evidence supporting my arguments. For my closing statement I will go back to my opponents introduction. I have not yet once stated paddling as a form of corporal punishment, OR a male teacher hitting a girl. Since the motion has the word, CHOOSE, they are at full discretion to modify and change their policies. A child will learn, that they will not face pain if they are good, therefore making them better people late on in life. I have some statistics to prove this statement: One Kentucky study noted, \"Out-of-school suspension and expulsion interrupt students' educational progress and remove students from school at a time when they may most need stability and guidance in their lives. Repeated out-of-school suspensions may make it impossible for students to keep up with the curriculum, complete class assignments, and advance from one grade to another.\" David Richart et al., \"Unintended Consequences: The Impact of 'Zero Tolerance' and Other Exclusionary Policies on Kentucky Students\", report prepared by the National Institute on Children, Youth & Families at Spalding University in Louisville, KY; the Children's Law Center in Covington, KY; and the Youth Law Center in Washington, D.C. Thank You, I am carman16 on the motion that schools should have the option to use corporal punishment.", "title": "Schools Should Have The Option To Use Corporal Punishment", "pid": "573905a8-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.84054565429688}, {"text": "Allowing children to be hit sends the message that it is OK to treat children in this way.", "title": "Corporal Punishment Should Be Reintroduced", "pid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.82215881347656}, {"text": "harms children with genuine behavioural disorders or other disabilities", "title": "Corporal Punishment Should Be Reintroduced", "pid": "1df1290b-2019-04-19T12:44:36Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 217.79803466796875}, {"text": "I agree that children should be punished by their parents. But as far as school punishment goes the school administrative staff should recommend a certain action against the child but should have no authority in dealing out any physical punishment. If a teacher hits a student the there will be a massive uproar with people who are anti-violence and child abuse supporters will start a big fuss. In all you will cause a lot of trouble for a little problem.", "title": "Physical Punishment.", "pid": "e6fbb7b9-2019-04-18T15:17:52Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.7965087890625}, {"text": "My rebuttal and argument is that corporal punishment on children (Example: spanking) does not work. Spanking children distracts the child from the real goal; when you spank the children will than focus on the punishment and will not focus on the reason their bad behavior was bad; this means they will continue with that behavior because they don't consider it bad behavior. Corporal punishment also makes children view aggressive and violent behavior as acceptable increasing their chances of being violent. A scientific study has found that children who grow up in schools that use corporal punishment performed worse on tasks then those growing up In schools that did not use corporal punishment. Corporal punishment results in children not internalizing rules and standards meaning that the only reason they don't do bad things is fear of corporal punishment; children who do not get spanked are more likely to believe in rules and laws meaning they don't do bad things because they view bad things as bad. http://scienceblog.com... Another study found that spanking kids leads to more long-term behavior problems. Meaning spanking does not work but in fact increases bad behavior. http://www.cnn.com... Another study found the same results as the first two. http://www.time.com...", "title": "Corporal punishment", "pid": "4d028cd3-2019-04-18T18:37:10Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.78512573242188}]}
{"idx": 4, "qid": "5", "q_text": "Should social security be privatized?", "qrels": {"fb9d1caa-2019-04-18T19:57:07Z-00003-000": 0, "f8a2755c-2019-04-18T14:34:51Z-00003-000": 0, "f898f8b6-2019-04-18T11:07:53Z-00001-000": 0, "ed146d2b-2019-04-18T18:30:30Z-00003-000": 2, "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00005-000": 2, "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00074-000": 1, "a7deb84a-2019-04-18T18:13:23Z-00000-000": 0, "adb11e8-2019-04-18T13:30:49Z-00001-000": 0, "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00034-000": 1, "ccb2cd3b-2019-04-19T12:44:47Z-00002-000": 0, "ca713976-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00002-000": 2, "ca28d265-2019-04-18T15:02:57Z-00003-000": 0, "b4e53fbf-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00005-000": 2, "b2629620-2019-04-18T18:08:01Z-00003-000": 0, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00067-000": 1, "96775ff7-2019-04-18T17:01:41Z-00000-000": 0, "21579906-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00009-000": 0, "94c2b13e-2019-04-18T12:39:12Z-00005-000": 1, "8ecb5e60-2019-04-18T18:47:07Z-00005-000": 0, "8c527667-2019-04-18T19:32:56Z-00003-000": 2, "8c527667-2019-04-18T19:32:56Z-00002-000": 0, "8c527629-2019-04-18T19:33:00Z-00000-000": 0, "8c527629-2019-04-18T19:33:00Z-00002-000": 2, "8c527629-2019-04-18T19:33:00Z-00003-000": 2, "88df2c79-2019-04-18T15:49:36Z-00000-000": 0, "7af08047-2019-04-18T17:37:15Z-00005-000": 0, "785830f5-2019-04-18T12:06:37Z-00001-000": 0, "68faa15f-2019-04-18T16:49:59Z-00004-000": 0, "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00000-000": 0, "5f3eab31-2019-04-18T12:44:43Z-00001-000": 0, "5662e460-2019-04-18T18:54:15Z-00005-000": 0, "458224f5-2019-04-18T16:08:47Z-00003-000": 0, "62ac1cd7-2019-04-18T16:11:18Z-00001-000": 0, "38b0fe14-2019-04-18T12:54:22Z-00005-000": 2, "2476225d-2019-04-18T14:28:24Z-00007-000": 0, "260780d5-2019-04-18T15:27:35Z-00005-000": 0, "41247294-2019-04-18T18:34:58Z-00002-000": 0, "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00013-000": 2, "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00009-000": 2, "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00000-000": 0, "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00007-000": 2, "36edcc1c-2019-04-18T19:45:50Z-00001-000": 0, "36edcc1c-2019-04-18T19:45:50Z-00000-000": 0, "38b0fdf5-2019-04-18T12:55:15Z-00001-000": 2, "38b0fdf5-2019-04-18T12:55:15Z-00005-000": 0, "2f5384a7-2019-04-18T18:11:33Z-00001-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Pass", "title": "Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized", "pid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.5727081298828}, {"text": "Andrew Roth. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: \"Voters are tired of big government. They are tired of bailouts and government taking over various private sector industries. With personal accounts, voters now have a chance to reduce the power in Washington, and reclaim some of the economic liberty that was taken away from them. Candidates for Congress should adopt that message and support it loudly.\"", "title": "Privatized social security restores individual liberty and ownership", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00061-000", "bm25_score": 217.87570190429688}, {"text": "Thank you lannan13 for an invigorating debate.", "title": "Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized", "pid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.86575317382812}, {"text": "The social security system is unsustainable in the status quo", "title": "privatize the USA's social security schemes", "pid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.86456298828125}, {"text": "Private social security accounts are voluntary.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.7576904296875}, {"text": "Michael Tanner. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. July 26th, 1996: \"An important side benefit of Social Security privatization is that it would give every American--including poor Americans--an opportunity to participate in the economy by owning a part of it. In effect, a privatized pension system would act as a nationwide employee stock option plan, which would allow even the poorest workers to become capitalists. Through Social Security privatization, workers would become stockholders. The division between labor and capital would be broken down.\"", "title": "Privatizing social security offers ownership in economy.", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00062-000", "bm25_score": 217.7342529296875}, {"text": "Social security is a complete joke. Although it was originally designed so that people contribute funds which will eventually be paid back to them to support them in their old age, it has become a means through which the young are forced to subsidize the old, a facet of socialism. Retirement funds would be much better off in the hands of private companies. As is stands now, the government is not accountable for how our retirement funds are used, and therefore have no incentive to administrate them effectively. Private companies WOULD be accountable to the public. If a fund did not perform, we could transfer our money to a more profitable fund. In addition, the government would not have access to our money and would not be able to spend it indescriminately. Why shouldn't we privatize social security?", "title": "Social security should be privatized.", "pid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.68881225585938}, {"text": "Privatizing social security offers ownership in economy.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 217.67022705078125}, {"text": "Social security is basically a giant ponzi scheme.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 217.63868713378906}, {"text": "Social security is in crisis", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 217.5115966796875}, {"text": "Social security is net loss for taxpayers and beneficiaries.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00038-000", "bm25_score": 217.40086364746094}, {"text": "Public supports private social security accounts.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.38658142089844}, {"text": "Thanks to lannan for engaging in this debate with me. It'll actually be my first time really arguing it (though I do agree with my position), so this should be interesting. I accept, and await his argument.", "title": "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security", "pid": "41ee0719-2019-04-18T14:19:05Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.37664794921875}, {"text": "Privatized social security restores individual liberty and ownership", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00019-000", "bm25_score": 217.35745239257812}, {"text": "Social security unsustainable with retiring workforce.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 217.26382446289062}, {"text": "The problems with the social security are systemic, not inherent", "title": "privatize the USA's social security schemes", "pid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.23831176757812}, {"text": "Private accounts provide retirees a higher rate of return.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00031-000", "bm25_score": 217.18145751953125}, {"text": "Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00024-000", "bm25_score": 217.1419677734375}, {"text": "Privatization is the least bad option.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 217.1280517578125}, {"text": "Social security not in crisis; no need for privatization", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 217.1016082763672}, {"text": "Conservatives want to destroy social security because it works.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 217.0531463623047}, {"text": "Michael Tanner. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. July 26th, 1996: \"Critics of Social Security privatization often warn that such proposals hold serious dangers for the elderly poor. However, a closer examination of the evidence indicates that the poor would be among those who would gain most from the privatization of Social Security. By providing a much higher rate of return, privatization would raise the incomes of those elderly retirees who are most in need. Although the current Social Security system is ostensibly designed to be progressive, transferring wealth to the elderly poor, the system actually contains many inequities that leave the poor at a disadvantage. For instance, the low-income elderly are much more likely than their wealthy counterparts to be dependent on Social Security benefits for most or all of their retirement income. But despite a progressive benefit structure, Social Security benefits are inadequate for the elderly poor's retirement needs.\"", "title": "Privatizing social security helps the poor.", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00055-000", "bm25_score": 217.01133728027344}, {"text": "Americans support increasing taxes to fund Social Security.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.93887329101562}, {"text": "Privatization gives investment decisions to account holders.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00030-000", "bm25_score": 216.93719482421875}, {"text": "We all know that the social security system is severely underfunded; it's headed for bankruptcy sometime in the 2040s. Implementing private accounts will take 4 percent of the 12.4 percent taxes from every worker out of the trust fund. Thus, almost a 3rd of the revenue generated by social security taxes will be removed. Drastic benefit cuts or increased taxes will have to occur even sooner, which is a recipe for disaster.", "title": "Privatized social security will cut tax revenues and social services.", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00059-000", "bm25_score": 216.89346313476562}, {"text": "Privatization would represent a windfall for Wall Street financial institutions, who would obtain significant fees for managing private accounts.", "title": "Privatizing social security would wrongly enrich banks.", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00049-000", "bm25_score": 216.89146423339844}, {"text": "I conceded the debate.", "title": "Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized", "pid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.87789916992188}, {"text": "Privatising social security would improve economic growth", "title": "privatize the USA's social security schemes", "pid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.87771606445312}, {"text": "Alex Schibuola. \"Time to Privatize? The Economics of Social Security.\" Open Markets. November 16th, 2010: \"If Social Security were privatized, people would deposit their income with a bank. People actually save resources that businesses can invest. We, as true savers, get more resources in the future.\"", "title": "Privatizing social security enables investment of savings", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00042-000", "bm25_score": 216.81570434570312}, {"text": "Social Security allows retirees to draw on own investments.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 216.79971313476562}, {"text": "Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth", "title": "privatize the USA's social security schemes", "pid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.79766845703125}, {"text": "Privatizing social security helps the poor.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00028-000", "bm25_score": 216.72207641601562}, {"text": "Privatization during economic crisis would have been disaster.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00035-000", "bm25_score": 216.69174194335938}, {"text": "Privatization threatens disabled worker/family protections", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 216.66539001464844}, {"text": "Private accounts increase investments, jobs, wages.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00040-000", "bm25_score": 216.5868682861328}, {"text": "Support for privatization is driven by misinformation.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.56478881835938}, {"text": "Private accounts would require costly new govt bureaucracy", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 216.56112670898438}, {"text": "Medicare shortfalls often conflated with Social Security", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.56007385253906}, {"text": "Privatized social security accounts vulnerable to downturns", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00026-000", "bm25_score": 216.55984497070312}, {"text": "Privatized social security cannot be assured to beat inflation.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 216.55511474609375}, {"text": "Plenty of ways to reform social security w/o privatization", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.54397583007812}, {"text": "Privatising social security will harm retirees", "title": "privatize the USA's social security schemes", "pid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.5133819580078}, {"text": "Michael Tanner. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. July 26th, 1996: \"Finally, Social Security drains capital from the poorest areas of the country, leaving less money available for new investment and job creation. Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor.\"", "title": "Private accounts increase investments, jobs, wages.", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00043-000", "bm25_score": 216.5008544921875}, {"text": "Private accounts prevent politicians taking from social security.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00039-000", "bm25_score": 216.45594787597656}, {"text": "Privatization does not address long-term funding challenges.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00032-000", "bm25_score": 216.4215087890625}, {"text": "Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on", "title": "privatize the USA's social security schemes", "pid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.4020538330078}, {"text": "Michael Tanner. \"Privatizing Social Security: A Big Boost for the Poor.\" CATO. July 26th, 1996: \"privatization would provide retirees with a much higher rate of return on their investments.\"", "title": "Private accounts provide retirees a higher rate of return.", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00052-000", "bm25_score": 216.37054443359375}, {"text": "Privatizing social security would wrongly enrich banks.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00034-000", "bm25_score": 216.3642578125}, {"text": "\"LETTER: We should privatize Social Security.\" Wausau Daily Herald. October 25th, 2010: \"Additionally, the scare tactics of Feingold make it sound like the Social Security money those under 55 invest would have to go to Wall Street. That is not the case at all. The investment choices could be desigend so they would be at the individual's discretion. For those who feel the government can do a better job of investing their money than they themselves can, I would encourage them to give thought to allowing the government to handle not only the money they have contributed to their Social Security, but all of their savings as well. With its record of mismanagement, and a $14 trillion deficit, forgive me if I am not going to stand in line to join in.\"", "title": "Privatization gives investment decisions to account holders.", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00053-000", "bm25_score": 216.2461700439453}, {"text": "Andrew Roth. \"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!\" Club for Growth. September 21, 2010: \"Not surprisingly, this is an attractive idea. A recent poll showed overwhelming support for personal accounts. Republican voters support it 65-21, but even Democrat voters like it, 50-36.\"", "title": "Public supports private social security accounts.", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00076-000", "bm25_score": 216.23727416992188}, {"text": "Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea", "title": "Pensions should be privatised", "pid": "e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.22158813476562}, {"text": "eggg", "title": "privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system", "pid": "b4e53fbf-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.208984375}, {"text": "i don't know, but i'm down with the clowns and i'm out the window, F*CK", "title": "privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system", "pid": "b4e53fbf-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.2080078125}, {"text": "Social Security has serious issues, but I wouldn't characterize it as a complete joke as the proponent has. Moreover, I am ill convinced that turning our system over to private firms is the answer. First, privatization has a shaky track record. A 2004 report from the World Bank (http://wbln1018.worldbank.org...) indicates that, the case of Chile, 41% of the accounts created have funds so small that the retirees are forced to continue work. Relying on individual savings rates pushes us into a further risk bracket that many will make poor choices and then wind up being on the welfare dole. That's hardly a solution. Second, the cost for transition to private accounts could be astronomical. Even conservative estimates put this cost at $4.9 Trillion. The estimates to recoup these losses have been estimated at 45-70 years! (1) (1)http://www.epinet.org... Third, replacing one bureaucratically bloated system with another (to manage all these private accounts) really doesn't substantively resolve the issue. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater doesn't resolve issues that our society faces regarding a largely aging population and poor savings rates. Lets try and address the actual issues and fix the system instead of trying to replace it with another, possibly more complex one. Finally, most folks today have been told, correctly, that social security should only be one part of your investment portfolio when it comes to retirement. Its not designed to be a pension system like the ones that exist in Latin America & Europe. There is no reason we can't have both by fixing what ails social security and help folks focus on retirement savings accounts as well. I agree with my opponent that we should hold the government more accountable as to how it invests and spends our tax dollars. I believe we can do that without destroying social security under the guise of a private, government managed system that only shifts money to the private sector in the form of transaction and administrative fees. The patient known as Social Security isn't terminal, the problems can and should be addressed. Privatizing isn't the solution to those problems.", "title": "Social security should be privatized.", "pid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.15615844726562}, {"text": "As Daniel Webster once said, \"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures.\" This fits the concept of Social Security privatization quite well. You seemed to have missed the point on the Chile example. Our current system performs 8% better (according to your statistics) than Chile's private system, likely at a higher cost. So in doing nothing (not a position I advocate, of course), we still have our citizenry better off than under a private system. One thing I should clear up is whether this is still a government program. Most advocates of privatization do assume that the government will still have oversight over the program. That means the bureaucratic overhead will still exist. If you're advocating getting the government out of it altogether, you'd be pressed to provide some details, especially regarding transition issues and costs. You have me sold on the benefits of a retirement account outside of social security. I have one and recommend everyone do the same. Only one problem, if we crash, like we did in 1939, our retirement accounts likely go with it. That's what happened to millions of retirees in the 40's (and for a contemporary example, take a look at Enron). That was why FDR created Social Security to begin with. It was designed to provide a bit of a safety net independent of our economic performance. This ties in neatly with the risk argument I was making that I think was misunderstood. I was referring to the risk of these retirees becoming welfare recipients due to economic downturns or poor savings rates on their part. Social Security buttresses that risk at least in small part. As I've said, I don't believe social security is the only answer for retirement, but the problems it has can be fixed and I think we can encourage folks to diversify their retirement portfolio to include some of the measures you've mentioned. The 4-12 trillion dollar cost of the transition to a private system can't be justified unless there were a remarkable difference in the results. Thus far we haven't seen a good example to support such a costly move. The fixes available would resolve much of Social Security's ills, and still allow folks to retain private investment accounts today as part of a complete retirement portfolio.", "title": "Social security should be privatized.", "pid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.12744140625}, {"text": "Privatizing social security enables investment of savings", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00041-000", "bm25_score": 216.10401916503906}, {"text": "dafuq", "title": "privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than currently", "pid": "ca713976-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.080322265625}, {"text": "We are debating the whether or not Government policies like Medicaid & Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, and other policies like TANF and SANP should be either privatized, severally cut, or completely cut. I will be debating these things should be privatized or cut, and you will be debating these things should not be privatized nor cut. Thank you in advance to the debaters who accepts this.", "title": "Privatization of Government Policies", "pid": "36e1731d-2019-04-18T18:29:46Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.07879638671875}, {"text": "Advocates of privatization overestimate performance of accounts.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00025-000", "bm25_score": 216.05972290039062}, {"text": "Social security taxes damage ability of poor to survive.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00029-000", "bm25_score": 216.04112243652344}, {"text": "Privatization would hasten depletion of Soc Sec trust funds.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00033-000", "bm25_score": 216.0299530029297}, {"text": "Budget shortfall has more to do with misguided tax cuts, spending.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.99647521972656}, {"text": "Privatization would not increase capital for investment.", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00036-000", "bm25_score": 215.8736114501953}, {"text": "Wouldn't it be better if we privatize CHUGGON?", "title": "privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than currently", "pid": "ca713976-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.75872802734375}, {"text": "Lawrence Kotlikoff. \"Privatizing social security the right way.\" Testimony to the Committee on Ways and Means. June 3, 1998: \"As described above, the U.S. Social Security System is badly broke and is treating the vast majority of its current contributors very badly. Privatization is far from a painless panacea, but it does represent an opportunity to resolve, once and for all, most of the System's financial woes and to rationalize a program that is intragenerationally as well as intergenerationally highly inequitable, replete with inefficiencies and economic distortions, and extraordinarily uninformative about the benefits it is providing in exchange for its mandatory contributions.\"", "title": "Privatization is the least bad option.", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00069-000", "bm25_score": 215.7276611328125}, {"text": "The Post Office is inefficient", "title": "Post Office Should Be Privatized", "pid": "2931ade0-2019-04-19T12:46:54Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.72671508789062}, {"text": "i thank you for ur recognition and congratulate you on your decision to concede breadfruit", "title": "privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system", "pid": "b4e53fbf-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.70787048339844}, {"text": "Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation. As such, Social Security payments are protected from inflation, while private accounts might not be.", "title": "Privatized social security cannot be assured to beat inflation.", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00060-000", "bm25_score": 215.6750030517578}, {"text": "Privatizing Social Security would harm economic growth, not help it. Privatization during the current economic crisis would have been disaster, and so doing it now is a risk for any upcoming or future crisis. Privatization in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression would have caused households to have lost even more of their assets, had their investments been invested in the U.S. stock market or in funds exposed to complicated and high risk financial instruments. Privatizing social security might therefore increase economic growth in the boom times but this would be at the expense of sharper downturns. Proposition’s argument implicitly assumes that the money at the moment does not improve economic growth. On the contrary the government is regularly investing the money in much the same way as private business would – and often on much more long term projects such as infrastructure that fit better with a long term saving than the way that banks invest.", "title": "Privatising social security would improve economic growth", "pid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.67005920410156}, {"text": "We shouldn't give higher income people a lower standard of living after retirement just because they are rich, that's dicrimination. A much better idea is to privatize Social Security, then it won't cost us a dime because everyone willl be left in charge of their own retirement. I would also like to point out that balancing the budget is a fiscal issue, not a National Security threat, and if you wanted to balance the budget, you simply abolish all of the unnecisary socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare that drive up the price of healthcare. Or welfare which destroys work incentives. We can also reform our education system to resemble finlands, thus spending only 5,000$ per child annualy like finland, reducing our education expenses by 67%, as well as giving our children a better education.", "title": "social security should b means tested against the rich", "pid": "38b0fdf5-2019-04-18T12:55:15Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.6550750732422}, {"text": "\"Privatizing Social Security Still a Good Idea.\" San Diego Union Tribune: \"The problem is that the system is unsustainable, as should be evident with the impending retirement of 70 million baby boomers - brought to you by smaller corps of younger workers who will be taxed to the gills to pay for it. Consider this: In 1946, the cost of supporting one retiree was divided between 42 workers. Now we're approaching the point where the cost of each retiree will be divided between only two workers. That is bound to put enormous strain on those workers. The real trouble begins in 2016 when - according to the experts - more will be going out in benefits than coming in as payroll taxes.\"", "title": "Social security unsustainable with retiring workforce.", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00067-000", "bm25_score": 215.6248779296875}, {"text": "Privatization of Soc Sec has disappointed in most places", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.62246704101562}, {"text": "privatizing social security with guaranteed benefits is better than the current system in this system only relatively safe investments allowed by the government would be allowed. this is better than the current system because at investment returns, people would receive a much larger income in retirement. the downside, if markets fail, would be a problem whether or not we allow people to invest privately. even in our current system, if the economy tanked, the government will still be on the hook for a certain amount of money. an added benefit would be that the government can no longer borrow against social security so our expenditures would have to be made more true, by raising taxes or keeping spending in line, not by masking the problem by borrowing against people's retirement money.", "title": "privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system", "pid": "b4e53fbf-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.61094665527344}, {"text": "privatizing social security with guaranteed benefits is better than the current system in this system only relatively safe investments allowed by the government would be allowed. this is better than the current system because at investment returns, people would receive a much larger income in retirement. the downside, if markets fail, would be a problem whether or not we allow people to invest privately. even in our current system, if the economy tanked, the government will still be on the hook for a certain amount of money. an added benefit would be that the government can no longer borrow against social security so our expenditures would have to be made more true, by raising taxes or keeping spending in line, not by masking the problem by borrowing against people's retirement money.", "title": "privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than currently", "pid": "ca713976-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.5968780517578}, {"text": "Privatization would increase national savings and provide a new pool of capital for investment that would be particularly beneficial to the poor. As it stands, Social Security is a net loss maker for the American taxpayer, and this situation will only continue to get worse unless privatization is enacted: those born after the baby boom will forfeit 10 cents of every dollar they earn in payments towards the up keep of the Social Security system.  By contrast, under privatization people would actually save resources that businesses can invest. As Alan Greenspan has pointed out, the economic benefits of privatization of Social Security are potentially enormous. In Chile, as Dr. Piñera has noted, there has been real economic growth of 7 percent a year over the past decade, energized by a savings rate in excess of 20 percent.[1] Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Reagan, estimated that the present value to the U.S. economy of investing the future cash flow of payroll taxes in real assets would be on the order of $10 to $20 trillion. That would mean a permanent, significant boost to economic growth.[2] [1] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html [2] Crane, Edward. \"The Case for Privatizing America's Social Security System.\" CATO Institute. 10 December 1997. http://www.cato.org/testimony/art-22.html", "title": "Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth", "pid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 215.58656311035156}, {"text": "\"So, any time we think something must be done about a particular problem necessarily means that we will make bad decisions? How else is change accomplished if not through the conviction that something must be done to fix the problem? This is a fallacious appeal to authority on your part.\" Nice try Snoopy, but you missed the point of the quote altogether. Webster's point was action in response to conviction or passion doesn't always yield the desired result (Iraq is a good example of this). Your conviction to destroy social security without much of a real understanding of the impact and cost of such a transition proves Daniel Webster's point. One such example is the concept of disability, one area that social security provides for. In your zeal to abandon this government program, millions of disabled citizens would lose their disability benefits. Now, I'm sure if given the choice to contemplate that fate, you would likely argue for some revision to our efforts to abandon social security to at least make sure these folks didn't lose what is likely a lifeline of income for them. The cost element still hasn't been resolved, though I do realize that you probably care little about this vs. obtaining the result you desire. I do care, as we are already saddling future generations with mountains of debt under this current administration, adding 4-11 trillion more would exacerbate the situation far greater. As for Chile, some of your analysis is correct, but it proves my point when it comes to risk for our citizens. While I agree that the Federal government isn't independent of market performance, it is far more so than the average private account. Most of social security is invested in government bonds, which even today are probably the safest investment that can be made (less so if we continue our debt patterns, which feeds my argument above). I know you've asked for my \"fixes\" to social security, but I don't think that is germane to the topic, nor do we have time to address it given that this is the last round. However, for the sake of clarification, two of my fixes would lie in raising the cap on current tax levels as well as raising the cap on investment levels so that the trust fund could perform better in periods of economic growth. What you haven't answered that is germane to this topic is how we achieve such a transition. I've highlighted the costs, to which your only answer is they will get worse. That doesn't improve the case for this drastic of a move. The transition to the private system you advocate would be violent, and economically difficult to achieve. I completely agree that people need to change their approach to retirement. Social security should become a much smaller portion of their retirement portfolio, as FDR has originally designed (it was only supposed to be a supplement for poor retirees). Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as you propose, is far too risky in todays economic climate, especially with the escalating costs of health care for retirees. Privatization may be an option at some point, but today we need to stabilize the patient before we're willing to get rid of it altogether. Too many people would suffer otherwise.", "title": "Social security should be privatized.", "pid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.58163452148438}, {"text": "competition between post offices would be unfair to the public", "title": "Post Office Should Be Privatized", "pid": "2931ade0-2019-04-19T12:46:54Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.47760009765625}, {"text": "Private accounts can be transferred within family", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 215.43017578125}, {"text": "RulesFirst Round is terms and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con. Second Round is for Opening argument, NO REBUTTAS! Third Round is for rebuttals. Forth Round is for Rebuttals and conclusions. No trolling. No semantics, the definitions provided will be the ones used in this debate. No counter-plansNo KritiksNo prophanity Sources may be placed in the comments section if needed. The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (. http://definitions.uslegal.com...) Should- must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Privitize- to transfer from public or government control or ownership to private enterprise : (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Social Security- TheSocial Security program's benefits include retirement income, disability income, Medicareand Medicaid, and death and survivorship benefits. Social Security is one of the largest government programs in the world, paying out hundreds of billions of dollars per year. (. http://www.investopedia.com...)", "title": "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security", "pid": "41ee0719-2019-04-18T14:19:05Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.42771911621094}, {"text": "instead of money send egg to feed family. also eggg high in protien and froot and vegatal", "title": "privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system", "pid": "b4e53fbf-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.41635131835938}, {"text": "Max Skidmore. \"Why Privatizing Social Security Is a Terrible Idea.\" History News Network. February 28th, 2005: \"There can be little doubt, at least among those who view the issue objectively, that it is purely iIdeology (or misinformation), not economics, that generates the enthusiasm for privatization.\"", "title": "Support for privatization is driven by misinformation.", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00078-000", "bm25_score": 215.3881378173828}, {"text": "This round I shall work on my Case and with the character restriction I will appoligies if I run out of room and have to cut a few things shortContention 1: Social Security flawed and will crash.When Social Security was created the US federal government made a profit from it as there was 25 people paying for 1 person that recieved Social Security. Now it is nearly a 3 to 1 person and if something isn't done soon the system will be bust as there's no way that a 2 to 1 or even 1 to 1 ratio could work. The reason this is occuring is that the Baby Boomers are starting to retire also we have lower birthrates which have massively declined since the Row V Wade decission. [1] Since 2010, the US income that they would generally make off of Social Security has evaporated and they began loosing money. The Treasury reports that by 2034, the US funds will run out and eventually Social Security will engulf the entire US budget. [2] Although Social Security only takes up 13% of the US Budget by 2020 its expected to be up to 29%, by 2030 it's suppose to be 49% and if this trend continues then in 2080 it will consist of 89% of the US budget. [3] Alternatives that is not ran by the government needs to be found in order to protect our nation's welfare. Another key issue is that of taxes. When Social Security was created the taxes was $3,000, but now it is a whopping $118,000 which rose 700% higher than inflation showing how much harm it is preforming on the system. [4] It has risen to 12% for many self-employed and small business owners harming our business and industries. The privatization will solve for this issue and will boost economic growth in the process. Contention 2: Privitization solves.One of the greatest tragedies of today's market system is that the government is trampling our right to Choose. In the 1990's a think tank came together and found that the US should privitize social security. Bill Clinton and Newt Grinrich came together to discuss this issue and they came to to an agreement though nothing came of it as it disappeared from the Congressional agenda after the Contract with America. If privitized people will see a larger investment for a cheaper cost. Research has found with trials in Texas and Florida that with the privatization there is a 11.5% yearly growth where the current rate of Social Security is 2.5%. [5] That's a huge difference and it's more money you can use when you retire and maybe you can even retire earlier. Martin Feildstein, former US Treasurer has found that, \"someone with $50,000 of real annual earnings during his working years could accumulate enough to fund an annual payout of about $22,000 after age 67, essentially doubling the current Social Security benefit.\" This was only at a 5.5% increase as well. [6]A Gallup poll found that 60% of Americans believed that they will not see their retirement money from Social Security. Why's that you may ask? It's simply the matter the fact of governmental interfearance in these accounts by \"reaching into the cookie jar\" when they are sore on funds, but they do this in boom and bust. Privatization will transfer full control to the individual and they will have the money. [7] Unlike the status quo, when you die, your Social Security funds will be transfered down your inheretance line to your family, so you are able to still use it instead of being like the South Park Cartoon \"Aaaaand it's Gone.\" [8]The first part is that people are mishandling their money by seeing that as people can choose when they want to retire they have to pay a higher amount of taxes. Some people take a higher tax burdern to retire quickly where the max age is 65 for males and 60 for females and the workers can choose to invest up to 20% in to this Pay as you go system, which mind you isn't the same system as mine since it still contains the Public Option while I'm phasing out from public to private. This leaves no government option. So the Chilean Expirament is like mine, but is not the same so my opponent may argue against this, but there is no direct link since the public option still exsists and even Jose Pinera Chile's former Secretary of Labor and Social Security. What adds to his stature was that his administration lasted through the transition. [9] In the country no AFP (spanish accronym for Pension Fund Administration) has gone under in the 14 years that the country has been doing this plan and no worker has lost a dime. The only reason, Pinera claims, that there is a loss reported was due to the financial crisis and lack of consumer confidence. [9] Not to mention this plan has caused the nation to see a 2% Gross Nation Product increase each year in this span. This, what they call Capitalization, has greatly helped the nation by them changing from Socialistic policies to that of the Chicago Boys and slowly adjusting over the years. Now why does this actually matter that I am arguing this? It's a reflection of the current state transition from State controlled Monopoly on the Social Security down to the private control.You'll have to forgive me as I'm running out of characters here for the rest. On to Galveston. We can see that it did this out of the fact that the US Congress was not doing anything to combat the growing Social Security issue that was arrising in the 1970s, so they acted. The Alternative Plan in Galveston is actually still in effect today and for the past 18 years people in the three Texas counties have seen a 6-6.5% return on Social Security compared to the 2-3%. [10] Concidering that it takes 26% of the budget such a task would be a simple phase out over the span of 10 years as I have already addressed. When the New York Times reporter visited a small town in Chile he found that, (1)Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age. (2)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66. (3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000.\" [11] Investors Business Daily had also found that in Chile in the past 30 years that the annual rate of return is 9% compared to the 1-2% here in the US. [12] We can already see that this sucess has been drowned out by criticisms that doesn't speak to the amount of sucess reached here. We can see that it was coastly, but that was paid off and not to mention that the short term pain turned into massive long term gains ranging from massive returns on pensions to doubling and even trippling of the nation's growth rate. [13]Sources1. ( Social Security Administration, \"Frequently Asked Questions: Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries,\" ssa.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://www.ncpa.org...) 4. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, \"CPI Inflation Calculator,\" bls.gov (accessed Aug. 17, 2015)5. (http://tinyurl.com...)6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...)8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...) 13. (http://tinyurl.com...)", "title": "Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized", "pid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.38140869140625}, {"text": "I concede as con has clearly proven to be a better debater with better ideas, than I....", "title": "privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than the current system", "pid": "b4e53fbf-2019-04-18T12:06:48Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.34426879882812}, {"text": "State involvement in pensions is deleterious to both pensioners and the state.", "title": "Pensions should be privatised", "pid": "e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.3208465576172}, {"text": "Opponents use twisted logic on Soc Sec surplus/deficit", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.2678985595703}, {"text": "Most of these arguments can be undercut by noting that the privatization of Social Security accounts would be voluntary, and thus anyone who believed the argument that the government invests better would be free to leave their account as it is, unchanged. Those who believe they can do a better job of investing and managing their money on their own should be given the freedom to do so. In this respect it is important to remember the origin of the money in these accounts: it has been paid in by the individuals themselves. As James Roosevelt (CEO of the health insurance firm Tufts Health Plan) notes: \" Those ‘baby boomers’ who are going to bust Social Security when they retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own.”[1] As it is their money which they have paid in in the first place, members of the baby boomer generation should have a right to choose how they invest –it. If that means choosing to go private and pursue riskier investments, so be it. The money paid out by the social security system belongs to those who paid it in, and the government should not deprive taxpayers from exercising free choice over the uses to which their money is put. Moreover, none of the other arguments adduced by side opposition do anything to address the ways in which Social Security currently harms the poor, the redressing of which alone justifies privatizing Social Security. [1] Roosevelt, James.\"Social Security at 75: Crisis Is More Myth Than Fact.\" Huffington Post. 11 August 11 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-roosevelt/social-security-at-75-cri_b_677058.html", "title": "Privatising social security will harm retirees", "pid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 215.25437927246094}, {"text": "Costly privatization of Soc Sec would dampen econ growth", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00037-000", "bm25_score": 215.2534942626953}, {"text": "I'm glad we at least agree that social security has serious issues. It's always good to have common ground upon which to debate. I disagree that privatization has a shaky track record. It is government programs such as social security that have a shaky track record. Our entire economy is based on the merits of private enterprise, and it has worked for us thus far. Despite the relative youth of this country, we have managed to surpass all other nations in terms of economic productivity and wide-spread prosperity. I think it is rather inconsistent to say that, whereas privatization has proven successful in virtually every other area of our economy, that it would not be successful in providing retirement benefits for seniors. \"[In] Chile, 41% of the accounts created have funds so small that the retirees are forced to continue work.\" I have no doubt that this is the case. However, I don't see that our system is much better. According to one website (which I have cited below due to the length of the URL) one third of U.S. retirees are forced to go back to work shortly after \"retiring,\" despite the 500 billion dollars collected in payrol taxes every year. At least Chile is getting its money's worth. \"Relying on individual savings rates pushes us into a further risk bracket that many will make poor choices and then wind up being on the welfare dole. That's hardly a solution.\" I don't see how savings rates puts us into a higher risk bracket. Savings accounts are the second lowest risk investment type, preceeded only by cash itself. There would be virtually no risk involved. The cost of privatization is irrelevant. That cost will only grow the longer we wait to fix this problem. Our choice is not between privatization and non-privatization, it is between privatization now, which MAY cost 4.9 trillion (depending on how you go about it), or privatization later, after the system has collapsed and elderly people are left without an income. You wouldn't be replacing one bloated bureaucracy with another, you'd be eliminating a bloated bureaucracy and replacing it with a private system whose very survival depends on its ability to be efficient! It doesn't cost any more for a mutual fund manager to handle two billion dollars than it does to manage two million dollars. The additional administrative costs would arise with distribution of benefits. Since businesses, unlike the government, are trying to make money, they are forced to do things in the most efficient way possible. Because of this, the cost of distribution would be significantly less than under a government run system. Moreover, we would be introducing a powerful factor into retirement benefits: compound interest. If we were allowed to invest our own money for our own retirment, instead of pay for someone else's retirement by sending that money to the government, more people would retire in a much better financial situation than currently. If I were allowed to put 2,000 dollars per year into decent mutual fund (one that earns 10% interest after adjusting for administrative costs and inflation, which is not unrealistic) beginning at age 24 until I retire at sixty-five, I would end up with one million dollars, only $80,000 of which I had actually put in to the account! That constitutes a %1250 return on my investment. Contrast that with our current system in which you recieve an estimated 1.23% rate of return for two income households. If social security is nothing more than the crappy end of a larger investment portfolio, why have it at all? Yes, there would still be administrative costs for a private system, but at least we'd be getting something in return. Why send $200 dollars to the government every paycheck where it will acrue no interest when you could invest it and get at as much as 10% interest? In light of this, social security is indeed a joke. Or at least it would be if it wasn't so completely wasteful. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:HGSGDdY0zq0J:www.ci.walla-walla.wa.us/vertical/Sites/%257B5C31B82F-5E63-4200-9CF4-237E5245E279%257D/uploads/%257B528FE4F0-356F-4DB6-A60E-6258691ACD6B%257D.DOC http://www.heritage.org...", "title": "Social security should be privatized.", "pid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.20941162109375}, {"text": "Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea.\" The Century Foundation.: \"Reason #3: creating private accounts could dampen economic growth, which would further weaken social security's future finances. Privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and debt significantly while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline—all of which could reduce long-term economic growth and the size of the economic pie available to pay for the retirement of the baby-boom generation. An analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the president’s proposal would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, $3.5 trillion in the following decade, and trillions more thereafter.\"", "title": "Costly privatization of Soc Sec would dampen econ growth", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00046-000", "bm25_score": 215.1892547607422}, {"text": "i mostly just reiterate my last points. as to privatizing ss. if people are left to be in total control of their money, most will be impoverished by old age, and there will be a crisis. also, poor people are subsidized a bit with ss as it is now, and they wouldn't receive that any more, which they should. ie the excess wealth is what should pay for the people who are too poor.", "title": "social security should b means tested against the rich", "pid": "38b0fdf5-2019-04-18T12:55:15Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.13095092773438}, {"text": "Creating private accounts could have an impact on economic growth, which in turn would hit social security's future finances. Economic growth could be hit as privatizing Social Security will increase federal deficits and as a result debt significantly, while increasing the likelihood that national savings will decline which will happen as baby boomers retire anyway and draw down their savings. An analysis by the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the proposed privatization by Obama would add $1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation, and a further $3.5 trillion in the following decade.[1] Because households change their saving and spending levels in response to economic conditions privatization is actually more likely to reduce than increase national savings. This is because households that consider the new accounts to constitute meaningful increases in their retirement wealth might well reduce their other saving. Diamond and Orszag argue, 'If anything, our impression is that diverting a portion of the current Social Security surplus into individual accounts could reduce national saving.' That, in turn, would further weaken economic growth and our capacity to pay for the retirement of the baby boomers.\"[2] The deficit, and as a result national debt, would increase because trillions of dollars which had previously been paying for current retirees would be taken out of the system to be invested privately. Those who are already retired will however still need to draw a pension so the government would need to borrow the money to be able to pay for these pensions.[3] Contrary to side proposition’s assertions, privatization also would not increase capital available for investment. Proponents of privatization claim that the flow of dollars into private accounts and then into the equity markets will stimulate the economy. However, as the social security system underwent the transition into private ownership, each dollar invested in a financial instrument via the proprietary freedoms afforded to account holders, would result in the government borrowing a dollar to cover pay outs to those currently drawing from the social security system. Thus, the supposed benefit of a privatised social security system is entirely eliminated by increased government borrowing, as the net impact on the capital available for investment is zero.[4] While four fifths of tax dollars for social security is spent immediately the final fifth purchases Treasury securities through trust funds. Privatization would hasten depletion of these funds. President Bush proposed diverting up to 4 percentage points of payroll tax to create the private accounts but with payroll currently 12.4% this would still be significantly more than the one fifth that is currently left over so depleting reserves. Funds now being set aside to build up the Trust Funds to provide for retiring baby boomers would be being used instead to pay for the privatization accounts. The Trust Funds would be exhausted much sooner than the thirty-eight to forty-eight years projected if nothing is done. In such a short time frame, the investments in the personal accounts will not be nearly large enough to provide an adequate cushion.[5] [1] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf [2] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf [3] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html [4] Spitzer, Elliot. \"Can we finally kill this terrible idea?\" Slate. 4 February 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2009/02/privatize_social_security.html [5] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf", "title": "Privatising the social security system would harm economic growth", "pid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 215.0791015625}, {"text": "extended.", "title": "Privatize Medicare", "pid": "2c462ef5-2019-04-18T16:02:36Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.07574462890625}, {"text": "So, any time we think something must be done about a particular problem necessarily means that we will make bad decisions? How else is change accomplished if not through the conviction that something must be done to fix the problem? This is a fallacious appeal to authority on your part. You're right, I didn't address your point about Chile very well, so I will do so now. First, Chile's system came out of the failure of their government social security program, so Chile probably isn't the best example to use. I suspect that if the data were available (I've looked but can't find it) you would discover that their new system is working much better than their previous, government-run system. Second, Chile is not the United States. That is to say, the United States has twice the per-capita GDP that Chile does. In a poor economy it is impossible for the vast majority of people to retire. In a more productive economy, more people can afford to retire. It stands to reason, then, that Chile would have a lower retirement rate regardless of what system they use. The fact that theirs is only 8 percentage points lower than ours is actually surprising, considering the relative level of prosperity in our two countries. The only role the government would have in a private system is to essentially force citizens to invest part of their wages into their private retirement account. This might require some auditing, but nothing more, hardly what you'd call a bureaucracy. The cost is irrelevant, as the costs of transitioning will only grow as the problem itself grows. There is no way to \"fix\" social security because it was a stupid, and wasteful plan to begin with. I would be interested to hear how you think we can fix it, other than to scrap it. The only solutions I have heard are either to raise payroll taxes or decrease benefits, neither of which is truly a solution. The federal government isn't independent of economic performance! The governments income, like all of our incomes, depends on the health of the economy. If the economy crashes as it did in the great depression, the government won't be any better equipped to support the elderly than the elderly themselves. I understand that concern, though. However, I know of no other way, short of investing in gold, to insulate oneself against something like the great depression. If such a thing ever does happen, I suspect providing for retirees will be the least of our concerns. Once again, I don't see any additional risk with private retirement accounts. As a person ages, their investments are gradually shifted to progressively less risky areas. By the time they retire, their life savings are in things like savings accounts, government bonds (which are at least as secure as social security), cash, and gold. At this point, they would be relatively insulated from risk. Those of us still in the workforce would be more likely to go on the welfare dole than retirees at that point! If social security didn't demand so much of our paychecks then I would be okay with having social security as something of a hedge. Unfortunately, it is a huge expense and provides very little benefit. If people had the extra cash to make social security just an overall part of their retirement plan it would be fine, but they don't. It is not as if everyone has a choice between in relying on social security or investing in private accounts on the side. Social security demands the funds that could otherwise be put into private accounts which actually earn interest! Those that CAN afford private investment are often fooled into thinking they don't need to invest for retirement because \"social security will take care of me.\" Once again, you keep saying that welfare can be fixed, but I haven't heard you suggest how. There are only two sides of the social security system, income, and expense. Expenses are gradually beginning to exceed income, and it's only a matter of time before the social security budget is in the red. There are only two possible solutions: decrease benefits or increase taxes. That is the sign of a program doomed to failure. The only solution is to totally change the way we prepare for retirement. Personally, I'm tired of sending my money to the government when it could be earning 10 percent interest somewhere!", "title": "Social security should be privatized.", "pid": "dac7811d-2019-04-18T20:00:32Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.04931640625}, {"text": "The survival of the Post Office is more in the interest of private companies than the general public", "title": "Post Office Should Be Privatized", "pid": "2931ade0-2019-04-19T12:46:54Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.01669311523438}, {"text": "Fees on Soc Sec accounts diminish value of privatization", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 215.00180053710938}, {"text": "Government pension schemes are not a viable or sustainable option.", "title": "Pensions should be privatised", "pid": "e14e9db-2019-04-19T12:45:06Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.97222900390625}, {"text": "Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman. Argued in 2004 that: “Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.\"[1] The problem with Social Security is not that it does not work, nor that it fails the poor. Rather, as Krugman notes, social security uses limited taxation to implement a clear and successful vision of social justice. As a consequence, the social security system has been repeatedly attacked by right wing and libertarian politicians. Such attacks are not motivated by the merits or failure of the social security system itself, but by political ambition and a desire to forcefully implement alternative normative schema within society. Privatizing Social Security would require costly new government bureaucracies. From the standpoint of the system as a whole, privatization would add enormous administrative burdens – and costs. The government would need to establish and track many small accounts, perhaps as many accounts as there are taxpaying workers—157 million in 2010.[2]  Often these accounts would be too small so that profit making firms would be unwilling to take them on. There would need to be thousands of workers to manage these accounts. In contrast, today’s Social Security has minimal administrative costs amounting to less than 1 per cent of annual revenues.[3] It is also unlikely that individuals will be able to invest successfully on their own, although they may believe they can, leading to a great number of retirees actually being worse off after privatization. [1] Paul Krugman. \"Inventing a crisis.\" New York Times. 7 December 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?_r=2&scp=539&sq... [2] Wihbey, John, ‘2011 Annual Report by the Social Security Board of Trustees’, Journalist’s Resource, 9 June 2011, http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/politics/social-security-report-2011/ [3] Anrig, Greg and Wasow, Bernard. \"Twelve reasons why privatizing social security is a bad idea\". The Century Foundation. 14 February 2005. http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf", "title": "Privatising social security will increase the amount of money that reitrees can draw on", "pid": "2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 214.96775817871094}, {"text": "REBUTTALS: 1: Yes/No: SS might go into the red due to baby boomers retired/retiring against the low numbers supporting their retirement, but there are other contributing factors. Issues affecting SS Old-Age and Survivors Insurance OASI (RIB when paid out), is more insidious than ratios. First, the gov borrowed $2.5T from the fund between 1970-1983 [19] issuing Treasury Bonds against the loans. From 1983-2000 the SS Trust Fund TF was at a surplus [20] and could fund the boomer’s retirement into the future. G.W. Bush saw the surplus and cut taxes reducing influx of finds [21]. Despite decreases funding to OASI it is self perpetuating with its balance and funding at current rates. TF depletion will not start until 2024. In 2015 the fund ran at 308% above cost, by 2024 it’s expected to be at 171% [22]. Pro’s cit.#2 states this. Projected short fall is due to Disability Insurance DI, a separate fund from OASI, soon to be depleted. The Trustees recommend OASI merge with DI so funds are available for DI future liabilities. The pooling of funds resulting in depletion of both systems by 2035; combined factors increase of boomers retiring and DI outlays [22, 23];robbing Peter to pay Paul. There’s no denying there’ll be an issue with OASI/RIB in the future. It’s probable the 2 funds will be merged, but privatization is not the answer. Pro’s cit.#3, the NCPA, “The NCPA’s solutions promote private alternatives to government regulation and control”. The author, Pamela Villarreal is a NCPA analyst/writer, not unbiased. Privatization at whose expense? Who will profit and benefit? The gov does not have a profit motive. Present admin expenses of SS is at 1% [24]. 2: Choice is good, but who will determine what the options will be? Which system will be chosen; a centralized gov system or private financial? As stated in R1, There’s no denying that the financial sector will have sway [15,16,25]. They have a poor track record in protecting the public interest, remember 2008? Please explain how a larger investment is made at a cheaper cost? In the par.1, Pro’s cit.#5, 2001 states, people will pay into a new system but also it’s “assumed future increases in contribution rates that would fully finance the benefits of present law,”echoed in Actuary Report [14 p.29] That’s paying both sides of the benefit, you pay into a Individual Plan (IP) for yourself and pay toward maintenance of the current system. #5 further states “Social Security benefits are not fully adequate for making comparisons with private-sector plans, since many features of Social Security benefits are not typically available in private-sector plans” then concludes “scaled pattern results in slightly higher internal real rates of return under the OASDI program, and slightly lower accumulations for individual accounts.” Current tax is 12.4%[31] and it’s recommended there be a raise in SS tax by 1.1%. Let’s assume that it will be split equally between SS and the new IP. You start in the red by almost 60%; 50% gone to current/future liabilities which you cannot claim against due to your IP. Your claim of 11.5% return in TX/FL is not in cit.#5. Where did this number come from? Pretending this as true, the returns don’t look attractive considering ½ of what you put in is gone to liabilities at a lower rate than at present, crashing SS even quicker. Remember, it’ll take 75 yrs for SS to be solvent. Pro’s cit #6 requires subscription, a headline is not a whole story. Pro’s cit.#7, 2001 reflects what Martin Feildstein stated in the 1990s. Then the article moves into review of G.W Bush’s plan, in office at the time, hence the title “President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security.”It’s assumes the IP would be similar to the Thrift Savings Plan that gov workers have with a RoR of 6.5%. But here’s the catch, SS OASDI “would require additional revenues in perpetuity in order to pay scheduled Social Security benefits”With his plan, only 2% paid in goes to an IP, the rest to liabilities of the old SS. BTW, you cannot claim benefits from SS because of your IP. The math: pay $10 pr/wk in SS taxes, $2 for me at 6.5% interest, $8 for current/future liabilities at 2.5%. At the end of 30 yrs compounded my 2% grows to $11,725. The rest at $8 pr/wk for 30 yrs at 2.5% is $23,008. Your kids can inherit the funds if you die young, but there’ll be 0 to inherit should you live for a time after retirement. Also, depending in what state you live, inheritance can be taxed. The Fed does not tax below 5.4M. With cash flowing out of IPs, will it remain so? Or if after a time will the Feds decide not to allow the IP money to pass to family? They’ll have 75 yrs to futz with it. Pro’s cit.#8, 1996 On personal accounts benefiting the poor with a greater return and increase savings, but it does not addresses how the current/future liabilities of SS will be funded during attrition into all IPs. Pro:“The first part is that people are mishandling their money…”Just a reminder, you brought this up “Posted by: lannan13, No counter plans. Wednesday, May 04, 2016 @ 12:43:03 AM.” You have a plan? It’s great! You can up your own tax deduction into the present Pay As You Go system for possible early retirement. How is this an IP? The current PAYG system is not paying for your retirement. It’s paying for those already or soon to be retired. And your public option has no details. How long will you phase out the current system with 9.6-15.7T in liabilities over 75 yrs [26]? You’ll do it in 10? Pro’s cit #9, 1995. Chili isn’t the US. At the time of AFP implementation 1981, their ratio of workers to retirees was 9-1, the US 4-1. To offset transition costs the gov. sold off state owned enterprises (Socialist), the US has no such assets. The US can only issue Treasury Bonds increasing the national dept. Also, Chili incentivized workers to join with an 18% pay increase. Many employers failed in payments due to dual taxes for the old/new systems; underground employment resulting. By 1994 only 55% of the work force was a part of the plan; 22% of the remaining failed to make payments. Also, the AFP RoR has fluctuated greatly with economic ups and downs. Chili took over AFP in 82-4 through buy backs and lost money in 1995 [27].The funds are in for profit institutions which cut deeply into profits with admin fees. 70% of the work force only works 6 mo. of the yr resulting in uneven contribution rates. 25% will not have saved enough for retirement. In addition, there is no system of equity for women or low wage workers to bring them up to a minimum benefit. The system does not work [28]. Galveston cit.#10, 1998 is a commentary. The Galveston plan does not offer a guarantee to surviving spouse or dependent children if death should occur prior to retirement or an adjustment for inflation. Single and high earning individuals reap more than under the current SS system; mid and low earners collect less. Workers are assigned an individual account but have no choice on investment decisions. Wealth building at the top but not at the bottom [29, 30] Pro’s cit.#11 op-ed:Pablo is a high paid economist, not typical. It also mirrors what I stated earlier.“The biggest problem in Chile is that many workers don't contribute regularly to their pensions because they're unemployed or working off the books.” Pro’s cit #12 requires a subscription, moot. Pro’s cit.#13 1997, regarding the Chilean system, which does not work and leaves out large swaths of the population. Most of your citations are old, more recent material tells a different story [28]. 19. http://tinyurl.com... 20. http://tinyurl.com... 21. http://tinyurl.com... 22. http://tinyurl.com... 23. http://tinyurl.com... 24. http://tinyurl.com... 25. http://tinyurl.com... 26. http://tinyurl.com... 27. http://preview.tinyurl.com... 28. http://tinyurl.com... 29. http://tinyurl.com... 30. http://tinyurl.com... 31. http://tinyurl.com...", "title": "Social Security R.I.B Should be Privatized", "pid": "e28c98a3-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.96034240722656}, {"text": "Odds against individuals investing retirement accounts wisely", "title": "Privatizing social security", "pid": "cf4c9cbf-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00027-000", "bm25_score": 214.93798828125}, {"text": "Alright, thanks to lannan for kicking this off, and let's get started. Burdens: This debate hinges on the comparison of two cases. As the rules in R1 don't stipulate that I cannot run a counter plan, I am allowed to do so. It is my burden to prove that my case is superior to Pro's, and Pro's burden to accomplish the opposite goal. Evaluation should focus on the net benefits of our impacts since we're discussing a policy change. 1) Harming retirees Note: SS = social security. Retirees will lose their SS benefits and have it replaced with three options: spend it, save it, or invest it. Spending the money provides a short term benefit to retirees that quickly runs out. Pro might argue that this is still better than the public system because it affords them increased liberties, but running out of funds when one is retired drastically reduces their options. Individuals who spend all of their money will end up becoming dependent on help from the government, especially as their health issues become more dramatic. The most conservative thing that these people could do with their money is place it in the bank. If they do that, however, they\"re still doing far worse than they would through the public SS system. At the moment, SS payouts are indexed to wages, which have historically exceeded inflation and thus provided a measure of protection against changes in the value of the dollar.[1] Banks don\"t provide that protection. How about investment? Investing through a brokerage firm is expensive to start, costing people 1% of their investments every year (as opposed to the single payment of 0.8% in expenses for the SS system).[2] Most people aren\"t professional money managers. They won\"t have the knowledge base to manage their own investments. Hell, most people don\"t even have the basic financial literacy to know what a stock market is or why diversifying investments is important (many believe it guarantees them success in the stock market).[3] This is really bad, because even professionals generally underperform indexes of the market as a whole.[4] This means that most people are going to be dramatically underperforming in the stock market. Even if they were experts, the basic fact that the stock market fluctuates will ruin lives. There are countless examples of market downturns that could absolutely bankrupt retirees, and if someone retires at an unlucky time right before one of these occurs, they will lose everything.[5] Even during times of plenty, picking the wrong stock can lead to a dramatic loss. However, all of this is beside the point because we\"re not just evaluating outcomes based on whether they\"re net positive. If the rate of return is lower after turning to the private system than it is right now, that\"s reason enough for us to eschew this option. Remember that I mentioned inflation earlier \" that\"s important here as well, because if rates of return on investments aren\"t high enough, then they won\"t beat inflation and the value of all that money for retirees goes down over time. Pro has to prove that the returns will be high enough to cover for inflation. Pro also hasn\"t talked at all about the costs of implementing his plan. The government is going to have to create a large number of private accounts into which this money will be deposited, that\"s pretty much how every privatization scheme works. The cost of doing that is not small. It will take some 2 to 4% of the payroll tax out of the 12.4% that\"s taken, which means up to almost a third of the revenue generated from this tax would be removed.[6]. This is largely the result of having to plunge into the trust fund currently being set aside for retiring baby boomers (which is the reason that SS is still alive and kicking), requiring that the government start borrowing from the private sector (increasing our debt), raise taxes, or slash benefits. (2) Failure of Privatization To start, I'd like to be clear that Pro's proposal has never been done anywhere. His system doesn't exist in any part of the world. An untried, completely theoretical system like his should not be employed anywhere, but if it is going to be employed, it shouldn't be country-wide where the opportunities and consequences of failure are at their absolute worst. That being said, there are examples of other countries that have implemented privatization schemes. I couldn't find an example of a country where something like this was employed where the governments didn't implement a subsidy system to ensure that workers who fail to accumulate enough money into their accounts earn a minimum pension, a plank that is not visible in Pro's plan. However, even with those protections, country-wide privatization has only resulted in dramatic failures. Both Chile and the UK have done it, and both of them have encountered tremendous problems. In Chile, \"more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.\"[7] Their investment accounts are so low that 41% of those eligible to collect pensions continue to work. In fact, it\"s so bad that their returns are less than if they\"d simply kept their money in a savings account.[8] They\"ve also suffered abnormally high transition costs, making just the process of transitioning in each decade cost a sizable slice of the GDP.[9] In the UK, people have become victims to poor investment choices and crooked brokers. The government itself has suffered major expense increases and lost tax revenues. According to Adair Turner, the head of a British government commission assessing reports on these problems, \"[w]hat looked like a very good idea from a financial perspective in cutting costs has put pensioner poverty, which had been all but eradicated, back on the agenda.\"[10] But we can also look to an example from the U.S. Yes, some areas of Texas opted out of SS before the law was changed in 1983. This amounts to 3 counties: Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda.[11] Now, let's be clear that I'm not supporting the notion that the results of these 3 counties should be used as evidence for the effectiveness of such a program country-wide. They're all on far too small of a scale (they amount to roughly 674,000 people total [12]) to be comparable to implementation on a nationwide scale. Moreover, the Alternate Plan that they have in place is significantly different from Pro's proposal, since money is still taken out of their paychecks on a constant basis and placed into a separate account, meaning that this system bears far more similarity to SS than Pro's proposal does. But if we are going to compare them, it should be noted that even the creators of the Alternate Plan note that the options for rapid removal of funds end up depleting these accounts, leaving people unprotected and resulting in individuals becoming \"wards of the state.\"[11] In other words, they just become wholly dependent on the system to keep them alive through other means. (3) Counter Plan To understand this, I first must explain that while SS is flawed, it is not inherent to the program. In fact, SS is not only currently solvent, but generating a surplus of some $2.8 trillion as of 2014 (and rising). [13] It will take at least two decades for this program to run up a deficit, by which I mean that it will deplete its reserves.[14] Pro\"s system would utterly destroy SS, so he\"s essentially responding to the problem by demolishing it early. But let\"s be clear that SS does a lot more than just provide a safety net to 59 million Americans.[15] The government does use that money for a lot of important tasks, including other safety nets and military spending.[16] Removing that money from the government necessitates that they either borrow or tax more to cover them, or that they slash those programs, which adds to the various harms Pro\"s plan incurs. However, I recognize that SS has its problems, and it\"s because I do that I\"m offering a counter plan. My fix is two-fold: (1) to eliminate the tax cap currently in place on SS payroll taxes, and (2) slightly increase SS taxation. (1) Currently, people who earn more than $118,500 don\"t pay these taxes on any amount they earn above that.[17] This system is inherently biased for them, allowing individuals who probably will have more than enough money upon retirement to simply coast without SS to go free of payroll taxes on what could well be the vast majority of their earnings. This plank would be implemented over the course of 10 years, and they could even get a boost in benefit payments for their extra input. This comes out to a 74% reduction in the SS shortfall. It\"s also a change that garners widespread support.[18] (2) Currently, workers pay 6.2% of their earnings into the system, with employers paying a matching amount. Simply increasing that amount to 6.9% over the course of the next 20 years would eliminate the remaining 26% shortfall. Note that this amounts to 50 cents more per week for someone earning $100,000 a year. This is also extremely popular.[18] Note that the CBO also did estimates of the effect of both of these, and came to similar conclusions.[19] Conclusion: While I do wholeheartedly support my counter plan, even the status quo stands as far better than Pro\"s proposal. His case is a clear net negative. Meanwhile, the status quo keeps this system around for at least the next two decades, and my counter plan leaves it solvent for the foreseeable future. Back to Pro. 1. http://1.usa.gov... 2. http://theatln.tc... 3. http://1.usa.gov... 4. http://bit.ly... 5. http://slate.me... 6. http://brook.gs... 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://bit.ly... 9. http://bit.ly... 10. http://bit.ly... 11. http://nyti.ms... 12. http://bit.ly... 13. http://1.usa.gov... 14. http://1.usa.gov... 15. http://pewrsr.ch... 16. http://cbsn.ws... 17. http://1.usa.gov... 18. http://bit.ly... 19. http://1.usa.gov...", "title": "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should privatize Social Security", "pid": "41ee0719-2019-04-18T14:19:05Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.9178009033203}]}
{"idx": 5, "qid": "6", "q_text": "Is a college education worth it?", "qrels": {"bc12e6a4-2019-04-18T17:08:40Z-00008-000": 0, "c195ff79-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00003-000": 2, "c195ff79-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00000-000": 2, "bc12e6a4-2019-04-18T17:08:40Z-00001-000": 0, "bbae4f3b-2019-04-18T12:51:48Z-00002-000": 0, "d0766dd3-2019-04-18T14:43:55Z-00004-000": 0, "b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00000-000": 0, "adecd01c-2019-04-18T17:15:12Z-00000-000": 0, "91988e1b-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00008-000": 0, "824a5a69-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00069-000": 0, "b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00005-000": 0, "d15e57c3-2019-04-18T11:59:31Z-00001-000": 0, "574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00001-000": 0, "7519549b-2019-04-18T13:45:43Z-00003-000": 0, "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00001-000": 0, "4a9c9344-2019-04-18T13:30:56Z-00002-000": 0, "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00005-000": 1, "3b365097-2019-04-18T14:42:14Z-00004-000": 0, "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00003-000": 0, "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00002-000": 0, "30a568aa-2019-04-18T16:55:27Z-00005-000": 0, "e4a40999-2019-04-18T18:11:30Z-00007-000": 2, "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00005-000": 0, "69aef9a8-2019-04-18T17:35:44Z-00003-000": 0, "9fe06406-2019-04-18T14:16:46Z-00004-000": 0, "95535bbc-2019-04-18T11:15:12Z-00002-000": 0, "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00004-000": 0, "9221b9ae-2019-04-18T16:38:23Z-00003-000": 2, "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00003-000": 1, "2ea519c-2019-04-18T15:42:30Z-00003-000": 2, "28b3999f-2019-04-18T18:29:22Z-00004-000": 1, "16998364-2019-04-18T12:09:53Z-00000-000": 0, "f76890a8-2019-04-18T12:32:48Z-00001-000": 2, "f76890a8-2019-04-18T12:32:48Z-00004-000": 2, "f76890a8-2019-04-18T12:32:48Z-00002-000": 2, "f76890a8-2019-04-18T12:32:48Z-00003-000": 2, "f3328136-2019-04-18T19:46:38Z-00003-000": 2, "f15a551d-2019-04-15T20:24:36Z-00005-000": 0, "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00012-000": 0, "e5bee3f3-2019-04-18T16:16:35Z-00002-000": 0, "88308cf4-2019-04-15T20:24:18Z-00005-000": 0, "5efd650c-2019-04-18T13:45:25Z-00001-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "This debate will be over whether or not college education is worth the time and expense. I will take the position as pro, arguing that college is worth it. My opponent will take the position as con, arguing that college is not worth it.Note: I live in America, so we are discussing college in America.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main ArgumentRound 3: Rebuttals", "title": "College is worth it", "pid": "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.7852325439453}, {"text": "Due to recent events in our debates I have come to see that even though nationwide high schools now encourage students to strive for four-year universities and colleges I have come to ask myself if those four long years are really worth it? For many, a four-year college is an impossible option and other times for those who do strive for their education find themselves lost of what to now do with their acquired education. Seeing on the Debt.org website, an organization dedicated to aiding in college grads debt, that \"...college graduates are left with a diploma and an enormous financial burden of credit card and student loan debt \" and maybe no job in sight\". Especially focusing not just on these student's debt but also how they may not be able to even find jobs. In order for this economy to flourish we need a stable working class, but if the majority are jobless and in debt our country will plummet. In order to evade such disaster perhaps it should be taken into account that these full college educations are not worth it and instead strive for an Associates that can still provide well paid working jobs for many; trade skill occupations.", "title": "A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It", "pid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.27511596679688}, {"text": "I accept your challenge, under the pretense that we can qualify which college experiences we are debating about, i.e., I will argue that a number of specific majors/fields of study are not worth the time and money, if one is hoping to gain employment through them, while I will conceed that other types, such as trade schools, are more worthwhile in today's economy.", "title": "College is worth it", "pid": "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.10079956054688}, {"text": "It is not !!!!!!!!! CAn i hear your why-statement ?", "title": "Going to college is worth", "pid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.08892822265625}, {"text": "No round as agreed", "title": "College is worth it", "pid": "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.95761108398438}, {"text": "Extend.", "title": "Going to college is worth", "pid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.77236938476562}, {"text": "Extend.", "title": "Going to college is worth", "pid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.77236938476562}, {"text": "We are debating whether or not it makes economic sense to go to college, in other words whether or not college will create a net-income gain or a net-income loss. Arguments should be based in statistics and mathematics and not in strict opinion.", "title": "Going to college is financially not worth it", "pid": "5e3d2af5-2019-04-18T12:41:09Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.46054077148438}, {"text": "colleges are playing with our money and giving us nothing but a kind of education that makes us inelligible in the job market.the increasing number of unemployment shows us that the market do not think that our college degree does have some value.if our employer don't think our degrees are valuable and fire us for that reason, our degrees really don't have ny value.therefore college education has no benefit at all.", "title": "The costs of college outweigh the benefits", "pid": "32e58fb0-2019-04-18T18:29:04Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.414306640625}, {"text": "Vote 4 me.", "title": "Going to college is worth", "pid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.3794403076172}, {"text": "The value of a college education is very important. There are a lot of people who believe that you don't have to attend college. Your employment options are extended as a college graduate. As a college graduate you make more money and have a better job. High school graduates should attend college because it increases chances of getting a job and you can earn more money. Attending college after graduating from high school should be a priority. It isn't a bad thing if you attend college. In fact I believe it will help you in the future. You have a high chance of getting your dream job and getting jobs easier. According to \"Actually, College is Very Much Worth It\" by Andrew J. Rotherham \"College graduates earn more, and are more likely to have a job in the first place-- and is especially important for some americans.\" College graduates make more money than high school graduates. They also have higher employment rates.", "title": "College is a Necessity to be Successful", "pid": "c195ff79-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.36947631835938}, {"text": "I have done my own research for this topic and what i found is that According to Money college planning \"half of graduates say the education was worth the cost. \"According to Wall Street Journal,\"Paying for college never is easy, but it\"s easier than most people think. Yet some politicians and pundits say students can\"t afford a college education. That\"s wrong. Most of them can.\" Yes you do pay a lot of money but about or more then half of the college graduates believe that going to college was very much worth it. We all want to earn a lot of money to provide ourselves with needs and wants, well being a college graduate can increase your chances of getting a better paying job which would provide you more chances of getting some of your wants.", "title": "College is a Necessity to be Successful", "pid": "c195ff79-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.35484313964844}, {"text": "It is worth it to go to college, and I will explain why it is worth it in the second round of the debate. Yes, I will post arguments using mathematical sense. Sincerely, Dr. Maniac", "title": "Going to college is financially not worth it", "pid": "5e3d2af5-2019-04-18T12:41:09Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.33531188964844}, {"text": "Hello my friends. Thanks for your attention to this topic. I really thank you. So, going to college for career, making connections, or getting degree or whatever doesnt really mean anything. It is totally waste of money and time. FYI, each year, tuition and fees increase anywhere pretty much. Bring it on if you are disagree with the statement ! ha", "title": "Going to college is worth", "pid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.02871704101562}, {"text": "OK.", "title": "The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits", "pid": "1788cfe5-2019-04-18T18:14:02Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.9757537841797}, {"text": "Oh no...", "title": "Going to college is financially not worth it", "pid": "5e3d2af5-2019-04-18T12:41:09Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.94798278808594}, {"text": "I apologize but I will not be able to finish this debate, I had several unexpected events come up. All votes should go to my worthy opponant and if he sees fit to re-issue this debate, someone more worthy than me should accept.", "title": "College is worth it", "pid": "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.90744018554688}, {"text": "I accept, and will be arguing that college is worth it for some people.", "title": "Going to college is worth", "pid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.8883056640625}, {"text": "It seems you have misunderstood me. Notice how you are debating the Pro for the statement 'Going to college is financially not worth it' meaning you are debating that it is not worth it to go to college.", "title": "Going to college is financially not worth it", "pid": "5e3d2af5-2019-04-18T12:41:09Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.8148193359375}, {"text": "OK. B(", "title": "The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits", "pid": "1788cfe5-2019-04-18T18:14:02Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.6846160888672}, {"text": "You might think that you are making loads of money, but you are not making as much as a college graduete would have made.Many people go to college for many reasons,but most people go because they want to make a difference in their lives.They have more opportunities in life than someone who didn't go to college.Isn't going to college better than having a poor paying job at a fast food restaurant?", "title": "College is a Necessity to be Successful", "pid": "c195ff79-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.63003540039062}, {"text": "Consider a smart person who is determined to be a lawyer. This person has a full ride scholarship, so education is free, and it is necessary for this person's life dreams and happiness to be a lawyer. A degree is required to practice law [1]. You cannot become a lawyer without being able to practice law, and so, since classes cost no money, it is totally worth it for this person to go to college. 1. http://study.com...", "title": "Going to college is worth", "pid": "76c7c4bc-2019-04-18T13:04:33Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.50062561035156}, {"text": "Main ArgumentI will be arguing that college is worth the time and expense.1. College graduates make more moneyStatistically, college graduates make more money opposed to those who are not college graduates. In America, those with four-year college degrees earned 98% more an hour than people without a degree in 2013. This has risen from previous years, meaning that college graduates are continually making more money than non graduates. Presently, the pay gap between graduates and non graduates is at an all time high. This makes a bachelors degree so much more valuable than it ever was before. Opponents of college say that it is too expensive, but because of the high pay earned by college graduates most graduates come out better than they were before. Think of college as an investment. It has been found that the average rate of return for a bachelor's degree has been about 15%, making it an excellent investment choice.The following picture shows the rate of return for the listed majors. 2. The benefits outweigh the costIt is true that college graduates will face financial expenses, but for the most part these are minuscule obstacles compared to the benefits of college. The average debt for college students is under $20,000. In the long-term, this is a minor expense compared to the money they will be making in the future. By far, the largest benefit of college is making more money than non gradates.Another benefit of college is that college graduates are more likely to have health insurance and retirement plans because they are more likely to get a well-paying career. Most careers include the benefits of health and retirement aid. Non graduates are more likely to be stuck working an hourly job that does not include health Going to college will naturally make you smarter. In college, a lot of thinking is required. This in turn develops the students brain and skills related to the brain such as problem solving, memory and decision making.To back up the claim that college students are smarter, I want to use a real life example. My Father is a project manager at a science institute. He has a number of people work for him who have graduated college, and who have not graduated college. Although these non graduates may be capable of doing what the graduates do, he states that the graduates are noticeably smarter, and have a better understanding of the work project than those without degrees. To conclude, he prefers college graduates as opposed to non graduates working for him.Sourceshttp://www.nytimes.com...http://www.usnews.com...http://money.cnn.com...", "title": "College is worth it", "pid": "561c5e25-2019-04-18T15:50:58Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.47201538085938}, {"text": "1] yes there are scholership to get a college degree but what after that? will you get a good job?2]watch this documentary and you will understand what kind of fullfilling job you can get after college education.http://www.youtube.com...3] abraham lincoln did not have college degree yet he became president of united states. thomas paine did not have a college degree, yet he designed the american constitution.so college education has nothing to do with democracy.", "title": "The costs of college outweigh the benefits", "pid": "32e58fb0-2019-04-18T18:29:04Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.3888702392578}, {"text": "College does make success in life more easily achievable. 1.) College makes financial success easier to obtain. Students that graduate from college have tremendously larger average lifetime salaries than students that do not attend or graduate college. You can more than double your income though attending college, and college graduates are more likely to obtain jobs with better benefits, saving them tremendous amounts of money over a life time. College graduates also have more job security and a lower rate of unemployment.2.) College allows you to experience new things, and expands your point of view, allowing for a life that is based off of more experiences, and is open to many more perspectives. Going to college allows you to have experiences you would not have otherwise, which allows you to feel more fulfilled in life. Self-fulfillment is a large part of success as it leads to happiness in life.3.) College opens doors and allows you more choice in your future. By obtaining a better education, you also have the opportunity to explore different fields of study and work that you would not be able to explore without a college education. The choice of what path to take in life is a form of success because it makes it easier to be an autonomous individual.College allows oneself to be more successful in life financially, though self-fulfillment, and through allowing more autonomy and opportunity for happiness.Sources:http://www.finaid.org...I look forward to hearing my opponents arguments.", "title": "Being successful in life is easier with a college education.", "pid": "b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.37411499023438}, {"text": "College education is a waste of money and time. Most people who attend college do not get what they pay for. An associate degree or a bachelors degree cannot really get you a high paying job or \"career\". In order to get a \"career\" you must continue your education to receive a masters degree, a PhD or any other further education Many people without a college career have been extremely successful; For example, , Bill Gates , Andrew Carnegie, Federica Henry Royce and Abraham Lincoln .", "title": "College education is not necessary to become successful", "pid": "9221b9ae-2019-04-18T16:38:23Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.35797119140625}, {"text": "The crucial aim of the students is to get a good job and a good life, and college is where they get professional knowledge, develop dreams, and complete education. College is also a good motive for students to study, and it helps students focus on studying. If students go to college, their individual potential will be raised higher and the educational quality will get higher. Also, with skills and knowledge learned in college, students will be enabled to get better jobs and better lives. Emphasis on college education will help economy and it will help citizens have higher competence. Moving on to my first argument, our first argument is about individual potential. There are many levels of schools. In elementary schools, students learn the basics. In middle schools, education is lengthened. In high schools, the education is advanced more. In college, education is completed. College is a good way in pulling up one\"s potential in many ways. Students who didn\"t study and who were lax in studying try to concentrate because they want to have a good life and college is a good tool in getting a good life. Also, while in college, students who didn\"t have interest in studying may start to get interest because they might find something specialized that they really like and develop a dream, or they could try to expand their education and get further knowledge. In college, educational quality is also higher. In college, there are specialized majors and much deeper education is possible. For an example, art learned in high school would comparatively be much shallower than art learned in college. So in college, students can have their individual potentials pulled up, and the educational quality is higher too.", "title": "We regret the emphasis on college education", "pid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.35745239257812}, {"text": "Fundamentally, this debate is about emphasis, and not whether or not college is good. Both Con and I agree that college can be a great learning experience with good possible returns for companies and society. However, my argument from the start of this debate has been that there are alternatives that serve as good if not better purposes, and that emphasis alone won't lead to more successful college graduates. Pro says he doesn't necessarily support college as a prerequisite. This is really an example of emphasis taken to an extreme, one I have already explained is harmful to society and students. Pro says that civic awareness is gained through education. I agree. Any education can provide civic awareness. Therefore, this is not unique to college. Pro says that college can provide on-the-job experiences. I agree, though I would say this is uncommon. Both vocational schools and apprenticeships are guaranteed to include this, and therefore far more efficient. Pro says that a deeper, more specific education makes technology better. He also says they need a wider education. He can't have it both ways. You either get broader or you get deeper. As I granted depth, I'd say that's likeliest, and it leaves many students with very specific knowledge and little innovative capacity. So voters should be asking themselves some basic questions: 1) Does the emphasis on college education lead to more college students capable of doing well in that academic setting? 2) Is it better for students to feel that their future is determined solely by whether they go to college, or by whether they receive more extensive educations? 3) Does the emphasis displace other important forms of education that more directly lead to economic benefits for students, companies and society? 4) Does going to college strongly link to the beneficial outcomes Con has stated? I think I've made it clear what the answers to these questions are. I leave it to the voters to evaluate the debate.", "title": "We regret the emphasis on college education", "pid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.3479461669922}, {"text": "Thanks for your participation. Rebuttal: Of course there are many other roads than college. I acknowledge that. However, my stance is that we don't really regret the emphasis on college education, not that everyone should go to college. Believe it or not, in our country(I'm a South Korean), colleges have become prerequisites for entering into society, and companies and businesses put much importance on what college that person has come from. In the society that we face today, it is inevitable that we put emphasis on college education, and I don't regret it. People from vocational schools are also a bit discriminated, so it would be more efficient for the students to enter into college education. Moving on to my second argument, our second argument is about economic benefits. If students go to college, there will be much more economic benefits. First, the overall level of education will get higher, as people will get deeper levels of education. This will cause the general mature civic awareness, and people will get much more efficient in whatever they are working on. This will bring more profit. Also, with more specific information, better technology and things such as better inventions will be enabled to be made. Also, there are high possibilities that better firms will be born too. All these will help to make profits in global market and etc. So there will be benefits to the country because people work much more efficiently, better technology and products are made, and better firms are born. The cause of all this can be traced back to college education.", "title": "We regret the emphasis on college education", "pid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.3450927734375}, {"text": "Rules:Burden of proof is shared.No new arguments in round 5.Drops are not concessions.Forfeit in any round is an automatic loss. College is defined as \"an independent institution of higher learning offering a course of general studies leading to a bachelor's degree.\" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) No negotiation on this.Round structure is as follows:1) Acceptance2) Arguments3) Rebuttals4) Response to rebuttals (defending your own case)5) Summary", "title": "The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits", "pid": "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 214.33055114746094}, {"text": "not really, its just some common sense.", "title": "Free college education", "pid": "5efd650c-2019-04-18T13:45:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.302490234375}, {"text": "I accept the resolution.", "title": "Being successful in life is easier with a college education.", "pid": "b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.26976013183594}, {"text": "As billionaire Warren Buffet stated, \"The greatest investment is yourself.\" Before stating my contentions, I'd like to define some terms within the resolution. A college education is the completion of a bachelor's, master's or PHD degree. Outweigh: to exceed in value, importance, or influence, (and) benefits: something that is advantageous or good in short and long term. Contention 1: - There are many alternatives to pay for college rather than paying out of pocket. As we all know, the United States is currently in a recession, attacking the middle class drastically. Many people who are not financially capable to pay for college can obtain certain resources like scholarships, grants and/or financial aid to help pay for expenses. The people who receive these financial aids come from struggling middle class families. According to CollegeBoard.com, a total of 35% of high school students earned academic scholarships and 11% earn athletic scholarships in 2011. Also, 20% of students going to ivy league schools obtained the pell grant. As you can see, there are many alternatives to help paying for college without giving the students too much debt. Why should financial burdens prevent a qualified student from going to a college of his or her dreams? Contention 2- People that go to college have a more fulfilling job. The definition of satisfaction is an act of fulfillment and gratification. One may be content with themselves no matter what occupation they do every day. However, when one obtains a degree in a specific field, they will gain more financial wealth and security, thus gaining the capital needed to pay for student loans and other expenses. According USA.gov, in 2010 alone, 68.1 percent of high school graduates attended college. Compared to the 32 percent that didn't attend college, those who did grossed an average of 29,000 dollars more a year. With that much money made more a year, a college graduate can afford a larger mortgage, or save their money towards his or her's children's college fund. The more someone invests in themselves, the more return they're going to get out. Contention 3-When students attend college, they help maintain the democratic system America has so perfectly designed. Imagine if your state senator or representative did not attend college? Imagine what decisions these politicians would make without having taken an ethics class? As Thomas Jefferson stated \"Information is the currency of democracy.\" If college is not worth going to as the affirmation attempts to advocate, then, my fellow americans, we are a country of poor democratic worth. Also, according to a statistic stated by CollegeBoard.com, 60% of college graduates play a role in our democratic system, either by attending city council meetings, volunteering for potential political candidates, or simply voting. As you can see, when students go to college, they participate substantially more than high school graduates.", "title": "The costs of college outweigh the benefits", "pid": "32e58fb0-2019-04-18T18:29:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.2666015625}, {"text": "It is true that finding a job or position after graduating can be hard but like you said it all depends on the person's work ethics and situation. This may cause people to get a job from six weeks to six months depending on the major and area. Some areas need more jobs than others depending on the community's needs, resources, and stability. Some colleges have programs that make it easier to find positions for specific majors and it also depends on how bad the job seeker truly wants it. No matter what kind of education one accquires, full time or not, a person will have some difficulty finding a job. But it is after the position is obtained by an individual that makes the true difference. One goes to college to obtain a better and comfortable lifestyle by earning a greater salary. Charles Purdy published an article called \"10 Job Search Mistakes of New College Grads\" by a website called Monster Worldwide Inc, offering career advice and researching the top mistakes most job seekers and grad students make. Some of the mistakes listed on the website were not using the college's career office, not taking the job interview seriously, appearing unprofessional, setting expectations too high, misusing the internet, relying solely on the internet, and not being proactive enough. To elaborate on students and job seekers setting the expectation to high, most of them think of the perfect job instead of their \"first job\" or actually giving it a fair shot. In this economy, the first job should be about finding a position where one will learn great deals and skills, be super busy, and be surrounded by lots of people in order to get familiar and be more hands on with their career or major. Afterwards, there is always the option of transferring to another location if the first job isn't meeting their expectations. In conclusion, achieving any sort of education may seem challenging but the sole purpose of obtaining an education should motivate one to achieve greater than what they had before, whether it's a high school diploma or associates degree. A full time education may seem stressful but one should keep their eyes on the prize once their journey is completed.", "title": "A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It", "pid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.2490997314453}, {"text": "Moving past unemployment, underemployment, and debt I would like to focus on life after a person has graduated a full four year college. Based off your claims I cannot deny that a person with a full college education does make more money than a person who decides to skip college or only work for their associates. Even seeing that unemployment and underemployment may be avoided if a person really strives out of a state such as California where finding jobs is much more difficult. But even though a person may find a job and pay off all their debt how long will it take for a four-year college graduate to finally live a normal life? Based off the online article website, \"The Balance\", and their article \"Making it Between College and Your First Job\", last updated March of this year, they state that it takes up to six months for a college graduate to find a job, depending on their field and the current economic conditions. Six months may not seem like a lot of time but compared to an average person without a degree who can find a job in between six weeks, there is a huge gap. Within these six months the graduate will need to not only figure out how to manage their lives but also figure out how else they will support themselves. This last issue many college graduates then face after college are the delays in their life. Facing the fact that compared to a person without a degree and who has already a paying job the graduate will then need extra time to move on with their lives. Finding delays in saving for retirement, delays in buying their homes, and maybe even delays in getting married. A full college education can take a majority of a person's time and while they are busy studying it takes time away from preparing for their life after college. However, because a person with a full college education can afford a home and save for retirement much quicker than a person without, it then all depends on the person. Some people would prefer living their lives out rather than having a college education and if that is their preferred life so be it. Overall, a college education can benefit those who decide to follow that path, but they will face their share of hardships during and after just as a person who doesn't go to college will face their own working difficulties.", "title": "A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It", "pid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.23239135742188}, {"text": "I extend all of my original arguments and following arguments as my opponent has forfeited the round.", "title": "Being successful in life is easier with a college education.", "pid": "b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.23052978515625}, {"text": "I'm not exactly sure how to respond.A) You did not source your arguments like I asked of you. Simply stating them is not enough, I could pull out any statistic or quote and say it came from a newspaper.B) You haven't read my arguments. For example, I rebutted your contention on the individual's standpoint by pointing out that in the long run College graduates earn nearly twice as much as high school graduates, making investing 20,000 - 30,000 dollars in post-secondary education an efficient and thoroughly beneficial investment.Please take the time to reread and construct actual arguments before posting your response. Thank you.", "title": "The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits", "pid": "1788cfe5-2019-04-18T18:14:02Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.2239990234375}, {"text": "I cannot deny that four-year college educations do provide higher paying jobs compared to a person with only an associate's degree, but even though the person may make more money it all depends. It depends on the major the person took, it depends on the amount of debt they will be in, it depends on the college they went too, it depends if there are even jobs available for them after graduation. I say this because yes, all college education does cost money, but some a lot more than others and it is because of this cost and rate of recent unemployment for certain jobs why perhaps the four-year education is currently not worth all its time and effort. While there are grants and scholarships for full time four-year college students to apply for to aid in their debt, that is if they take the time and effort to do so, many cannot forget that even after graduation and debt there also may lie unemployment and underemployment. Seeing in the online website article,\" The Economic Policy Institute\", last updated in April 21, 2016, that, \"For young college graduates, the unemployment rate is currently 5.6 percent (compared with 5.5 percent in 2007), and the underemployment rate is 12.6 percent (compared with 9.6 percent in 2007)\". Despite how low these rates may be now it cannot be ignored how dramatically the percentage changed from 2007 to 2016 in the underemployment rates and shows that in the due future these rates will only become increase. Through this percent of people who face underemployment and how it will begin to grow over time it can be seen that many people will have their four-year degree but most will never work to their educations actual potential. Lacking in that higher paying job they so longed for and then for those who had not applied for grants and scholarships finding themselves stuck in debt that they cannot escape due to their underemployed job. It is not common, but there are associate's degrees that allow a pay just as high as any bachelor's degree may provide. It is with these certain opportunities that people may take through a shorter college life that they will end up with not only a much smaller debt but also a well paid trade and working job that are currently in the need and are not facing unemployment or underemployment.", "title": "A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It", "pid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.20635986328125}, {"text": "I am arguing that the costs of a college education do outweigh the benefits.", "title": "In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits", "pid": "e78f47fa-2019-04-18T18:20:34Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.20535278320312}, {"text": "The main purpose for education is to gain knowledge so as to be able to get a better job. The cost of a four year college will cost any were from 3,000 to 33,000 per semester. There are very few people who could afford this kind of money for fun, or to be better human beings. People pick a major so as to tailor there education for there future job, not to be better people. Now I pose the question to you and the voters. If you could not get a better job by going to college would you pay to go? http://www.collegeboards.com...", "title": "Education's main purpose is life knowledge, not the programming of a mind to work a specific job.", "pid": "88cfaec7-2019-04-18T19:17:31Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.1360626220703}, {"text": "First, let me show give you some definitions to you JudgeWe would like to define ‘costs’ We would like to define ‘costs’ as the tuition, textbooks, time, and the government’s money we’ll explain in depth later.The standard or Weighing Mechanism for today’s debate should be EfficiencyWe use Efficiency as a standard or weighing mechanism for today’s debate. We would like to state that colleges are good for individuals, family, and our society Judge, all of our contentions will refer to the observation that colleges are good. Please don’t let our opponents trick you into believing that we, as the Affirmative, think that colleges are bad. We chose efficiency because we think of colleges as good, but they have too high prices. Imagine college education as a stock. One buys a stock and they hope their stock will rise in value so they can sell it for a better price. You may not buy a stock that has a high price since the probability of selling the stock later for higher is very little. The same thing is with a college education. You may buy a college education if the prices are low with a better chance of gaining a well paying salary in the future but you may not if the prices are high with a chance of a low paying salary in the future. This is why we argue Efficiency.With that we have 3 main arguments. Contention 1. The Individual Staindpoint We are worried that the costs of a college education will ruin someone’s life...or rather more than one. According to the New York Times, college graduates under 25 that have a humanities major, 25.2% of them are not working, 29.4% have job that doesn’t even require a college education. Only 45.5% of them are working in jobs that require a college education. That isn’t even half! Obviously the cost is not worth the benefit. Carl E. Van Horn, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University said to the Huffington Post that \"Not every graduate program leads to a guaranteed job. You likely already have debt and you're going to incur more debt and what's it going to translate into down the road?\" asked Van Horn. \"While it's okay to major in cultural anthropology, understand that you may not end up as the next Margaret Mead. You may end up as the manager of a Sports Authority.\" This quote shows that not all graduate degrees will guarantee you a job, much less a well paying salary or a job that requires a college degree. You will most probably always be in debt. Contention 2. Government StandpointLoaning to high school graduates is all fine but this is not an efficient way to do things. This money that is going to the high school graduates’ loans but they are being wasted with all the unemployment rates of college graduates being in debt. These college graduates are unable to pay their debt. This has led to parts of the Occupy Movement. These graduates are protesting to the government and asking them if they can not pay back the loans. If you, Judge, were looking at these protesters from a government standpoint, you would see all that money being wasted in the loans for the high school graduates and taking care of the protests.“It's a phenomenon familiar to economists. If you offer people a subsidy to pursue some activity requiring an input that's in more-or-less fixed supply, the price of that input goes up” - startribune.com. This says that if there are government subsidies, the price grows. Since right now, we have government subsidies and that is what is bringing the costs up. Contention 3 - Societal BenefitsAs I stated in my second argument, subsidies are a waste. This money spent on subsidies could be used to improve public services including airports, roads, and the k-12 Education. Obama himself said in a recent speech that airports, roads, and bridges needed more money, according to CNS News. If we take away these subsidies, the extra money could go to there public services. Also, building and bettering airports, roads, and the k-12 system could supply more jobs, stimulating the economy, which, Judge, we all know is in very bad shape. The k-12 system especially needs some help. Only 7% of US students performs at an advanced level in math putting us behind 25 other countries. Only 32% of US students are proficient in math, placing us 32nd in the world-newsweek Aug 2011As you can see, abolishing college subsidies goes a long way.", "title": "The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits", "pid": "1788cfe5-2019-04-18T18:14:02Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.12338256835938}, {"text": "Increasingly in the past couple years, people have seem to forgotten the immense value of a college education, more specifically a four year degree. However a four-year degree(full-time) is more valuable now than ever. In a time of unbelievable competition in the job market, something has to be done to separate the best from the average. A four year degree shows not only knowledge in a specific discipline but also shows that one had the commitment to get the degree over a period of time. In the choice between a person with a four year degree and a lesser education, the person in the four-year degree tends to win due to the credibility of crendtials and knowledge. A four year college degree also gives an immense amount of options, compared to a two year degree which allows trade specialization. A four year degree allows trade speicalization of a two year, but also a lot more options that the other may not have available. A lot of the best paying workers start with a four year degree. In a dynamic world having options is invaluable and if you want real options of four year degree is the way to go. A full time education/ a four year degree often causes debt but so does any college education, however schooling for any comfortable life style costs money. The existence of grants and scholarships help offset much of this cost. Studies show that a full time student make more money faster than a part time student. According to Erica Loop who published an article called, \"What Benefits Are There for Being a Full-Time College Student Over a Part-Time Student?\" states that \"A full-time student is more likely to receive the full amount of the grant than a part-time student is\". It is more common for people with 4 year degrees make substaneously more than those with a Associates so people with a higher education degree have more of a capability to pay it off. Also some student may be discourage by the amount of time in order to be successful and loose focus.", "title": "A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It", "pid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.11012268066406}, {"text": "Accepted. I will be arguing that the benefits of a college education outweigh the costs. I hope this is a great debate! :p Go!", "title": "In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits", "pid": "e78f47fa-2019-04-18T18:20:34Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.09930419921875}, {"text": "Please feel free to ask any questions that you might have abut the resolution/debate in the comments section or by messageing me. I look forward to debateing!", "title": "Being successful in life is easier with a college education.", "pid": "b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.08949279785156}, {"text": "College should not be your time to figure out what you're good at, it should not be your time to establish what you're passionate about. If you don't know what you want to do for the rest of your life, how is wasting 4 years and THOUSANDS of dollars helping you? There is no harm in taking a gap year. Also, if you know what career you would like to pursue and it doesn't 100% require a degree (i.e. doctor, lawyer, teacher, etc.), why would you waste your money on one? College is, in my opinion, the most costly & stupid \"trial-run\" you could ever go through. And the crazy thing is, is that there IS NO GUARANTEE OF ANYTHING AFTER YOU GRADUATE. ESPECIALLY if you have a butt-load of student loans.", "title": "College is a Necessity to be Successful", "pid": "c195ff79-2019-04-18T13:35:02Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.08302307128906}, {"text": "A vibrant modern economy requires a well educated work force and a college education is essential to function as a part of the modern labor force. If the ability to pursue a college education depends solely on one's wherewithal, then a large part of the potential labor force is shut out. Government support for college education is essential to allow wide spread access for many of the poor. This initial investment by the government will be repaid once they become productive and tax payers.", "title": "College should be entirely government funded.", "pid": "dfe65563-2019-04-18T18:09:32Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.04238891601562}, {"text": "College important. In this economy if you do not have at least an associate degree then its even hard to get a Job in McDonald. There are only a few people who became successful without going to college such as bill gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs etc but even Albert Einstein who was a genius since the day he could speak decided to go to college to improve himself. College gives us a chance to be in a real world by teaching us skills to build a career, to make connections, experience and to learn more about the career that you are interested. Not to mention the satisfaction that it gives us when you are a college graduate compare to a high school graduate.", "title": "College education is not necessary to become successful", "pid": "9221b9ae-2019-04-18T16:38:23Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.03326416015625}, {"text": "Generally, making money instead of losing money is a very good thing. And, being loan free is superior to being over your head in debt.", "title": "Making money is better than paying tuition.", "pid": "824a5a69-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00103-000", "bm25_score": 213.9928436279297}, {"text": "I concede and forfeit", "title": "The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits", "pid": "1788cfe5-2019-04-18T18:14:02Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.97007751464844}, {"text": "I hope this response will suffice. as for my opponents request the reason I believe this is because first for the reason of debate and second because I and most college students go to college for the purpose of making more money after graduation. But this has little to do wit this debate. Pro goes on to say that education referees to high school as well as college, and it should be free, what he does not see is that goes beyond what you pay and also refers to opportunity costs. the added cost of using resources (as for production or speculative investment) that is the difference between the actual value resulting from such use and that of an alternative (as another use of the same resources or an investment of equal risk but greater return. http://www.merriam-webster.com...... this shows that regardless of what you pay there are still cost to education. Back to the resolution educations main purpose is to gain a better job than you could gain without it. The result of this could be mental and logical growth but this is not its main purpose.", "title": "Education's main purpose is life knowledge, not the programming of a mind to work a specific job.", "pid": "88cfaec7-2019-04-18T19:17:31Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.9639129638672}, {"text": "Counter Argument ensuing....College wasn't the right place for Bill's mind. But we are off topic now, let's start focusing on the bigger picture, all people.True college is a tool to be used that helps us find our way in adulthood, but if you have ideas and motivation, there is no need. With the right ideals and determination, money could be better spent on starting a business that could grow into something beautiful. College now a days is all about getting the diploma that looks pretty to employers. Many of the creative and idea forming types, aren't very good at being employees and want to be in charge of themselves. Not going to college and pursuing their passion enables them to do whatever they want! Where do all great businesses start? In the land of no restraints and boundaries.I make the argument that higher education is NOT a necessity! Intrinsic motivation is all it takes to follow your dreams and make your own success. Sure you got a Stanford diploma, but is this a predictor for ultimate success in your life? No. All over the world, college is becoming more than just a means of education to better yourself, it is becoming a novelty, a piece of paper that is so desperately craved by people who want to look good to employers. Whether you are big or small, intelligent or not intelligent, you can make your own success without the validation or \"seal of approval\" from a college. Choose the way you want to live your life. College is not a necessity, and success is purely decided based on your actions.", "title": "Is education necessary for people's future lives", "pid": "f48730ac-2019-04-18T15:19:48Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.94403076171875}, {"text": "One of your arguments are the factors of underemployment and unemployment rates when in fact it does rely and depend on the major or career. Many jobs today are being replaced by machines therefore people in society and undergraduates need to focus on being a full time student to get a four year education or higher to acquire skills and knowledge that can not be replaced by a machine. Whether a full time education is truly worth the time and money, one person may argue that with loans and being in debt may seem like a stressful situation, it pays off drastically with time. With a four year education, a loan can be paid off in a couple of years while still having a comfortable lifestyle. For instance, a family practice (doctor) goes to school for a total of twelve year (four years at a university, four years at medical school, and three years at residency) the tuition may seem high but he/she would be making around 325,000 annually so in numbers, it seems worth the time and energy to put force into a full time education, if the loans/debt will not be as a big deal to pay off. The conversation of underemployment and unemployment justifies the fact that the competition between a full time student and part time student is existing but the job or position will most likely go to the more committed student with more experience and education. Without being said, the rates of unemployment and underemployment are higher in California due to it having the highest population in the U.S with more people seeking classes in specific majors and jobs. This is why programs like the Regional Admission Counselors of California (RACC) is composed of college admission professionals who represent colleges and universities outside the state of California. They help students go out of state into universities with the same system and potentially find jobs and positions out in other states where the unemployment is not as high as California. With all this being said, myself as a high school and college student I would be lying if I said money was not a concern for me. However, according to Nerd Wallet, a website helping people save money had Devon Delfino, someone who personally invested in student loans wrote an article on December 16, 2016 called \"Advice From 3 People Who Paid off Student Loan Debt\" states that small adjustments make a difference into paying off student loans like \"tracking your credit score, using the avalanche method, and taking holistic approach to your finances\". All in all, this is something that will help students be young responsible adults and the rewards of a full time education will help take them to that next level.", "title": "A Full Time College Education is Not Worth It", "pid": "472d8abe-2019-04-18T12:17:23Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.91351318359375}, {"text": "My opponent and I have decided to forgo this round on the account that I am ill with food poisoning.Thank you.", "title": "The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits", "pid": "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.8706512451172}, {"text": "Should colleges/universities cost less money?", "title": "Colleges/Universities", "pid": "e2c8913f-2019-04-18T15:40:27Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.8558349609375}, {"text": "We are cutting out the round used to defend our own cases. This round will be used for con to attack my case, and then round 5 will be final rebuttals/summary.", "title": "The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits", "pid": "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.84579467773438}, {"text": "College is a better than high school because of the freedom you have in college. High school is a glorified jail. You are trapped inside all day. College you are allowed to make your own schedule and choose all your own classes. High school you are told what classes you must take and in what time slot you must take it. College also allows you to escape the town you reside in. Some people go away to college. This is even better because you see more of the world. College is a better experience than high school in all ways.", "title": "College is better than high school.", "pid": "e1286851-2019-04-18T18:19:37Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.82777404785156}, {"text": "Thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate so effectively. Con is essentially non-responsive to my points. He states that there are other roads one could take, and then disregards the analysis I've provided in support of them. I don't see any response to vocational schools and apprenticeships specifically, so extend my analyses there. Also extend my points regarding why college is not for everyone. Con then proceeds to outline the very reasons for my concern. The situation is South Korea is, in my opinion, net harmful. College shouldn't be a \"prerequisite for entering into society,\" partly because it completely excludes those who cannot succeed in a college setting. One type of education should not be preferred over another, and Con has provided only limited reasons why college is specifically important, and none for why it is more beneficial than anything I've offered up. Con then proceeds to explain the benefits of such a system. He says that there would be more economic benefits. His warrants are here lacking. I don't see any actual link made between higher education and increased benefits to individuals or society, mainly just assertions that the link exists. Let's go through those assertions. 1) Higher education = deeper education Not necessarily true, but I'll grant this. 2) More civic awareness No reason for this given - Con assumes what is taught to everyone in college. 3) Higher efficiency Again, not supported. I'd argue the reverse - the lack of on-the-job experience makes them very inefficient. 4) Increased profit for company No reason to believe that someone coming from the insular academic environment will lead to increased profits. 5) Better inventions and technology Perhaps, but neither of these things require a college background to accomplish. 6) Better firms Not likely, given that college graduates aren't normally that capable of starting their own businesses since they don't have experience in this regard. Back to Con.", "title": "We regret the emphasis on college education", "pid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.82650756835938}, {"text": "Hi. My name is Dillon and education has always been an important thing for me. With our downfalling economy, I believe that a required college education would be very important, as with a college education, better paying jobs are available, therefore stimulating the economy for us. With more and more people getting better jobs, a larger amount of money the will have to pay for Social Security, which would possibly help decrease the deficit the U.S. economy is in right now. Also, a college education would allow for more innovative technologies to be developed in the future, as well as a generally smarter public, which is always beneficial. I am sorry I do not have any sources cited, but it is 10:15 P:M where I live and I still have work to do. Also, not many sources are available, as this debate isn't exactly the largest thing to be arguing about.", "title": "College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens", "pid": "3c15c9f1-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.8108367919922}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits", "pid": "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.8091583251953}, {"text": "i thank con for his argument. Education is the most important thing you can have. You can go anywhere with an education. Everyone should have access to higher educational opportunities. Just because you can't pay for it doesn't mean you shouldn't go. If higher education were free, more people would be smarter, would have brighter knowledge and better job opportunities. 71.3 percent of students drop out of college and university because of the costs. That\"s near 3/4th of the population of college students. Without education some people will be denied basic education. Everybody needs to know the fundamental basics of reading, writing, comprehension, math and whatever else is necessary.", "title": "Free education", "pid": "b7e5c696-2019-04-18T17:58:32Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.80352783203125}, {"text": "There are many colleges and I don't believe that the government has that much money. Even if they did, that means anyone can get into any college. Education wouldn't really matter anymore. A student who has lower grades than a highly academic student may be able to go to a great college and their effort won't matter. Those who want to get into a good college work hard for it, but if students are just going to have a college handed to them because it's already paid for then it gives them no reason for any work or effort at all.", "title": "college should be entierly government funded", "pid": "690558ad-2019-04-18T18:09:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.73165893554688}, {"text": "College does not make success in life more easily achievable. 1) Some of the most successful people did not attend college, or did not graduate college. http://elitedaily.com... 2) College causes a lot of people to go into debt leading to insecure financial standings. http://projectonstudentdebt.org... 3) With the technological age there are a lot more opportunities outside of a structured college environment to receive exposure to the world, and access opportunities. http://www.examiner.com... http://www.crossculturalsolutions.org...", "title": "Being successful in life is easier with a college education.", "pid": "b6997948-2019-04-18T16:22:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.70993041992188}, {"text": "It is quite unfortunate that my opponent decided to forfeit.", "title": "The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits", "pid": "1788cfe5-2019-04-18T18:14:02Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.70574951171875}, {"text": "Best friends since pre school Bob an John did every thing together, grew up in the same neighborhood, went to the same school, and even knew the same people. Bob's parents where always pushing him to excel in his academic studies because they knew that would make his life a whole lot easier in the future. Johns father pushed John hard in sports, every chance he got he would teach John how to throw the football or shoot the basketball. Bob was always on his high school honor roll and graduated head of his class. Meanwhile John was a getting less than average grades throughout highschool but man could he run around the football field and shot the basketball. At the end of there senior year in highschool Bob decided to accept a academic scholarship to the University of Florida and continue to push towards his college education. John however wasn't able to get that scholarship that he and his father had been praying for through athletics, so he had to start work immediately after highschool. Now ten years have passed an the best friends have reunited at a highschool reunion. Bob now has his college degree an has become a highly paid doctor. John is still searching for a stable job that can get him through his tough times. John tells Bob \"Things would be a whole lot easier if I just had a college degree.\" Many parents stress to there children to further their education by going to college. The benefits of a college education are endless, However many people have been able to by pass a college degree and still maintain in today's society. While a college education increases ones chances of earning more money, its not the only way to a well paying and rewarding career. Thus brings the question why is a college education important in today's society? The main benefit of a college education is it betters your career opportunities. A college degree opens a variety of opportunities in the working force, giving a better chance for success.", "title": "Organized sports is ALWAYS put before EVERYTHING ELSE in high school", "pid": "27ba4b1a-2019-04-18T17:02:14Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.6852569580078}, {"text": "I believe that free education is a gift to society and students everywhere. Sometimes when I look at my college debts, I think that \"College education should be free.\" I do however think its a terrible idea to completely free all colleges because then not only would the economy suffer, every department would suffer because than they would not be able to provide enough money to hire teachers, teacher assistants, and students working with professors would not get funding for a research project. The class size today is roughly 400 - 600 students in a first year course (I. Biology, Chemistry, Psychology) but making education free would result in there being 1000+ students in each class and not enough teachers. The school suffers, students suffer, the economy suffers, and we end up with nothing.", "title": "Free college is a terrible idea.", "pid": "50de86d9-2019-04-18T13:33:06Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.68057250976562}, {"text": "My opponent has dropped ever single argument I have made and merely added a set of new contentions. So that is the first reason to vote CON. The thesis of this debate is exactly what my opponent said in his first speech, it can't be changed throughout the debate arbitrarily as he attemtps to do in his second \"rebuttal\" therefore we instantly drop these non-topical argument and focus on those presented (I will argue them however). Thesis: \"I believe that a required college education would be very important, as with a college education, better paying jobs are available\" Therefore the burden of the CON is to prove that College education does not provide better paying jobs. As I have done in my first speech, also I took it a step further to point out how rather than provide a head start on success in life college sets students back, therefore we can clearly vote CON. Also we must note that their are no warrants supporting his first speech so we can once again drop all these absurd claims. On to the PRO Main Point 1: Universities offer better returns if you invest. This is by far the most non topical argument of the round, so I see no reason why this should even be taken into consideration. Now it is non-topical because my opponent talks about Universities not Colleges. Universities are An institution for higher learning with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master's degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor's degrees. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) and Colleges are an institution of higher learning, esp. one providing a general or liberal arts education rather than technical or professional training. A Blatant difference, had my opponent clarified at the beginning of the debate that we are discussing both, I would argue them both, but because he didn't and there is little time for me to respond if he decides to arbitrarily establish this bond we can not allow him. Main Point 2: The number of scholarships are rapidly increasing, and even if you couldn't obtain one, community colleges offer a good education and often enough, financial aid. After we remember that we are trying to establish that college = better jobs so more money, we can realize this main point is incorrect. Because of the first main point where he says \"studies have found that students who attend highly selective colleges have much greater lifetime earnings than those who don't\". This is only talking about selective colleges and community colleges are not selective, also for this matter what are these studies? He never manages to cite them so how are we to know they actually exist? We can't so dismiss the studies but keep in mind that he agrees. Also going back to my point about universities and colleges the entire set of warrants for how scholoraships are more available are only referenced from Universities, so we can dismiss this claim. Remember we are not discussing Universities only Colleges, and for that matter my opponent fails to uphold a clear debate he merely suggests contentions and then drops them. So", "title": "College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens", "pid": "3c15c9f1-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.6494903564453}, {"text": "Extend my arguments. I urge an affirmative vote.", "title": "In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits", "pid": "e78f47fa-2019-04-18T18:20:34Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.64312744140625}, {"text": "Yes all students should go to college because everyone deserves to have a great education which will lead to many positive choices in life. A student will have a variety of good opportunities to choose from, instead of having to take a job just to have a paycheck.", "title": "Should All Students go to college", "pid": "3ee73521-2019-04-18T17:53:53Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.63336181640625}, {"text": "Although that might be true. The job market for people who are recent graduates is very low. For example look at the people who want to become lawyers , they graduate with their bachelors degree , further their education in law school and at the end still end up with no career. In college you focus on one major, and if the job market under that major is not hiring, then you are left with nothing. People who have their high school diploma can get jobs easily right after they graduate and make connections that can get them into higher positions without the trouble of wasting 4 years in college.", "title": "College education is not necessary to become successful", "pid": "9221b9ae-2019-04-18T16:38:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.60888671875}, {"text": "I did state my sources. Since that is your only refutation, I should win", "title": "The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits", "pid": "1788cfe5-2019-04-18T18:14:02Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.57421875}, {"text": "=Monetary Benefits= My opponent tries to comb through my argument and pick through it but the bottom line is, though he disagrees with the extent of my claims made, that there still is a monetary benefit for college educated people. He claims there is ONLY a difference of over $275,000. That's still a lot; a salary boost of thousands a year. In the end, though we have varying studies (and there are literally dozens of college income and average income studies and numbers out there) the bottom line, concluded by both of us, is that there is a long term monetary benefit to attending college. Even the low number given by my opponent is pretty high, and if we average the two the benefit is even higher. Through it all my opponent failed to refute the claim that there is a monetary benefit to attending college which only helps to add weight to our case going forward when combined with other points.=Social Benefits= My opponent claims that 12 years of public schooling and some start up job positions can replace the benefits given by a college experience. However, this is simply not the case. He claims \"real world\" experiences are better than college experiences. However, while learning how to live on your own gradually and constructively in college you're also getting an education. Instead of flinging 18 year olds into a dingy apartment right away, college eases young adults into this transition making it easier on them. Also, my opponent claims \"job experience\" will give them more connections than college will. This is simply an unpractical claim to make. The jobs 18 year old high school graduates will be hourly wage jobs to start almost guaranteed. They'll have to work their way up to a management position in the 4-6 years they could be in college. College students however are usually hired for higher positions automatically and will forgo the wage jobs. Another thing, colleges have Career resource centers which specialize in helping college students get jobs. The UF center for example, gives out thousands of jobs a year to college students. [1] Also, they claim that many jobs are not advertised and are only reached through school and professional connections. Up to 80% of jobs never reach the \"job market\" via advertising. College students will have these connections via professors, internships and the resource center on campus. Non college students are barred from all this.=Opportunities=My opponent claims 54% of students have a chance of dropping out and 20% will drop out. Almost 100% of these drop outs occur within the first year of college meaning the damage financially and to their time will only be the extent of a year. They will owe 1/4th that of traditional 4 year students. The risk is not as high as my opponent claims. On year of tuition will be about $5k not the full extent of a student loan. Also, again, the experience and status of being college educated is always there. Even if you have to start out poorly, you will always have that status which will help you advance long term. People without college educations will always hit a barrier when on the rise. People without college educations will always be barred from positions requiring an education. This is huge. The opportunities presented by a college education are forever. Not having a degree will close these doors to you and they will never be opened. =Problems with Pro-College Studies=\"because it includes individuals who graduated college 20-30 years ago\" This helps to reiterate my point that college degree benefits are more long term than my opponent wants to acknowledge. Even 20-30 years later these college graduates will get jobs and according to multiple studies will be making some amount more than their non degree holding counterparts. My opponents claims about the recession are misleading. The recession caused EVERYONE'S unemployment numbers to rise. It did not affect any one group more or less than another. Of course, if unemployment is above 8% college graduates will be affected by this. =Causation Versus Correlation=My opponent makes a rather weak claim here about causation. He claims people who go to college would be successful anyways and therefore college studies are not as straight and true as they appear. However, it doesn't change the common denominator in all these studies which is a college education. People geared towards success do tend to go to college as my opponent points out. Why? Because college gives benefits. If college benefits did not outweigh the costs then these success driven people would not attempt to attend college. They attend college because of the tangible benefits to be gained.If these college eligible people would earn more regardless of college; why attend? Because college is obviously more beneficial than not. Or else they'd continue without it and earn more anyways. College enhances these skills and benefits. =Chance of Benefits=I said before, college benefits last a lifetime. The degree will always be with you, so chance of success is exponentially greater throughout their lifetime than a non degree holding person. Also, as I mentioned before, the drop outs occur almost exclusively in the first year of college so the damage done is only a year's worth. College loans for one year, not four etc.The chance of benefits and success are exponentially greater for a college degree holder than a non college degree hold over a lifetime due to the ability to be exposed to college educated positions etc.=Conclusion=* College monetary benefit is present and confirmed by my opponent* Opportunities for jobs are exponentially greater than non degree holding people* Most high level people (CEO's, politicians etc) all have college degrees* If college didn't offer benefit's so many success geared people would rely on themselves and forgo collegeThe benefits of college outweigh the costs.[1] http://www.crc.ufl.edu...", "title": "The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits", "pid": "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.49900817871094}, {"text": "There are many reasons why people choose to go to a University first, rather than a Community College. Rebuttal: \"By benefit, I mean that it would cost less money for students over the time it takes to get a 4 year degree.\" Yes, the financial cost is remarkably lower. But, a vast majority of Community Colleges only offer a 2 year degree program. That is only worth an Associates Degree. With this being said, if you wanted to work harder towards a Bachelor's degree, you'd have to move to a University, or find a four year Community College to transfer to. Even then, that is IF the class is transferable. It's not necessarily less money either. When transferring into a University, most colleges charge full price for every class you still needed to take. Therefore, you're getting a somewhat better deal, but not much. If you're going to live on campus, that's even more. It's better in cases of class size, but the education value is much better at a University. Resources: 1. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org... 2. http://www.collegeconfidential.com... 3. http://economics.ucdavis.edu...", "title": "Community college should be the first college people attend", "pid": "844ad89d-2019-04-18T12:18:26Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.49212646484375}, {"text": "Not every University is taking students with 3 D's and an E. Especially if a student wants to study a difficult subject. But many students, who have the ability to learn, willing to learn and gain everything, just can't afford it. Wouldn't the Government benefit from having more successful people, who pay taxes? I think that uni should be free, but the \"taking in\" rules should be harder.", "title": "If everyone has a degree, then what is it worth? The answer - nothing", "pid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00057-000", "bm25_score": 213.48733520507812}, {"text": "In this round, I will finish up final rebuttals, then list both the costs and benefits of a college education. Weighing and impacting each point will be done at the end of the round.Monetary BenefitsWhen talking about monetary benefits, note that the claim was always about lifetime earnings. Lifetime earnings and opportunity costs are different points, and higher lifetime earnings does not show that you will accumulate more wealth, simply that you will have a higher income. I agree with my opponent that the average college graduate will have a high lifetime earnings differential. However, there is no \"averaging\" to be done. The number stands at roughly $275,000, as other studies are too flawed to be considered.DebtMy opponent has mostly dropped this point, instead focusing on monetary benefits. Simply because one will have higher earnings (not wealth) over their lifetime does not mean that debt should be ignored.The average college graduate will be in debt until the age of 33. As was brought up in my first contention and not refuted: \"College graduates and postgraduates, instead of buying cars, buying houses, getting married, having children—in other words, becoming full-fledged consumers are, as Nance-Nash puts it, “running back home.” That hurts us all.\" Some small weighing to be done: A small chance of earning $275,000 versus being in debt for eleven years, with a 20% chance of defaulting and losing everything. It's fairly obvious that these costs outweigh the monetary benefits, especially when combined with opportunity cost.Investment Potential (opportunity cost)A brief reminder: If a college graduate misses out on an opportunity, this is considered opportunity cost. If I can show that college graduates miss out on an opportunity to make more money, then this must be considered for total wealth accumulation.My opponent only responded to my point on job experience, leaving the investment point un-touched for the entire debate. This alone justifies a pro ballot. Investing money, rather than going to college, will result in far more wealth (more than three times as much) by the age of 65, even if the college graduate invests too. This is using the average savings rate, investment returns, cost of tuition, etc. Simply put, this point outweighs any possible monetary benefits that my opponent can bring up, and the point was dropped. The opportunity cost of going to college is roughly 1.3 million dollars.Pro-College Studies PointIn the last round, my opponent claimed that this point reinforces his case. This is entirely false. The only way it would do this is if con could refute my points of how college graduates no longer receive the same benefits that they did years ago. I brought these points up in rounds 2 and 3, and will reiterate them here. In round 3, I showed that the recession did hit college graduates harder, as is shown by the fact that they now have the same unemployment rate as non-graduates, when 10 years ago they didn't. Again in round 3, I showed that job growth is occurring in areas where college degrees are not needed. However, more and more people are going to college. This greatly decreases the value of a college education. This causes underemployment, meaning more and more college graduates are not gaining the wage benefits that my opponent has brought up. \"More than half of America's recent college graduates are either unemployed or working in a job that doesn't require a bachelor's degree.\" Default rates have increased. Drop out rates have increased. An average college graduate is going into an environment that is completely different than it was 20 years ago. Thus, this entire point still stands: only recent college graduates can be considered, unless con can show that these graduates will eventually reach the earnings/employment potential of past graduates (note that burden of proof is shared in this debate). Drop-outs and Defaults.My opponent misunderstands my drop-out point. The focus was not on the cost of dropping out. The focus was on the fact that less than half of those who go to college even gain any benefits.Defaulting, however, should be considered as a cost. This point has not been adequately touched upon by my opponent. We've already established that the monetary benefits will be roughly $275,000 (other than opportunity cost). If you default on your student loans, you lose all of that. It cannot be forgiven by bankruptcy: your wages will be garnished, your tax refunds offset, you will be ineligible for future federal employment, etc. This is an extremely large point greatly undermines the value of a college education. One-fifth of all borrowers will default and lose all their monetary benefits. My opponent focuses a lot on the benefits of a college education. However, one must ask themselves: how likely am I to actually achieve this benefits? The answer is not likely at all, roughly 40%. Once again, this point alone can justify a pro ballot. If 60% of students will not even attain these elusive benefits, then they shouldn't even be considered in this debate.Social BenefitsAs I've stated before, this point has a very small impact.My opponent again mentions that you are \"learning to live on your own gradually and constructively.\" I brought up in round 3 that you must also learn to live on your own if you don't go to college. My opponent responded to this by saying that \"you're also getting an education,\" but this point is meaningless as we're debating about whether or not the education is worth it in the first place. What's the difference between learning to live in college, and learning to live in the real world? You have to constantly worry about debt, you have to work jobs to in order to finance your education on top of class work, you have to go 11 years knowing you're at a disadvantage for buying a home or getting married, you know you have a massive default/drop out rate, etc. The social benefits of going to college are easily countered with the social costs. I concede that you do not lose job connections by attending college. However, it is fairly clear that you don't gain many either. Why? Because the unemployment rate for college graduates and non-graduates are the same, and because the majority of job growth is occurring in areas where you don't even need a college education. Also note that my opponent statistic on 80% of jobs aren't advertised does not show that non-college graduates only gain access to 20% of jobs. Con's own source mentions you gain access to these 80% of jobs through your \"network,\" which includes, friends, family, peers, social organizations, service providers, recent graduates, etc. This does not require a college education. Causation versus CorrelationThis point wasn't intended to completely negate con's benefits. Rather, it was to show that those who qualify to go to college will automatically have higher earnings/unemployment potential than normal high-school graduates, due to their own personal traits. My opponent's claim that college offers benefits because success-driven people decide to go simply cannot stand in this round until con can show that they achieve such benefits. I've already shown that there are little benefits to a college education, and large costs.What is not a benefit?Lower unemployment.Greater overall wealth.Social benefits.Job opportunities. BenefitsRoughly a 40% chance for a $275,000 lifetime earnings differential.Costs1.3 million dollars of opportunity cost, which my opponent has not refuted at all.A 20% chance of defaulting and losing everything if you borrow money.Being in debt for 11 years and unable to become a full consumer.ConclusionYou will have roughly 1 million dollars less wealth than if you were to spend money elsewhere.You will gain no noticeable benefits over a non-graduate.You are extremely unlikely to achieve any benefits. College is 11-15 lost years of your life with nothing to show for it.", "title": "The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits", "pid": "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.48403930664062}, {"text": "A high school education is not cutting it in the real world for many people. More of the jobs that pay a salary that allow individuals to live at the Standard of Living (http://en.wikipedia.org...) require a college education. No person should be burdened with the responsibilty of paying for their own higher education. That is a duty that should fall to a person's parent(s).", "title": "Parents should be required to pay for their offsprings's college education.", "pid": "4ef7a9a4-2019-04-18T19:59:29Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.47731018066406}, {"text": "As I have Proved COLLEGE should not required my opponents forfeit and nontopicality ought to be impetus enough for the observers to vote for me. Thank You.", "title": "College Education should be Necessary for All U.S. Citizens", "pid": "3c15c9f1-2019-04-18T19:14:38Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.4759979248047}, {"text": "Much of the current dogma in U. S. society in particular is that everyone should go to college. I think that we are all lifelong students, but I don't believe that college is the one path forward that should always be touted. Why not? Well, first, not everyone is benefited by broadening their horizons. There's no reason to believe that every individual is going to want to be a scientist, a teacher, or a lawyer. Second, not everyone is cut out for college, intellectually or emotionally. Anxiety among students is a huge problem. Not all these students are going to have the grades out of high school to get necessary scholarships for them to go through their college programs without heaps of debt. What are the alternatives? For one, there's vocational schools. These are essentially trade schools, meant to teach students job-specific skills. This will often be highly beneficial, as they're usually shorter in duration, produce skilled labor with hands-on experience, and are normally supported by private companies, providing a route into a job shortly after graduation. There are also apprenticeship programs, which involve working directly for an employer and studying the masters at work. This is an even more directly applicable way to learn and transition. Much as college provides a great education, it is often distant from real world problems and concerns about getting a job, which are often left solely to the students. Businesses are wary of college graduates, even those with great GPAs, because there is always a gulf between their knowledge and the knowledge and experience the company requires. Both vocational schools and apprenticeships don't suffer from that. I'll get into some rebuttal in the next round. . http://www.politico.com... . http://www.dailyfinance.com...", "title": "We regret the emphasis on college education", "pid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.4567108154297}, {"text": "\"For some of our students, this may be the best opportunity they have to get a college education,\" according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and former Secretary of Education Rod Paige in an October 2002 letter to school superintendents.[1]", "title": "Military can be best opportunity to get college education.", "pid": "4ffa1617-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00045-000", "bm25_score": 213.45413208007812}, {"text": "the government makes alot of money. just look at all the millions of people that take public transportation and that pay for tolls, thats millions of dollars everyday. plus theres alot of money that they spend that are on things less important than education. they need to get their priorities straight and spend money on things that are going to make the economy improve. by paying for college and us getting better jobs, the economy will improve.", "title": "college should be entierly government funded", "pid": "690558ad-2019-04-18T18:09:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.4171142578125}, {"text": "The cost of college is becoming an issue all across America. With the current state of the economy, the percent of unemployed workers and the cost of college can seem like a far fetched goal. Many people who may not receive a scholarship or enough government funding may not be able to attend college. This is a big issue because having a college background is becoming an important factor in the business world today but, the cost makes many look for other options. The idea of having to pay back thousands of dollars makes people question is it actually worth it? From my stand point it is. You may not leave college doing the same thing you began with but the life experiences are endless. College gives you not only knowledge but builds you into a better person by taking you through life experiences. With the cost of college increasing it may hurt generations to come because they will not be able to experience, learn and grow into a better individual. Without future doctors, lawyers,athletes etc where will the world be in the future. Who will run the country, perform surgeries and close business deals? All of these questions will be as questions unanswered if people are not able to afford college. There should be more options better payback systems to make the cost of college more affordable.", "title": "college tuition too expensive", "pid": "912e5771-2019-04-18T18:50:38Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.41656494140625}, {"text": "What if the parents don't care you go to college or not? It's good for you, not necessarily good for them. They can refuse to pay due to they don't want their products in a better market.Period.", "title": "Parents should be required to pay for their offsprings's college education.", "pid": "4ef7a9a4-2019-04-18T19:59:29Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.38897705078125}, {"text": "Before I begin addressing the contentions, I’d like to point out some issues associated with the way my opponent has set up this debate. First of all, because my opponent has not set any specifications for the term “college”, I’m going to assume that he’s referring to post secondary education in the United States. Additionally, we must also place a distinction between the inherent and extrinsic costs of college. For example, we can still have colleges without student loans; it is simply the government’s choice whether or not to distribute them. Ergo, student loans are not an inherent cost of a college education; they are simply extrinsic costs that should not be associated with the “cost” of maintaining a college, making my opponent’s second contention a moot point. We must also draw a distinction between private and public colleges, as they are funded differently and receive different kinds of subsidies, which I will address in the contentions. ===THE CASE=== Do individuals benefit from investing in a college education? My opponent’s case hinges on the belief that college education does not necessarily lead to a career or a decent salary. To prove his point, he posts a bunch of unsourced statistics: “College graduates under 25 that have a humanities major, 25.2% of them are not working, 29.4% have job that doesn’t even require a college education. Only 45.5% of them are working in jobs that require a college education”. The first problem with this argument is that the statistics he uses to back it up are biased and inconclusive. Obviously some majors are more likely to yield careers than other majors. To put this skewed statistic in perspective, only 4.2% of university graduates are unemployed six months after graduating if we account all majors [1]. Additionally, whether the job they land requires a college education is irrelevant, because a college degree is still an important credential which helps secure employment (even if I were looking for a cashier, I’d rather higher a cashier with a diploma than one without). The second problem with this argument is that it needs some relative statistics to put the information presented in perspective. This relativity is essential because without it, we don’t know whether the high unemployment rates are the result of an inefficient college education or just a frail economy, and when we look at the employment rates for America as a whole, what we find is that high school graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed when compared to college graduates. We can safely conclude that despite side proposition’s misleading statistics, college graduates do have a significantly higher employment rate because of their investment in a post secondary education. This idea of relativity brings me to my constructive argument. The fact is that when we tally up unemployment rates, the degree you major in, the number of years it takes to major and everything, what we find is that the individual with a bachelor’s degree earns, on average, almost 1 million dollars more than the individual with only a high school diploma [2]. I’d gladly invest $20,000 – $30,000 for a million dollar return. Monetarily speaking, from the individual standpoint, college is an efficient investment and much more beneficial than costly. Additionally, one must not forget the experience of college, which, to many students, is priceless. Skipping college would mean missing out on college means missing valuable education, networking, and social opportunities (such as college parties). So unlike what my opponent suggests, the average college graduate will most likely not “always be in debt”. What’s more likely is that you’ll go to college, have a great time, and land a career that’ll net you almost a million dollars more than your high school graduate neighbors. Because of the reasons that I have stated, college is clearly beneficial from an individual standpoint. Does the government/society benefit from investing in a college education? My opponent’s argument here is essentially just pointing out how the government has to subsidize colleges, and that the subsidies can go into other much needed investments. This argument falls because my opponent does not state how much money goes into the college subsidies (like saying there is a cost, without saying how much the cost is), and because college subsidies need to be broken down to the cost of college per se and extraneous costs. This needs to be broken down further into subsidies for private and public colleges. When subsidizing public colleges, the government needs to fund the entire cost of building and maintaining the college. I accept that this is a cost of a college education, but I’d just like to point out that the tuition costs of public colleges goes back to government coffers. When subsidizing private colleges, the government basically does three things. The first thing that the government does to subsidize private colleges is offer students financial aid. I have already explained why student loans should be dismissed, as they are not a direct cost of college. Even if my opponent can somehow prove that they are, the point about the inefficiency of providing student loans falls because government loans/subsidies per student have been falling due to increasing attendance rates, and tuition has still never been higher. The government also gives grants for research teams. However, these grants cannot fully be considered subsidies because we are essentially buying information, which is something we benefit from. Lastly, the government gives tax breaks to private colleges. If we disregard financial aid, private colleges are basically a self sustaining, mutually beneficial industry, that does not have a cost. Finally, I’d like to point out that post secondary education is often cited as the most powerful contributor to social mobility, something that society and individuals benefit from. ===CONCLUSION=== I was a little confused when constructing my arguments because of some of my opponent’s arguments. His last to arguments really seem to be about abolishing college subsidies and redirecting it to investments in things such as infrastructure, which I actually agree with. However, as I have explained, these are not inherent costs of a college education; they are simply inefficient ways that the government handles its money. My opponent seems to agree with me that the benefits of college per se outweighs it’s cost, and that it’s just the inefficient way the government approaches it that is the problem. Therefore, the resolution is negated because the benefits of a college education outweigh its cost; the only problem is the misappropriation of government funds. I thank the readers and hand the debate back to my opponent. ===SOURCES=== [1] . http://www.economist.com...[2] . http://www.lorainccc.edu...", "title": "The cost of a college education outweighs the benefits", "pid": "1788cfe5-2019-04-18T18:14:02Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 213.38693237304688}, {"text": "My refutations:Monetary BenefitsMy opponent comes up with a number similar to that cited by collegeboard, of roughly 1 million more dollars being earned by those holding bachelors degrees, as opposed to those holding high school diplomas. However, my opponent's calculations fail to take a variety of other factors into account. The letter from Charles Miller, cited in my \"Benefits\" section, shows one of the issues: \"The report assumes a student will finish college in four years. Actually, the typical time to graduation is closer to six years in higher education today. The addition of two extra years of college costs and two less years of earnings makes a significant difference. \" My opponent also fails to take into account the fact that tuition is financed by student loans, which are difficult to pay off. As I already mentioned, the average college graduate will be unable to pay off their debt until age 33. Given my opponent's estimates, this age should be 23.5 years, or after 1 and a half years of earnings. My opponent's number for the yearly cost of college also should not be considered, as he only included the price of public institutions. According to the fact sheet that he cites, the yearly cost of all four year institutions is $20,986. The income data which is cited by my opponent is also from the 2000 census, which is far too outdated. To repeat the quote used in my \"benefits\" section: \"Properly using the present value of the lifetime earnings, adjusted for the cost of going to college and the difference in the number of working years. .. calculated and the three percent discount rate used in the report produces a lifetime earnings differential of only $279,893 for a bachelors degree versus a high school degree. \"At the end of this round, I will be showing another major issue with my opponent's case in general which works to farther refute this monetary point. Social BenefitsThe majority of societal benefits cited by my opponent are not gained solely through a college education. An individual must learn to live on their own even if they don't go to college. Other benefits which my opponent brings up, mostly social skills, aren't as beneficial as one might think. Students already go through 12 years of school to gain social skills. The additional four years, while it may be beneficial, are by no means required. Rather, students should be putting their social skills to the test in the real world. Simply put, real world experiences outweigh college experiences. My opponent also briefly mentions \"job connections. \" In this case, the 4-6 years of employment and job experience gives far better job connections than the college experience. The overall impact of this point is very small, and can be easily countered by weighing it against the arguments I brought up. Opportunities My opponent is attempting to decrease the impact of my risk point. \"Fear of failing\" is not an adequate phrase. The fear is of 54% chance to drop out, and to not gain any of the benefits from a college degree. The high default risk, almost 20%, is far too large of a risk for the average student to take. I'd also like to state that student loan debt cannot be forgiven through bankruptcy. Defaulting on such debt is virtually a guarantee to have your wages garnished, to suffer an incredibly large drop in your credit, to have tax returns offset, and to be ineligible for future federal employment. My opponent also asks if \"the value of a college education is dropping - then how worthless is not even having one to begin with then? \" The reason why the value of a college education is dropping, largely in respect to employment opportunities, is because more and more individuals are graduating college, while job growth simply cannot keep up. This does not decrease the value of not going to college. My opponent then brings up job sector growth. There is a large issue with the statistic my opponent brings up: It is focused on percentage increases. Meaning an industry which goes from 100,000 to 200,000 jobs would be said to have higher growth than an industry which goes from 5 million to 9 million. The study which I cited in round one focuses on the actual number of jobs created. Among the top 10 growing jobs, only one requires a bachelors degree, and among the top 20, only 4 do. Problem With Pro-College StudiesThis section is aimed at employment and income prospects. Any study which brings up the benefits of a college education must show that these benefits can be obtained by recent graduates. For this reason, the quote \"individuals with only a high school diploma were twice as likely to be unemployed as those holding bachelor’s degrees\" cannot be considered because it includes individuals who graduated college 20-30 years ago, when the benefits of a college education were much larger. College graduates were hit especially hard by the recession: the previous unemployment rate of 5.8% has nearly doubled to 9.2%. \"That means recent grads have about the same level of unemployment as the general population. \"The same goes for future earnings. Studies cannot include individuals who have already held a college degree for 20+ years, and already achieved a large income. This is due to the fact that the rising costs prevent current graduates from reaching such future earnings. Effectively, recent graduates are no longer able to obtain the employment and income benefits that past graduates have. Therefore, studies which show the benefits achieved by past graduates do not show that recent college graduates will obtain such benefits. Causation Versus CorrelationWhile this may be a generic argument, it is important to consider in this round. What's important to note is that college's tend to enroll students who are already geared toward success. Students who graduate with high gpas will, more often than not, continue in to college. However, as high school gpa is also correlated to future earnings, this skews statistics which report on the earnings of college graduates. This rebuttal can be summed up as follows: Any student which meets the requirements to go to college will, on average, earn more than the average high-school diploma holder, regardless of whether or not they attend college. This does not completely negate con's future earnings statistics. It is true that college graduates will have higher incomes. However, one must always keep in mind that, due to what I described above, the numbers will always be a couple thousand dollars lower than what is cited. The Overall Chance of Any BenefitsThis relates to my rebuttal against \"opportunities,\" yet is large enough to deserve its own section. The overall chance of achieving these benefits is very low. The 54% drop out rate means that one is more likely to not receive any of these benefits, and instead be faced with massive student loan debt. The 20% default rate means that even if one does manage to beat the odds and graduate they will not receive any of the benefits. Instead, they will receive massive wage garnishments and federal benefits being offset. Even if one can somehow manage to graduate and not default on their student loan debt, they will more likely than not be put into a job that doesn't even require a college degree. Thus, even if my opponent manages to prove that the monetary benefits of college outweigh the monetary costs, voters must keep in mind that its extremely unlikely any college graduate will actually achieve these benefits. ConclusionCollege graduates only earn $279,000 more over the course of their lifetime, not $890,000. A college graduate is unlikely to actually obtain such lifetime earnings. There are very few social benefits of going to college. The large risks taken to obtain a college degree vastly outweigh the potential benefits. College graduates do not have a lower unemployment rate. Job potential for high school graduates is increasing.", "title": "The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits", "pid": "33b011a1-2019-04-18T18:11:15Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.38235473632812}, {"text": "On average, a college graduate with a bachelor\"s degree earned $30,000 more per year than a high school graduate, or about $500,000 more over a lifetime, as of Apr. 2013. [8] Earning an associate's degree (a 2-year degree) was worth about $170,000 more than a high school diploma over a lifetime in 2011. [9] The median income for families headed by a bachelor's degree holder was $100,096 in 2011\"more than double than that for a family headed by a high school graduate. [10] The median increase in earnings for completing the freshman year of college was 11% and the senior year was 16% in 2007. [11] 85% of Forbes' 2012 America's 400 Richest People list were college grads. College-education.procon.org", "title": "Should colleges be free", "pid": "bbae4f3b-2019-04-18T12:51:48Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.37718200683594}, {"text": "OK I think I've lost. This is my last gasp. Rebuttal) 1. Pro is saying that college shouldn't be a prerequisite. But actually, my point is that the status quo is that college has become a prerequisite. I'm not saying that it should. Because it has become a prerequisite, the students should flexibly focus more on college education, like it or not. 2. About civic awareness- I think I need to explain what I meant by that. When people are educated, they come to reevaluate the injustices and etc. that are revolving around them. When citizens are better educated, they are less gullible, and less injustice would occur. 3. About higher efficiency- Actually, college does sometimes provide these on-the-job experiences when it is thought to be needed. A common example(at least in South Korea-I don't know about other places) is student teachers and trainee teachers. 4. About better technology- I believe that the more deeper and specific education the students get in college(you granted that) will be more help in making better technology and the wider view they get with wider education will make more creative and innovative ideas. And that's about it. My thanks to whiteflame.", "title": "We regret the emphasis on college education", "pid": "7d582ac3-2019-04-18T16:28:22Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.37249755859375}, {"text": "Well from the lack of response I'll take it that this debate is over. It was truly a good time. I shall leave you with just a few parting words. High school is a better time for all. College is a level of education that is not for many, as well as a hole in your wallet. High school was a safer time where you took what was given to and you complained. .. High school allows time for people to grow and mature and unfortunately many in college have yet to mature. As I complete my freshman year of college I can say I enjoyed myself, but I can't help but picture where I would be if I were still in high school. Thank you for your time of this debate.", "title": "College is better than high school.", "pid": "e1286851-2019-04-18T18:19:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.37110900878906}, {"text": "The average cost for a 4 year school is over $30,000 per year. If higher education was paid for by the government, more students will be able to attend school, making our country stonger and more educated. Since a college diploma is important in this day and age, the government should cover the costs. With unemployment as high as it is now, diplomas will help give jobs to Americans, which is very important in this day and age.", "title": "College should be entirely govt funded", "pid": "4e09753c-2019-04-18T18:09:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.3708038330078}, {"text": "Hope all is well. Shall we continue?", "title": "College is better than high school.", "pid": "e1286851-2019-04-18T18:19:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.36509704589844}, {"text": "Higher education is required for all but the most basic of jobs (Contention 4)You're probably wondering why I'm trying to make this point. Obviously college benefits the individual even more if it's required to get a halfway-decent job, right? That's exactly the point. But what happens to the rest of the population without a degree? They're left behind to \"feed off the table scraps\".In the book Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life, Anthony T. Kronman, a professor of law at Yale Law School, said: \"All but the most unskilled forms of labor are increasingly based on knowledge of a kind that can be acquired only in school, and in supplying that knowledge America's colleges and universities provide a tremendous service to the individuals who come to them to learn a trade of profession\"[1]. There is no denying the benefit to the individual when he or she receives a college education, but those who do not are limited to all but the most basic of jobs. In defense of my contentionsContention 1) College does not benefit the majorityMy opponent states that the people who do not attend college should not factor into this debate because the resolution doesn't apply to them. This was true, until I brought up my fourth contention. Now, those who do not go to college must be included in this debate as a group of individuals who are suffering the consequences of not going to college. If we are forced to include the individuals who do not attend college, we are now left with a resulting 62.6% of high school graduates who have not benefited - but have actually been impacted negatively - by a college education.Contention 2) College contributes to the already growing income gapGiven my response to my opponent's objection to my first Contention, my opponent's response to my second is also void. Yes, college graduates make more money, and their income has been proven to increase over time compared to the income of blue-collar workers. This is exactly what my point was trying to get across. If the wages of higher educated jobs are increasing faster than the wages of lower education jobs, then that is an income gap that is increasing.Contention 3) College contributes to the destruction of the U.S health care systemMy opponent seemed to misunderstand this contention. Yes, it's true that med-school students have to pay more than regular college students, and yes, they are part of the minority. But I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing that health care prices in the United States are so high BECAUSE med school students have to pay so much towards their educations. It takes an average of 11 years to fully pay off the debt that one acquires through med school, and it is for this reason that the costs of health care in the United States is so high. And seeing as the cost of health care affects everyone, this is an obvious detriment for the majority of the U.S populace.Responding to my opponent's contention:College students make more moneyI agree. The arguments in my fourth contention apply here as well. What about the students that do not attend college? What about the students that can not attend college? It's simple, they are forced to make less than their higher-educated counterparts. So again, I acknowledge the benefits to the individual, but that is insignificant compared to the detriments to the majority.I urge an affirmative vote.Citations:1. http://books.google.com...", "title": "In the United States, the costs of a college education outweigh the benefits", "pid": "e78f47fa-2019-04-18T18:20:34Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.36065673828125}, {"text": "Your right, not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to afford a four year institution but that does not mean they must \"do what they gotta do\" and settle with an inferior junior college education. Everyone should be given an equal opportunity to receive an adequate education. However, this is not at all what happens with the financial aid process at most schools. Those students who come from wealthy backgrounds and can afford expensive tuition don't have to worry about graduating in debt, like the two-thirds of the rest of the college population. The \"financially needy\" students, who come from homes that don't have a stable financial situation, also don't graduate with as much debt because the financial aid they receive is very significant. Tuition, room and board, and sometimes even books is often times covered for these students. Therefore, it is the middle class students who represent the two-thirds of students who graduate with at least 24,000 dollars in debt. It is not fair to these students to have to settle with junior colleges because they also have to work and go to school to pay for there schooling at their junior college.", "title": "college tuition too expensive", "pid": "912e5771-2019-04-18T18:50:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.3604736328125}, {"text": "Use this round as more of a summary* I would like to offer the following reasons about why I believe that I have won this debate. 1. My opponent didn't attack a single one of my contentions. They also ignored my value of equality. And since silence is compliance my opponent must agree with me. 2. Think about an America, in let's say 10 years. With free college, more people will be able to move on and get higher degrees, and make more money, therefore being able to fund future generations. We CANNOT DENY the right to education to these students. 3. It is immoral NOT to have free college. We need to offer everyone this. Students who thought it was over after high school would have the chance to a higher education. 4. I believe my opponent is using a logical fallacy. The are using the fallacy of appeal to tradition. They have said that is immoral for people who had to pay for college, to have to pay for others. Things change. Think about the possibility's available to students who wouldn't have gone to college. Voters- Thank you for reading this debate and I request your vote today. Opponent- Thank you for debating me. Good Debate.", "title": "Free College Tuition", "pid": "10a0d139-2019-04-18T13:26:28Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.33837890625}, {"text": "why should students freah out of school pay to go to college, when the goverment know that they haven't been working and cannot afford it, yes we know that people say well your perents can afford it but what if your perents can't?. does this mean becuase you or your perents can't afford it that means you cannot have a well paying job all beacse of your finacial income?. it just means that the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer", "title": "paying to go to college freash out of school", "pid": "905b7061-2019-04-18T19:10:00Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.33480834960938}, {"text": "This should be an interesting one. Challenge accepted. I agree that college prices are becoming increasingly impractical but i believe that there are plenty of viable methods of attending college. Although it would be nice if it were free that is even more impractical than giving away cars because some people need them. good luck.", "title": "College should be free", "pid": "15e2908c-2019-04-18T16:41:44Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.3142547607422}, {"text": "Having a part-time job can make students more positive about education. Experience of work makes them think about future careers. This may motivate them to go to college, and they see the point in working hard to get good grades so that they can get a better job. And serving customers, working hard in a job, and having to manage their time well can all help students develop a more professional approach to their studies. Finally, most university students have to work to pay their way through college, so having part-time job in school will help to prepare them for this.", "title": "Some students may be able to balance school work and jobs without harming their education, but they ...", "pid": "7b7fb0f6-2019-04-19T12:46:44Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 213.31277465820312}, {"text": "My case A college degree is only so valuable as the market decides it to be, and that is determined by the scarcity of the degree in the market. In applying for a job, the employer sees my resume, and sees that I went to college. This is valuable because it shows that I have taken the initiative to further my knowledge past the standard of education, which is currently high school, to go to college. However, what my opponent is advocating for is changing the standard of education to college education, instead of high school. When a college education is free to the student, future employers will expect their applicants to have a college education, rather than just a high school education, because really, what is the student’s excuse at this point? This has a few impacts. One impact is that it drastically increases the amount of people going to college, thus increasing the costs for all taxpayers as tuition and student numbers go up, another is that it devalues the degree, thus making graduate school necessary for future high-earning employability, and finally, that it is making people who really shouldn't have to pay for someone's college education pay for it. College admittance overload When college is \"free\" to attend for the student, this means quite clearly that we are going to get a huge increase in the amount of people attending college. We’re going to get teens, college dropouts, people who never attended, etc. all flooding the system, because now it is no longer a monetary investment for them to have the education that is publicly perceived as essential to being successful in life. One might say, “Who cares? Now we have a more educated society.” Well, the taxpayer, and hopefully the students, cares. It is predicted that, by 2018, 60% of job openings will require a college education (1). And that’s just based on the status quo of how accessible a college education is. If one were to take into account the massive inflow of students that would come from taxpayer provided college education, we could expect that number to go significantly higher as college becomes the new standard of education, thus making a college degree approach pointlessness. Skyrocketing prices, decreased quality, or both? Now, my opponent would like you, the judge, to believe that government could somehow magically control cost without decreasing the quality of the education. But as I have shown above, the colleges are going to have significantly more students than they are going to be accustomed to, and the only way they would be able to adequately provide for them is if they were to increase costs. That being said, my opponent wants to plan controls into college spending levels. But if the college can’t raise prices to be paid by the taxpayers, then the college won’t be able to provide a high quality education to all of its students. But if my opponent revokes the cost control portion of his plan, then we are going to have skyrocketing prices to be paid by taxpayers that will be there for a skyrocketing amount of students. Essentially, with taxpayer-funded college, you’re going to have an ever-increasing tax burden to be paid for by everyone as more people go to college. If price controls don’t exist, then that price is going to be increased many-fold and will be increasing at a rate faster than ever before. If price controls do exist, then the taxpayers will be paying for an education that will be sub-par. What my opponent is proposing is a lose-lose system. Why should a person be forced to pay for someone else’s kid to go to college? At the core of my opponent’s plan, taxpayers would pay for college. However, it would seem ridiculous to force a parent to pay for another parent’s child to go to college, or to force someone who doesn’t even have kids to pay for that cost. This is also fundamentally unfair to parents who have already paid for their kid's college, and who now need to pay again, for, as I've shown, little to no clear benefit. So why should a person be forced to pay for someone else’s kid? This is not a rhetorical question; I expect an answer from my opponent. If he can’t adequately answer it, then he loses the debate. If he can, then he still needs to refute all of my other points, or I win. And now to take these points together What my opponent is proposing is a system where the taxpayer provides for college education to increase accessibility. However, what we see is that this would increase accessibility to the point where the college degree would be hugely devalued in the job market, thus making it so students would need to go to graduate school to get the high earning job formerly promised by a college degree (which repeats the problem of accessibility and price that my opponent is trying to solve for in the first place), which would make it take even longer for people to become productive members of our economy and would come at a huge cost to the taxpayer, which is everyone. Controls on how much colleges spend would inevitably decrease the quality of the post-secondary education (while still increasing price to taxpayers as people flood the system) and to not control the spending would mean an even higher rate of tax increases to the people of our country. And this would all be paid for by people who really shouldn’t have to be paying for it. So now to refute my opponent’s points. High costs can be negated by heightening corporate taxes These heightened corporate taxes would just be indirectly taxing the people. This is because, when a corporation expects to earn X dollars per year, and their taxes are increased, they just raise the prices of their goods and services so they still earn X dollars per year. The same people who are paying taxes are paying these costs, so heightening corporate taxes creates zero solvency. “As the wages of those who take advantage of this goes up, society as a whole also will make more money- Leading to everyone eventually benefiting.” This is making a pretty big assumption that wages would go up. Everybody has more of their income taken away trying to pay for college through taxes, and additionally, the college degree would be devalued, as I have shown above. The value of a college degree is relative to how scarce it is in the market, and when most people have college degrees, that value goes away. “Over about a ten year period, the cost to invest will go down and the country will still continue to show improvements in wages and lower poverty rates.” This is a huge claim, and my opponent has not provided any evidence to support this, logical or empirical. Until he has provided evidence, I ask that the judges not take this bare assertion into account. But even so, we have no reason to buy that point based on the fact that the college education would be devalued in the market. Conclusion So to conclude this round, the judges have no reason to vote for Pro. The positive impacts of his case are based on the assumption that a college education would increase the value of the students in the job market, which is simply false given the fact that the value of the degree would go away. So this means that he would be pointlessly and drastically increasing taxes for no clear or evidence supported benefit. In my case, I have shown that publicly provided college/post-secondary education would exacerbate the problems we have with education drastically, by increasing costs, decreasing quality, decreasing the education’s value, and forcing the payment on people who shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s kid. Thank you for reading, I urge a vote for my side. Sources: 1. http://www.reviewjournal.com...", "title": "Publicly tax paid post-secondary/college education in the U.S.", "pid": "b9fe573f-2019-04-18T16:11:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.3074188232422}, {"text": "If you are to do good in your LSAT or graduate in law in their bachelors degree then you can open so many doors for you. You can work in a hospital, schools, correction facility or any other public place, you can even open your own law firm. And even if that does not work out you can be a college professor, teaching college students on laws. You would at least make $50 an hour .If we are talking people who get job right after their high school graduation vs students who gets their job after college educations then we have to look at the Job quality, pay rate, hours and what kid of job it is. For a high school student it is very unlikely to get a job that pays them at the most $15 an hour, even if the manage to get a job that pays that well, it has to be a really odd job ( speaking from experience). Now for college students there are loans you can take, financial aid and not to mentions the scholarships. Any of the above can pay for your tuition. The connections that you make in college and the connection you make in high school is different between an acorn to an oak tree", "title": "College education is not necessary to become successful", "pid": "9221b9ae-2019-04-18T16:38:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.30690002441406}, {"text": "I think there should be free college In our country right now the US is in debt, and free college can fix this. For the first 2 or 3 years the cost of the college will come out of the rich's taxes. More people would be educated which then would create more jobs, more jobs equals more employment. If there are more people with more money then our debt goes away.", "title": "Should there be free college", "pid": "46b49c01-2019-04-18T12:30:42Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.30133056640625}, {"text": "college should be government funded because our parents pay taxes and college is an extention of highschool, so since our high school education is funded by the government it should continue into college. not only do our parents pay taxes but once we finish college and get a job then we have to pay taxes. the higher the job pays the more taxes we have to pay and by going to college we're more likely to have a higher paying job", "title": "college should be entierly government funded", "pid": "690558ad-2019-04-18T18:09:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.29867553710938}, {"text": "It is very important that the governmeant founded programs for education actually spend their money on the students whom need it properly. I believe a family who earns 5 million dollars and the student opts out to not use family money and get financial aide is taking away from the students whos family makes 15,000 and has many expenses. In addition, if a student does to John jay he or she can get a scholoship therefore he is founded. If he/she maintaines high gpa and work expeirence he she c", "title": "College should be entirely government funded.", "pid": "dfe65563-2019-04-18T18:09:32Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.29078674316406}, {"text": "why America have college when you going to just learn the same thing u learn in high just a little bit advance? Ant college should be about want your career is for ! so u can start your career then when u come out of college you don't have to go to another place of career to to push forward to your career and spend allot of money again that u used to spend for college? In my perspective college is just a waste of human time and energy and money .", "title": "why colleges", "pid": "b4208ffd-2019-04-18T17:49:49Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.27020263671875}]}
{"idx": 6, "qid": "7", "q_text": "Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?", "qrels": {"7ba43144-2019-04-18T13:55:58Z-00000-000": 0, "8fa3a98b-2019-04-18T19:35:48Z-00002-000": 0, "8fa3a9aa-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00004-000": 2, "8fdf3c42-2019-04-18T19:34:44Z-00005-000": 2, "9762761d-2019-04-18T19:34:37Z-00004-000": 2, "9762761d-2019-04-18T19:34:37Z-00005-000": 2, "9acf5a44-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00078-000": 2, "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00003-000": 2, "84a5dd0a-2019-04-18T16:53:08Z-00003-000": 0, "18a26ffe-2019-04-18T14:23:17Z-00005-000": 0, "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00035-000": 0, "6c9be2c1-2019-04-18T18:55:22Z-00005-000": 0, "68fed5c1-2019-04-18T19:35:23Z-00000-000": 0, "5af37a7e-2019-04-18T14:15:24Z-00000-000": 0, "5a1c1189-2019-04-18T17:22:11Z-00004-000": 1, "5a1c1189-2019-04-18T17:22:11Z-00000-000": 0, "52794046-2019-04-19T12:44:20Z-00008-000": 0, "49ab5919-2019-04-19T12:47:24Z-00028-000": 2, "49ab5919-2019-04-19T12:47:24Z-00014-000": 2, "146c9c8-2019-04-18T15:39:55Z-00002-000": 2, "4972f443-2019-04-18T19:20:37Z-00004-000": 0, "405a3347-2019-04-18T18:49:43Z-00003-000": 0, "3771ef2c-2019-04-18T19:30:15Z-00000-000": 0, "36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00003-000": 1, "7df2804b-2019-04-18T11:16:10Z-00003-000": 1, "36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00005-000": 1, "362f40bc-2019-04-18T13:09:40Z-00003-000": 1, "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00007-000": 2, "1dbec9e-2019-04-18T16:11:36Z-00001-000": 0, "41bfce6c-2019-04-18T16:47:33Z-00004-000": 0, "7ba43144-2019-04-18T13:55:58Z-00006-000": 0, "81812b0e-2019-04-18T18:38:38Z-00003-000": 0, "c5bd6ddf-2019-04-18T18:02:46Z-00002-000": 0, "bb346469-2019-04-18T16:53:36Z-00003-000": 0, "c5bd6ddf-2019-04-18T18:02:46Z-00000-000": 0, "d0870de5-2019-04-18T13:41:35Z-00007-000": 1, "d0870de5-2019-04-18T13:41:35Z-00006-000": 0, "d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00006-000": 2, "d8496939-2019-04-18T16:39:08Z-00003-000": 1, "dd419be5-2019-04-18T18:32:55Z-00006-000": 0, "e3bc33dc-2019-04-18T19:32:29Z-00002-000": 0, "e5aaa355-2019-04-18T19:35:37Z-00008-000": 2, "de499a0-2019-04-18T15:30:59Z-00004-000": 2, "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00000-000": 0, "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00004-000": 0, "ef4e2b3d-2019-04-18T12:17:40Z-00006-000": 1, "f52c4b2e-2019-04-18T11:46:20Z-00005-000": 0, "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00005-000": 2, "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00003-000": 2}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "I believe people shouldn't be jailed forever, so have a different consequence like remove voting privileges. I find it on a moral point of view to remove their privilege. Not major privileges that should be accessible to anyone, but only to those who deserve it. Also another point of view is that: I don't want felons voting. Generally felons don't have such good points of view morality and rational wise. Maybe they are power hungry or have no morals. I don't want those people voting. This really can't be confirmed until they do something as bad as a felony. This logic on it's own shouldn't be the reason why felons shouldn't be able to vote, but both logic.", "title": "You Choose the Topic!", "pid": "36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 220.33486938476562}, {"text": "Firstly, and fundamentally, we must recognize that these people have decided to not follow the rules and regulations of society. By breaking these rules they have shown they do not want to function in society. If this is the case, why should they be able to vote, an active part in our society? If they have broken the rules set by the people we have elected, they clearly don't show enough respect to be allowed to elect people. After a criminal has served the sentence given to them, they are now an active part of society, and should be allowed to take part in all areas of it, voting included. But while they are not an active member of our society, they don't deserve the right to take part in things such as voting, they have made their choice and that is the consequence. People that have broken the laws set don't get a say in the laws we make. Perhaps they want to vote someone in who will change the law that they have broken, because they don't agree with it? Fine, that is their choice, but only after they have been punished for the law they broke. The U.S. prison population is very excessive due to an unnecessary war on drugs (sorry for the digression), so the prison population is just such a large factor that allowing it to vote would not be beneficial at all to our society. Don't allow people that have broken our laws to make them.", "title": "Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections", "pid": "e540288d-2019-04-18T16:49:57Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 220.13330078125}, {"text": "Thank you to the person who accepts this debate. I wish you luck and hopefully one of us will be able to convince the other. Felony disenfranchisement or in simpler terms – denying the right of a felon to vote, has been a long practiced throughout many parts of the world. People who agree with this say that the felon in question has broken their 'social contract' with society and therefore should not be allowed to vote. First off we have to consider the people who this law affects. Many people get convicted in high school of minor crimes that still fall under the heading of a felony. An example of this would being stealing street signs. Then many years later that person who by now has presumably learned their lesson and paid their debt to society wants to take part in one of the greatest and most important acts they will ever do - voting. But because of their past crimes they will be denied their right to do so. What if someone is convicted for a crime like drug possession, but they and many other people think that it shouldn't be a crime. Because of laws that prohibit them from voting you are denying perhaps their only way to disagree with the system that got them in trouble in the first place. It is because of examples like the ones above that Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of 'cruel and unusual punishment'. We have prison sentences and fines handed out by the courts for a reason, which is to pay your debt to society. To add onto this by denying people the right to vote, by saying because of something that you did in your past and now regret you will never be allowed to vote again is heinous.", "title": "Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote.", "pid": "85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 220.10179138183594}, {"text": "Thank you for this challenge, henryzietlow. I accept the challenge and will debate you on the topic that, \"In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. I would like to define felons as a person who has committed a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. This is the way the United States Government defines the term, according to the U. S. Department of Justice.", "title": "Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison.", "pid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.95535278320312}, {"text": "My main points were: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Statistically speaking, many ex-felons return to prison after they have been convicted of a felony. If many of them return to prison, even after they have been let off on parole, it can be said that these people have invalid judgements and are not capable of making informed and educated decisions. Therefore they indirectly effect citizens who are able to weigh the consequences of their decisions, and should not be afforded this right unless they can prove that their judgement is valid. Once a person commits a felony, it should not be assumed that he/she is of a stable mental state when he/she is released from prison, and as such the right to vote is no longer a right but a privilege. I have proven that revoking this right does not constitute an \"excessive sanction\" and does not in any way violate the constitution.", "title": "Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.", "pid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.92698669433594}, {"text": "I extend all my arguments to the fourth round. I also have effectively refuted all of Pro's points, and by forfeiting, he is conceding this. He has also not refuted either of my assertions, so those are still standing. As I have proved, I come out on top with the two arguments that felon voting isn't a federal issue and that these felons have bad judgment, I win this debate. Thank you, henryzietlow, for this challenge, and I urge a vote for the Opposition, or Con, side of this debate.", "title": "Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison.", "pid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.88424682617188}, {"text": "This debate only focuses on felons. I wold hardly consider a speeding ticket to be a felony charge. I am asserting that only those who have served time in prison should not have the right to vote because they do not care enough about the laws to follow them. Why should we let them vote when they have done something terribly wrong?", "title": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.69558715820312}, {"text": "In this debate I will argue that the United States has unethical laws regarding felon voting rights, and that these laws should be loosened. I do realize that some states already allow felons to vote upon release from prison. However, I will argue in this round that the laws should be changed so that all convicted felons in the United States gain voting rights upon release from prison. Round 1- Acceptance/Any definitions con wants to make Round 2- Constructives Round 3- Rebuttals Round 4- Summary", "title": "Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison.", "pid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.56381225585938}, {"text": "Nothing is necessarily permanent in most developed free countries, other than what follows execution. Applications can be submitted to repeal anything, and applying for the right to vote many years after committing a minor felony should never be futile.", "title": "In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "cb1a30bc-2019-04-18T19:35:27Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.5228271484375}, {"text": "First I will begin by responding to your refutation of my main points P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime Although I was not able to find data for the rate at which ex-felons return to prison after 3 years, I'm sure it is still a significant percentage, especially after being let off of parole or probation, where they are no longer monitored. The simple fact that many ex-felons are convicted of another crime should be proof enough that all ex-felons should not be allowed the right to vote. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony You are correct in your statement that \" the whole point of letting a felon out of prison is to try and let them blend back into normal life, so to speak\". However, by refusing ex-felons the right to vote, are we really hindering their ability to assimilate back into society? I don't think so because this right does not define who is a member of society and who is not, nor does it prevent an ex-felon from doing other things such as getting a job, or driving a car. So the daily interactions involved in \"normal life\" are not effected by an ex-felons inability to vote. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid By serving a full sentence in jail, should an ex-felon really regain the right to vote? Who is to say that serving a full sentence in prison is only a part of the punishment committing a felony, and that an ex-felons inability to vote serves to remind him/her that a life of crime is not worth it, and that they will have to prove that they are productive members of society to regain this right. I think that once a felon gets off of probation or parole that he/she can choose to be evaluated by a psychologist to see whether or not his/her judgement is valid in order to regain the right to vote. However, this would be something that our lawmakers would decide upon so I'm sure a reasonable solution could be agreed on. Now I will move on to your arguments and refute them P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. If a US citizen commits a felony, isn't that sufficient means to revoke the right to vote? Also, restricting a person from voting does not seem to be a cruel or unusual punishment, because it does not prevent them from performing daily functions of life. So as I mentioned earlier, the right to vote does not effect an ex-felons ability to function in society and in no way directly harms him/her (indirectly perhaps). As for the 15th amendment, I would interpret it to mean that a right should not be refused as a result of a previous condition of servitude, but would the right be refused as a result of the felony committed? P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. Well I would like to point out that African Americans and Hispanics already make up a minority in this country, and so your claim that felon disenfranchisement \"creates an imbalance between races\" would be true regardless. Its not as if white people vote for one thing and minorities vote for another, so I see it as one million people simply not voting, and do not assume that most of them would have voted for X person due to the color of their skin. That is almost like saying that if we let all prisoners vote, the minorities would have helped Obama win and therefore we are restricting their ability to vote in an attempt to sway election results. Simply not true, for all we know, half of them supported Obama and the other half Romney, so skin color does not determine how a person will most vote. You claim that \"people who can't voice their opinion in the law might resort -- AGAIN -- to breaking it.\" Relating to my first point, if they would break the law a second time because their individual opinion was not heard, then they probably should not have the right to vote. That would be like if I smoked weed even though its illegal because I support its legalization (I don't smoke, but the war on drugs is expensive and ineffective). My individual opinion about the legality of weed was not heard, but does that mean that I can proceed to break the law? Absolutely not. I'd like to point out that although ex-felons cannot vote, they are still able to do a lot of other things such as organize a peaceful protest, or petition for change, etc. This would still allow them a chance to voice their opinion. P3: Felons deserve a right to vote I don't believe that they deserve this right until they can prove that they can handle the right responsibly (as I have pointed out in my third point). You are right, the next president will effect the lives of them as well. However, the president is meant to make decisions in the best interest of the majority, with the goal of producing a solution that satisfies both if possible. Assuming that felons could influence the outcome of an election, which is very unlikely, wouldn't it be detrimental to the majority? It just does not make much sense for people who have made a \"BIG mistake in life\", as you put it, to be able to influence the outcome of an election that will effect all of us. Thank you, I patiently await your response :)", "title": "Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.", "pid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.39266967773438}, {"text": "Extend all arguments", "title": "Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison.", "pid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.36932373046875}, {"text": "Intro: Voting is a right that everyone should have, voting allows people to express how they feel and different opinions and this is a belief that is an important American value to have. Since ex-felons are citizens and since they have served their time and went through all the requirements to get out of their punishment they have every right to vote. Also not allowing criminals to vote will not change the way they act or help them become productive citizens so there is no benefit from it anyway. 1.Broadness of a felon/some committed crimes as kids A felon could be a man who raped and murdered someone in cold blood, but also could be a young man who, after crashing his car into another, drove off out of fear. A felony conviction doesn't automatically make someone so bad of a person that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Also some committed a crime or action as a kid or teenager and since then they have changed or learned from it, so their right to vote should be given back. 2.Taxation without representation \"If you are free and required to pay taxes, which funds the salaries of government officials, then you should have the right to vote for those who will receive those salaries. \"America was founded on the concept of no taxation without representation. If felons have paid their debt to society and did the time for their crimes, they should be allowed to vote. They shouldn't be required to pay sales tax and income tax without the ability to influence governmental policy through the ballot. 3.Some claim that some ex-felons go back to jail \"Justice.gov shows that 50% of felons who could not secure any employment during the time of their supervised release (generally two-to-five years) committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release and were sent back to prison. However, an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. \"So the clear solution is to help ex-felons returning to the society find jobs and again not all return to jail anyway. 4.Benefits of ex-felons voting \"According to Think Progress: 21 out of 45 countries surveyed have NO restrictions on felon voting at all. Only 5 out of 45 countries bar felons from voting after they've served their sentence. These countries are doing quite well with felons being able to voice their opinions in politics. IF we really want to remain status as a free country as a country you can have opportunities in we shouldn\"t limit freedom of speech. \"Returning the vote to ex-felons promotes re-integration and gives them representation not only in presidential and state elections, but in the evolution of the laws governing the criminal justice system, which most of us can agree is imperfect also the best way to see problems and issues with the criminal justice system is from people who have experienced it themselves. 5.Racial felon disenfranchisement laws/ racist voting \"In America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction states used these measures to strip African Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable. Throughout America, 2.2 million black citizens \" or nearly one in 13 African-American adults \" are banned from voting because of these laws. This is way more than the amount of white individuals affected by the same laws in the same states, thus creating an imbalance at the ballot box. This creates discrimination against minorities, especially when they have the potential to change the outcome of a race. According to the Georgetown Law Journal: Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape - leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement \"may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election.\" Conclusion: the main point however is the fact that no harm comes from letting a ex-felon, even a felon vote. I am not arguing for felons but I am just trying to point out something here. Felons/ex-felons are just as ignorant to politics as most Americans so they have the overall similar political knowledge, since both ex-felons and Americans harm voting by overall being ignorant of the voters they are voting for, both should be allowed to vote. Response to what my opponent said: Since most of the felons/ex-felons who commit these crimes as a kid tend to be in poorer/ghetto areas they do not have any knowledge whatsoever over the privileges lost when doing something, they do not realize they will lose the right to vote.", "title": "Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote", "pid": "d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.3354034423828}, {"text": "Thank you, Caseyuer, for posting this debate. I feel this is a topic that I can argue persuasively and, at the very least, a pleasure to compete with another new member. I would flip your statements on you. Felony disenfranchisement is a necessary evil to provide us with a just society. Roger Clegg, of the General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity wrote, \"We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgement. [. .. ] so the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy. \" While there might exist special circumstances that might be deemed unjust; there are just as many examples of felons who express a pathological hatred for justice. . http://www.youtube.com... The episode I provide, produced by gonzo documentarian Louis Theroux, gives insight into the thought processes of prisoners who are currently moving through the justice system. Technically, the people contained have the right to vote. Already, a majority of them have a sense of sudo-honor, a vigor for throwing \"piss-bombs\" and public masturbation (usually pointed at female guards). Members of the public can reasonably come to the conclusion that these people would not vote in favor of the public good. Instead, they would vote, lobby and manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means. And these inmates depicted are FIRST time offenders. You point out that former felons could possibly be in these circumstances because society has not given them the opportunity to give their opinions. While this sounds like a good point, you could also say the reverse. In that if you give them the capacity to vote their opinions to the legislative branch, you would have a chunk of society who would be in a state of permanent dissent. That, being said, I hold a similar premise to the voters of Massachusetts in 2000. In one of the most liberal states in the country, they collectively voted to bar inmates from voting. This showed, even in liberal circles, that public opinion is against serious lawbreakers from electing representatives. My final point regards the constitutionality of barring voting rights. I acknowledge that the eighth amendment bars excessive sanctions and demands that punishment be to the scale of the crime. However, this amendment is ultimately refuted by the following particulars of the constitution: *Article 1, Sec. 4; *Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and *Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment. Overall, this legislation provide states the right to strip criminals of their voting rights. So, because of the examples I've provided, Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of just punishment.", "title": "Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote.", "pid": "85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.30213928222656}, {"text": "Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society.", "title": "in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote", "pid": "c9139d24-2019-04-18T19:32:47Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.26095581054688}, {"text": "An excellent opening argument put forth by my opponent. My opponent's contentions were P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid I'll start by refuting them. P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or different crime It may be true that many ex-felons are convicted again, however, my opponent fails to realize that a felon is usually put on parole and/or probation for 3 or more years after being released from prison. These felons are allowed to vote if and only if they are released from all kinds of probation/parole. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony My opponent claims that giving citizens and ex-felons on even ground is somehow unfair to the group that did not commit a crime (normal citizens). However, the whole point of letting a felon out of prison is to try and let them blend back into normal life, so to speak. But how can they blend back if they forever have a black shadow looming over them? It would not be \"fair\" to hand a prisoner a lifelong sentence if they've already served their time, but this is what my opponent wants to do. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid The main point here is \"gain the right to vote\" not HAVE the right to vote. By serving their sentence and fulfilling their civic duties, felons gain their full rights. Also, I'd like to request that my opponent provides evidence for this point and put forth a more detailed solution. How will they earn the right to vote? Having refuted all my opponent's points, I'll move on to my own: P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. I've proven in the previous round that not just one, but multiple amendments are violated. 1. The 8th Amendment -- Disenfranchisement for LIFE falls under the category of \"excessive sanctions.\" The prisoner has already served his sentence. He's supposed to be free now, right? But the government still sanctions him on the right to vote. This is clearly a violation of the felon's 8th amendment rights. 2. The 15th Amendment -- Disenfranchisement after release from prison/probation/parole is like denying the citizen the right on account of \"previous condition of servitude.\" The main point here is PREVIOUS condition. It is (quite obviously) true that a ex-felon has been in prison, and I'm not arguing for them to be allowed to vote FROM prison. But after they're out, logically their right should be returned to them by the 15th amendment. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. When so many people of a minority race are not allowed to vote, this clearly creates an imbalance between races. America is known as the \"Great Melting Pot\" of diversity, but how can we continue to boast this if one minority is a million people down at the ballot box while others go on almost like normal? An overwhelming majority of ex-felons are African American or Hispanic. Not only is this unfair, it actually bolsters crime later on -- it backfires, doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do. According to USA Today: The right to vote helps people get more educated on issues they care about. Also, people who can't voice their opinion in the law might resort -- AGAIN -- to breaking it. Sentencing Project: An overwhelming 78% of all repeated offenses had been disenfranchised. This creates an endless cycle: person commits crime, person can't vote, person commits crime again, person still can't vote. We need to prevent things like this from happening by allowing ex-felons to vote. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. A felon is essentially a person who makes a mistake. True, a BIG mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. They are still human beings and part of our society, like it or not. They could be limited on the issues they are allowed to vote on, like bills and laws, but they should be allowed to vote in elections. Ex-felons are still affected by the next President. They are still affected by their next Senator. If they're going to follow the law, they should have a say in who makes the law. People can't be persecuted for the past. This concludes my argument for this round. Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's response :)", "title": "Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.", "pid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.25132751464844}, {"text": "I accept your challenge and will be arguing that convicted ex-felons should not be able to vote in all US elections. I look forward to debating with you :)", "title": "Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.", "pid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 219.19021606445312}, {"text": "Not allowing felons to vote is not an infringement on equality. Anyone can commit a crime and become a felon. Everyone is born with the assumption that when they turn 18 they will be allowed to vote. The standards and the expectations are the same for all citizens. Voting is not the only important way to function as a part of a democracy. The revoking of voting serves as an occasional reminder of mistakes.", "title": "In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "cb1a30bc-2019-04-18T19:35:27Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.17674255371094}, {"text": "I must make clear that my position is in favor of the status quo. I may disagree states that I do not live in but I accept their decisions and the shared federal government that results from our individual election systems. If I understand what you just posted it seems as if you would like all felons to have the right vote including the ones who have not yet finished serving their sentences. You also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. They lose other rights also. I say leave the states alone and keep to your own business in your own state. Freedom, liberty and self determination are always a better course than Totalitarianism.", "title": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 219.17568969726562}, {"text": "So since I only have five minutes to make an argument I will make this quick. Felons sholuld not have the right to vote because they have broken the laws therefore surrendering their rights. If they wanted the right to vote they should have never broken the law. My opponet did not make an argument therefore I won.", "title": "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "8fdec11b-2019-04-18T19:35:19Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.1732940673828}, {"text": "Since they have been in prison they have basically admitted that they are not capable of making rational decisions. We should not give them the opportunity to pick who will be the president or choose other prominent officials that will make decisions for everybody else. Yes all men are \"created\" equal, but they do not always end up like everybody else. Some choose to live an honest life and others don't. I would say that breaking the law is certainly not caring about it. If you cared about the rules and the law you would not break them in the first place. Felons don't understand the importance of the laws or else they would follow them. Yes all people have the right to vote but some need to understand that if you break the law things are going to be taken away from you. By felons being able to vote all that would do would be to create problems. Those opposed to this issue could backlash and maybe they will stop voting. Felons would only vote for who will give them what they want, not what is best for the country.", "title": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.1593475341797}, {"text": "Second round is constructive only (no rebuttals). Third round is constructive and rebuttals. Fourth round is rebuttals only (no new arguments). Fifth round is summary and impact weighing. Please keep content organized, appropriate, and respectful. Use correct grammar and spelling. Ad hominem will not be tolerated. A forfeit means a win for the other side. I will define in the second round and set up framework. Thanks, and good luck! -Lulu P. S. Feel free to leave constructive criticism in the comments. Voters, give reasons for your decision.", "title": "Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.", "pid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 219.13087463378906}, {"text": "Well if they lost them for commiting a crime they should not be able to get them back.The way you put it they shouldn't be taken away to begin with so after they commite a crime they should be able to go back to there life without any changes so there rights haven't changed at all and it's like they didn't commited the crime at all.", "title": "in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote", "pid": "c9139d24-2019-04-18T19:32:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.0972137451172}, {"text": "Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society.", "title": "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "6bf94fce-2019-04-18T19:32:42Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.06527709960938}, {"text": "2. Felons should be allowed to vote People need to learn there are consequences to their actions, and punishment is involved. Felonies are big crimes, and there is consequences to your actions. My claim: Felons should not be able to vote.", "title": "You Choose the Topic!", "pid": "36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.04879760742188}, {"text": "Today I stand to affirm the resolution: \"resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison.\" Not only are American felon voting laws outdated, they work against the democratic process, and they slow rehabilitation back into society. 1. One of the foundations of democracy is that everybody should vote, and that those elected into the United State's government are those who are supported the majority of the population. By not allowing released felons to vote, it is taking the vote away from up to 7% of the adult population in some states (1). In fact, in 2010, 5.9 million people in the United States were left unable to vote (2). Because of this, up to 6% of the United States (5.9 million people) are left without a vote, and their voices are not heard as loudly in government. This takes away from the democratic process, as despite the fact that the United States is built off of giving everybody a voice, these felons are left with none. So, not allowing felons to vote is taking away from the democratic process, and is making electoral decisions not truly represent the views of the people. 1a. Restricting felon voting rights can change the results of elections. If felons in Florida were allowed to vote in the 2000 presidential election, it would have affected the result. Ex-felons have been seen to almost always vote democratic, and the 527 vote margin of victory of George Bush would undoubtedly be wiped out if the 600,000 felons barred from voting could have exercised their opinions (3). So, it is clear that not allowing felons to vote can change the results of elections, and by not allowing felons to vote, elections clearly do not always represent the people's true views. 1b. Taking away the right to vote does not make logical sense. A fundamental of the American Justice system is that once you complete your prison sentence, your punishment is over. Not allowing felons to vote for extended periods after their release from prison is extending their punishment, and by not allowing felons to vote, it makes rehabilitation into society even harder. This claim is supported by former Attorney General Eric Holder, as he said that taking the right away from felons \"Defy[ies] the principles of accountability and rehabilitation that guides our justice system\" (1). So, taking away a felon's right to vote is unethical, and unnecessarily extends punishment. 1c. The bill of rights in the constitution of the United States \"prohibits excessive sanctions\", and reads \"punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense\". Not allowing felons to vote for decades seems to be \"excessive,\" as it is a fundamental right of being an American Citizen. So, not allowing felons to vote for decades is going against the concepts of excessive sanctions, and is an unnecessary right to remove. 2. Allowing felons to vote would help with their transition back into society. Felons without voting rights often feel fed up with the slow pace it takes to be fully re-admitted into society, and because of this, they are often three times more likely to re-offend than those with full rights upon release from prison (1). So, if felons were allowed to vote upon release from prison, not only would they transition more smoothly back into society, they would also be less likely to re-offend. 2a. Small offenses, like even tampering with crab traps illegally can trigger over 7 years without voting rights is some states (3). This simply does not make sense, as these criminals are clearly non violent, and have no intention of hurting anybody. Furthermore, these criminals usually show nothing that hints towards an inability to vote. 3. Felon voting laws are racist, and take the voice away from racial minorities. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, up to 20% of adult black males are left unable to vote in some states due to felon voting restrictions (2). African Americans are already a minority, with a relatively small voice in government. By taking the vote away from up to 20 percent of adult male African Americans, the voice of a relatively unspoken minority is being further quenched, as less of them can vote. This gives them even less of a say in elections, and is thus making them further under-represented in government. This also gives white people, the majority, an even larger voice in government. So, felon voting laws take voice away from already overshadowed minorities. 4. Felon Voting laws in the United States are outdated. In most other industrialized countries, felons are allowed to vote, sometimes even while still in prison (1). Additionally, they are even encouraged to do so, in promotion of the democratic process (1). In comparison, American felon voting laws, which take away voting rights until long after prison release seem incredibly restrictive, and outdated, while the laws in these other countries are innovative and modern. If American felon voting laws were loosened to this level, the United States would appear to be a modern, innovative country in one more way, and it would maybe gain more international respect. So, it has been shown that felon voting laws defy the democratic process, make elections seem not to fully represent the people's views, are unconstitutional, harm rehabilitative processes, take the voice away from under-spoken minorities, and are outdated. As such, it seems that felon voting laws need to be changed to become less restrictive. Sources 1- http://www.nytimes.com... 2- http://www.startribune.com... 3- http://america.aljazeera.com...", "title": "Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison.", "pid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.00933837890625}, {"text": "I will attempt to construct my arguments in a similar fashion in order to keep the format consistent Contentions: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Definitions: Recidivism- Measured by criminal acts that resulted in the rearrest, reconviction, or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner's release. P1: With many felons returning to prison within three years, how are we to be able to have faith in their good judgement? These are obviously not simple crimes, and if so many return to a life of crime as soon as they get out, then why should they have the right to vote? The effectiveness of our criminal justice system is for another debate, but as it is now, its not actually correcting anybody, its simply detaining them. Here is some interesting data: \"Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).\" This would allow all of these felons, most of which return to prison within several years for the same crime, to vote in elections. There is more information on Recidivism rates here [1]. P2: Why should citizens who have been convicted of a felon have the same right as those who have never been convicted of one? Certainly they are not of equal value to society when one was thrown in prison for being a danger to society. If these felons are at risk of recidivism, of which many of them are, then I don't quite think their judgement is valid enough to allow them to vote in elections that could effect the rest of society. P3: Perhaps there should be a system in place for convicted felons to earn the right to vote. I feel that this would be a lot better than simply giving them the right to vote once they had served their time. This would ensure that we do not have voters with compromised judgements, and that they cannot vote before proving that they are able to be productive members of society. Otherwise, they may base their vote on a topic of interest, such as the legalization of a certain drug, etc. [1] http://www.bjs.gov...", "title": "Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.", "pid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.98117065429688}, {"text": "I'll begin by responding to refutals P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime. You asked \"Does it make sense to take away the rights of a citizen just because of something they MIGHT do?\". To that question, I respond by saying that this right would be taken away because of something an ex-felon has done in the past and is LIKELY to do again (according to statistics, I know that not every ex-felon is going to be convicted again, but a majority are). I believe that the punishment of disenfranchisement lasts for life simply because its meant to prevent citizens from committing a felony, and thus give them an incentive not to become a felon. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony. I think that it is perfectly justified to implement bigger consequences for those who have broken the law in the past, in an attempt to prevent them from doing so again. However, if a criminal is determined to start a new life as a law abiding citizen (who would not be shoplifting or anything of the sort anyways), then who is to say that they are not able to find work? Sure, it may be more difficult, but not impossible, and that is just one of the social consequences of breaking the law the first time. If you wanted to become the next CEO of a major corporation, you probably should not have committed a felony. So obviously ex-felons are barred from high ranking positions, and that's because of society, but there are plenty of jobs out there if one is looking for them and is determined to work hard. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid. The life long consequences of breaking the law do not mean that a felon cannot become an ex-felon, that's absurd. Once a felon is released from prison, he/she can pursue anything he/she wants, and the inability to vote will not directly effect that freedom (once again, perhaps indirectly). Clearly somebody who has committed a felony has at one time had an invalid judgement, and so, should we really be required to allow them to vote if they are still in a similar state of mind? Would we want a mentally ill person voting? Not an irrelevant comparison, as both may have distorted views of what is right and wrong. Thus the implementation of some sort of psychological evaluation would be enough to confirm a certain level of mental stability and reasoning that is acceptable. Clearly somebody with a reasoning that its ok to kill or steal should not be allowed to vote in elections that influence all of us as a whole. Their judgements and by extension opinions are invalid. Now on to refuting your points P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. A) I meant that if a US citizen commits a felony, it is justifiable to revoke their right to vote for life (I'll explain why later) B) Although revoking the right to vote lasts forever, I do not believe it to be an excessive sanction either. Once again, individually, the right to vote does not effect normal life in society, and you can function perfectly fine without it. C) Here I was saying that an ex-felon's right to vote was revoked simply because they broke the law, not because of the previous condition of servitude itself. The mere fact that they were in prison does not effect the right to vote, its the felony that was committed. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A) Your statement that minorities \" occupy the majority of prison cells\" is correct. However, even if they could vote, the imbalance would still very much be there. Also, just because many prisoners are minorities does not make it acceptable to give them the right to vote, based merely on that fact. They did something wrong, and the color of their skin has nothing to do with that (although it may be linked to socio-economic background). This is implemented across the board, so even though many ex-felons are minorities, white ex-felons do not have the ability to vote either, and so the law does not discriminate against race. B) You said \"Overwhelmingly, the people who commit crimes are from the lower income class, and these are also the people who tend to vote for Democrats\". While this may be true, we cannot assume that they would vote for any one candidate, and so revoking an ex-felons ability to vote cannot be seen as an attempt to suppress Democratic voters. That would be openly admitting that most ex-felons are Democrats due to the fact that they are minorities. C) You asked \"Then how do you explain the countries that do not disenfranchise ex-felons?\" Well I have found no data that would suggest that crime rates and disenfranchisement have any correlation at all. If I had to guess, I would say these countries have a lower crime rate because of their social safety nets and superior public education systems, but I honestly do not know. D) I did not suggest that ex-felons replace the right to vote, I was simply implying that there are other ways to express an opinion other than voting. According to your argument, ex-felons resort to breaking the law if their opinions are not heard, but expressing your opinion can be done through many other ways, and not just through voting. P3: Felons deserve a right to vote. A) How are we supposed to gauge whether or not an ex-felon is capable of using this right responsibly? He/she may vote for a candidate with many flaws because he/she does not have the judgement necessary to see or even weigh these things against possible benefits that the candidate may provide to him/her specifically. B) By voting for the next president, ex-felons indirectly decide which policies and bills are implemented or signed into law. Although they do provide a larger group that is voting, are every single one of their opinions valid enough to be able to effect us all? This is why some kind of evaluation should first be done to ensure that ex-felons are able to reason, and subsequently weigh pro's and con's of candidates in elections. Those were some very strong arguments you put up, I look forward to the final round :)", "title": "Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.", "pid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.9711151123047}, {"text": "Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. If you include those brain damaged by a felon, that number would be much, much higher. (Pause.) My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society. Contention 2 Felons are not silenced by not voting. The affirmative wants you to believe if a felon cannot vote, he cannot participate in the political process, but Felons CAN actively campaign for issues or candidates if they so desire. Think of Carrie and Cindy or the thousands of brain injured victims of felony crimes and contrast their loss of rights to that of the felons. Then ask yourself if that is equal or just. Contention 3 Permanently keeping felon's from voting serves equality and justice. According to FBI Homicide Reports from 76 to 2005, over 90 percent of homicide victims were old enough to vote, yet were silenced by a felon. Over 81 percent of homicides had multiple victims, meaning that one felon silenced more than one voter. According to the National Child Abuse Center, felons injured over 900,000 children in 2003 alone. Over 700,000, or 80% of abused children are left with a psychiatric disorder by age 21. These disorders, including severe brain injuries, can disqualify them from voting, too. Face it, felons are savagely stealing votes from their victims while fleecing the public for voting rights in the name of democracy. Are you going to find this FAIR? To recap, felons chose not to vote, they are not silenced from politics, and not allowing them to vote serves equality and justice. Therefore, I negate the resolution. Now, let's look at my opponents case and see why it doesn't hold up.", "title": "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "e5aaa3b2-2019-04-18T19:34:25Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.95355224609375}, {"text": "A felony is a serious crime in the United States and previously other common law countries. The term originates from English common law where felonies were originally crimes which involved the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Most common law countries have now abolished the felony/misdemeanor distinction and/or replaced it with other distinctions such as between summary offences and indictable offenses. Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug abuse/sales, embezzlement, grand theft, treason, espionage, racketeering, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud. People have the right to vote to form a democracy. A democracy is run by the people and for the people. The people vote on there leaders, there laws, and many other important issues. If the people think that felons should not be given suffrage, then in order for a democracy to be kept they mustn't vote. In some cases like maine and vermont voting is allowed by all felons because they have so many prisons in such little area that they make up much of there population in these states. Is this who we want to be voting? or should we have the hard-working americans who actually abide by the laws that felons help make?", "title": "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "e5aaa355-2019-04-18T19:35:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.947265625}, {"text": "they still should not be able to vote", "title": "in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote", "pid": "c9139d24-2019-04-18T19:32:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.9472198486328}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections", "pid": "e540288d-2019-04-18T16:49:57Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.94284057617188}, {"text": "Judge, we have to realise that giving people a second chance doesn\"t hurt, and in some cases, felons are unintentional. A robbery happens usually for money to support a family and to make ends meet, and some murders are unintentional, usually done in self defense. We cannot degrade felons and snatch their voting rights from them, because that will have devastating effects on how the society views them as an individual. According to MSNBC, when felons are given voting rights,they, 93% of the time, will not commit a crime again. Now lets see how this helps felons blend back: According to Columbia Univ., when given the right to vote, felons feel as if they are like everyone else when they are giving their opinion on who should be the person who they want to govern over them. they feel like they have a say in the nation\"s matters, which makes them fit in. After all, voting is a constitutional right and as citizens they should have that right regardless of their past. Judge, not only does giving felons the right to vote help them blend back into society, it also helps the SOCIETY ITSELF. Fox News said that felons usually help in services such as helping people become fit, marriage arrangers, and overall, jobs to enhance a person\"s life. The reason is simple: a person wants to give back what they \"stole\" from the society, and basically, they are giving back to the society. Judge, our point is clear: voting rights help felons blend back comfortably, and in the end, it positively affects the society as a whole. One of the largest purposes of prison is to make sure that the crime never happens again with the same person so why would we not let these citizens vote if it prevents more crime from taking place, helps the citizens rehab to become a normal citizen, and lets them blend back into society? Also, maybe these felons broke the law because they did not support it. The felons should have a say in it because they are citizens. As citizens, they have the constitutional right to vote. They aren't making the laws because it also requires society to agree with them. It just gives them a voice that they don't have in anything else which helps them in the long run to fit back in and rehab, and prevents more crime from taking place.", "title": "Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections", "pid": "e540288d-2019-04-18T16:49:57Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.92764282226562}, {"text": "When you go against society, and commit a felony, you lose this societies trust. We don't let children vote, or the mentally incompetent vote, because we cannot trust there decisions. The same comes with felons. We cannot trust them, because of their poor judgment to commit a felony, therefore they cannot vote. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy. When they decided they were going to go against society, they also decided they are going to lose their right to vote. Value: Justice It is not fair to give an equal voice in society to someone who has been a law abiding citizen, and a felon who has gone against society all together. When someone commits a felony, they should lose there right to vote. If a person wants a say in a Democracy, and wants to be able to vote in a Democracy, they must not go against it and commit a felony. Now why would we, as citizens, as non-felon citizens, want felons helping to pick our representatives? If you're a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you have bad judgment. Why would we want people with that judgment picking our representatives? Criterion: just deserts Just deserts is basically giving people what they deserve. It is doing wrong and taking action for your wrong doing. In this round, you will see that people don't deserve the right to vote after they have committed a felony. My first contention is that it in not fair or equal to give a felon who has gone against a democratic society and a law abiding citizen equal voting rights. My second contention is felons being used by candidates running for office. My third contention is the public opinion rejecting felon voting rights. Contention 1: By committing a very serious crime, ex-felons demonstrate disrespect for the law. Therefore, they should have no input in determining who writes these laws. Felons shouldn't have the same voting rights as regular, law abiding, hard working Americans. In 2000 the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote. This means it is the state legislature's power to decide who is qualified. If you are a citizen over 18 you are automatically qualified. If you are considered mentally incompetent, or commit a felony you are disqualified. This is about being disqualified from voting. The same comes with gun rights, if someone abuses guns; we take that right away from them. So if a felon abuses a society, the society takes away the felon's right to vote. The American citizens who make up the democratic society are the people who should be the ones deciding who there leader is going to be, not the felons that have become outcasts of this society by going against it. The felon made their choice when they decided to go against society. Contention 2: There are currently 5.3 million felons in the United States who have lost there right to vote. Say these 5.3 million felons could vote and one of the candidates was going to be extremely less harsh against criminals. These extra 5.3 million votes would almost surely give a candidate a victory. Do we, law abiding American citizens want our representatives to be decided on by felons? No. If you are a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you obviously have bad judgment, so why should a society let you use your judgment to pick out the better candidate? The voting is not only voting for a presidential candidate, but also the local elections. In a city in California, called signal hill, the vote for mayor came down to one vote. In a school board election in Alaska, it was a dead even tie, bringing it to a coin flip. If there would have been one more person voting, a felon, they would have decided who was going to win. Do we really want felons deciding who a mayor or a school board member is? Contention 3: Much of the American public supports the disenfranchisement if felons. To be exact 81.7% of Americans believe that felons should lose their right to vote. Less than one-tenth of people surveyed believed that felons should keep there right to vote. These people believe that felons should lose their right to vote even after serving prison time because they still cannot be trusted. According to the Florida Department of Correction, over 40% of offenders commit another crime within 3 years of there release; and for those under 18 this number skyrockets to 73%. Furthermore a 2003 Department of Justice report found that more than 70 percent of arrestees tested positive for drugs. The American public has spoken, and the outcome was that most do not want felons to be able to have any part in voting. A democracy is a government made by a society's people. So if the American people think that felons should not be able to vote by this much of a margin, felons should not be allowed suffrage. In my first contention I proved that felons don't deserve equal rights because the have gone against the law, and in my second contention I showed that felons could get used by candidates, and I gave facts about them not being trustworthy. In my third contention I spoke about how the American public doesn't want felons voting, and they are the democracy. With the evidence I have brought up and the case I have given I would urge your ballot toward the negative side.", "title": "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "e5aaa355-2019-04-18T19:35:37Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.9270782470703}, {"text": "I'm just going to respond to my opponents speech. Unless he can substantiate his claims, I just need to rebut his claims since they're baseless. My opponent has the full burden of proof. I'll provide one source, and I will have destroyed my opponent's opening statements. My opponent opens with his opinion. Opinions can't be substantiated. He says we need more people voting, but somehow it doesn't make sense that felons should be the ones filling the polls instead of law abiding citizens. The proper solution is to get more law abiding citizens to vote. He assumes that all felons committed their crime a long time ago. That's an assumption used as a blanket statement. Blanket statements only need one example to be destroyed, and here I can provide a standard that breaks his statement. The minimum punishment for a felony is 48 hours [1]. He says that they're still citizens so they should vote. Something about committing a felony is that they're forfeiting certain rights by damaging the American public. Voting is one of those rights. I await a response. ------------------------------------------- Source: [1] http://www.cga.ct.gov...", "title": "ex felons should be able to vote", "pid": "d8496939-2019-04-18T16:39:08Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.8984375}, {"text": "Now into the summary and impact round! No new arguments and refutes as this is the last round :) thanks To summarize, my points were P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. Ex-felons cannot be barred from voting on legal premises since disenfranchisement for life violates the Constitution. It violates the excessive sanctions part of the 8th amendment as well as the 15th amendment. America needs to defend everyone's voting rights, but how can we fulfill this if ex-felons are still not allowed to vote? Everyone is supposed to be part of the American Dream. We all should have an equal opportunity at life, but ex-felon disenfranchisement violates this. Voting still is a big part of society. Ex-felons are affected by the results of elections. They should be able to have a say in who leads their country. Once a felon starts fulfilling his/her civic duties, they should have their full rights returned to them. On top of all moral values, ex-felons who actually have a say in their government are less prone to committing crime again. Since this reduces crime rates, it only further proves that ex-felons SHOULD be able to vote. What this debate really comes down to is weighing my opponent's main points (bad judgement and potential dangers of felons recommitting crimes) against the simple reality that ex-felons are people who abide by the law and deserve their full rights. If a person has bad judgement, does that mean he can be denied his Constitutional rights? The fact remains that ex-felon disenfranchisement is illegal. Furthermore, the past is the past; we cannot continue to punish ex-felons for mistakes they made long ago. They are already on lower ground than normal citizens. Also, if an ex-felon has bad judgement, he would not have gotten out of parole or probation -- felons have to be reviewed to get fully free. The potential dangers of felons recommitting crimes are not relevant because studies show that ex-felons who can vote are way less likely to commit crime. This is what sets me over my opponent. He has failed to prove the morality and legality behind disenfranchisement, but I've proven the moral and legal reasons behind allowing ex-felons to vote. I suggest voters cast their ballot for my side because I've proven convicted felons released from prison/parole/probation should be able to vote for both legal and moral reasons. I've refuted all of my opponent's refutations/contentions effectively (his refutations were quite repetitive and can be refuted by my rebuttals in previous rounds) and provided more detailed evidence. Overall, I have presented a stronger case. Thank you. Also, I'd like to say thank you to my opponent for an excellent, engaging debate. Your arguments were very well thought out. It was fun debating with you :)", "title": "Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.", "pid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.8912353515625}, {"text": "My three main contentions are: P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. Definitions: Felon = an individual who has committed a felony. Felony = a crime punishable by heavy fines, jail/prison time for more than 10 years, and/or death. Disenfranchisement = restriction of an American citizen from voting. FRAMEWORK: The topic strictly states ex-felons, meaning felons released from prison, parole, and/or probation. P1: Restricting ex-felons from voting violates the Constitution. Voting is a right given to all US citizens by the Constitution. Since an ex-felon has been fulfilling their duties as citizens, they must be able to enjoy the full rights of citizens, which includes the right to vote. Also, ex-felon disenfranchisement violates the 8th Amendment. According to the 8th Amendment: \"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. \" According to the Atkins v. Virginia Supreme Court case: The 8th Amendment \"succinctly prohibits excessive sanctions. \" Disenfranchising an ex-felon is an excessive sanction in the sense that it extends the punishment beyond the felon\"s sentence. Furthermore, the 15th Amendment is violated by ex-felon disenfranchisement. According to Section 1 of the 15th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Since ex-felons had already been released from prison, according to the 15th Amendment, they cannot be denied the right to vote. We can conclude that ex-felon disenfranchisement is unconstitutional. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A disproportionate percentage of convicted felons are a minority race. According to the Guardian: The people overwhelmingly affected by felony disenfranchisement laws are minorities. Only 2.5%, 5.8 million people in the voting age population were made ineligible to vote by felon voting laws in 2010. That percentage tripled to 7.7% among African-Americans. Another way of putting this is that 38%, 2.2 million, of all those stopped from voting by felon restrictions are African-American. About a million African-American ex-felons are disenfranchised. According to the Washington Post: In Virginia, Kentucky, and Florida, 1 in 5 African Americans are affected by felon disenfranchisement laws. This is way more than the amount of Caucasian individuals affected by the same laws in the same states, thus creating an imbalance at the ballot box. This creates discrimination against minorities, especially when they have the potential to change the outcome of a race. According to the Georgetown Law Journal: Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape - leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement \"may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U. S. Senate elections and one presidential election. \" When P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. A felon is only released from prison, parole, and/or probation after they have abided by the law, paid off their fines and/or served their sentence. Ex-felons have already paid off their debt to society. Inflicting disenfranchisement upon them is unfair. They deserve the right to vote, no matter what they've done in the past. Emphasis on the PAST. Many other countries allow felons to vote. According to Think Progress: 21 out of 45 countries surveyed have NO restrictions on felon voting at all. Only 5 out of 45 countries bar felons from voting after they've served their sentence. These countries are doing quite well with felons being able to voice their opinions in politics. According to the 2012 Sentencing Project: Nearly 6 million Americans are barred from voting due to their previous conviction. This means that 1 out of 40 adults in this country cannot vote. America is supposed to be a democracy, but how is it democratic when so many otherwise eligible citizens can't vote due to crimes they've committed and have already been punished for? These people deserve their full rights. They deserve to vote. Thank you, this concludes my argument.", "title": "Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.", "pid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.81541442871094}, {"text": "Felons have demonstrated bad behavior in choosing to commit the crime they did. So I would think that they are then unfit to make the most important decision than can make, which is to pick the person who will run our country. If we give felons the right to vote, then we are basically saying that there is no difference between them and law abiding citizens. That just does not seem right to me. Yes the government needs to protect people, but not for their voting rights. If they did the crime they need to know that there will be consequences and not being able to vote anymore should be one of them. They should not have the privilege to pick who makes the laws if you are not going to follow them yourself. If felons cared about what the government did then they would not be going out breaking the law that the government has set into place. Yes people are born with equal rights, but when someone chooses to break the laws that have been set in place, and then they have given up the chance to be treated equally with everybody else.", "title": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.74624633789062}, {"text": "Accepted. Good luck!", "title": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.71539306640625}, {"text": "As Con, I will argue why felons shouldn't have voting rights. Good luck!", "title": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.7020721435547}, {"text": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called \"civil death\" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.”(1) “5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.”(1) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1)http://www.ncsl.org...", "title": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "826727bc-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.6372833251953}, {"text": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called \"civil death\" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.”(1) “5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.”(1) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1) http://www.ncsl.org...", "title": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "8267279d-2019-04-18T15:31:31Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.6372833251953}, {"text": "R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called \"civil death\" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America. ”(1)“5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored. ”(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs.", "title": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.6243896484375}, {"text": "I'm sorry, I'm going to waive this last round, I'm sorry Kasmic. Feel free to award Pro conduct, but vote who had more convincing arguments. It's always a pleasure to debate you Kasmic.", "title": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.60842895507812}, {"text": "i think ex felons should vote because we need more people voting and why should something they did a long time ago be agianst them now but i understand that ex felons most of did something very bad but they are still us citizens and all us citizen deserve to vote for their country.", "title": "ex felons should be able to vote", "pid": "d8496939-2019-04-18T16:39:08Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.60604858398438}, {"text": "Also thank you for the link to the documentary, I watched it (parts one and two) and found it very insightful and although it did reinforce a few of the points you made I do find it disturbing that you are willing to form opinions off the basis of one documentary showing one situation. The people in that documentary are pre-trial, meaning that despite the fact that many have been there for years they have not yet served their debt to society. The purpose of being sentenced and serving time in prison is to over come these issues that they have dealing with normal members of society. Is it true that many of these felons will be released with the same immaturity shown here? Absolutely, but more than anything this points to a flaw in our justice system and our ability to rehabilitate our citizens. This is not grounds for denying them the right to vote. You also said that we do not let children vote. This is true and we do this for very good reasons. But we do let them vote when they no longer are classified as children. This is similar to having been released from prison. Upon serving your sentence it is assumed that you have taken the time in prison to think about your mistakes and learn from them, which is very similar to a child turning eighteen. After serving in prison you are supposed to be released and join society. Part of this means taking on the responsibility's that children face when turning into adults, including the responsibility of voting. Another point you made was that released inmates would 'manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means'. By saying this you are bringing up a point you had made earlier about felons having a 'pathological hatred for justice' which is simply not true. The majority of inmates do not 'hate' justice. When released many felons become one hundred percent normal citizens, with political opinions formed similar to the way that you and I form ours. And another point to be made about them 'manipulating' the justice system is that it would be virtually impossible. Released felons account for somewhere around two percent of the United States, so even if all of them had this hatred for justice that you mentioned (which they don't) it would simply not make a dent in our elections. My final point for this round is I think my most important. One of the ideals that this country was founded on was 'No taxation without representation'. Upon being released from prison, felons are supposed to incorporate themselves into society, find a job, and pay taxes. One of the reasons that slogan exists is so the citizens could have a say as to where their tax dollars were being directed. Taxing felons and denying them this right is unconstitutional and immoral. There are many people in the United States who did some regrettable act when they were young, served time and upon being released found a job, and for dozens of years have been respectable members of society including paying their taxes. Should we deny them their right to vote upon some stupid thing they did that long ago?", "title": "Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote.", "pid": "85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.55514526367188}, {"text": "Five point three million Americans are denied the right to vote, simply because of their criminal records. If these convicts were able to vote it may amount to the difference in who our country's own president may be. It could have a huge impact on the laws that are in affect as well. This is why I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution; Resolved: in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Jeremy Travis, stated that, \"In more than a dozen states, a convicted felon loses the right to vote-for life. Thirty-two states prohibit offenders on probation or parole from voting.\" \"In states with lifetime bans, the consequences for democratic participation are deeply disturbing.\" Before we discuss the topic any farther I would first like to establish and clarify some key definitions and terms. Democratic:pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all Society: a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members Felon:one who has committed a felony Retain:to continue to use, practice Right to Vote:a legal right guaranteed by the United States Constitution Contention 1:Convicts and Ex-convicts are treated like any other average citizen in every other aspect of their lives. Felons are expected to follow and obey the laws just the same as you and me. Why should we not give them the right to help choose the leaders they have to follow and vote on the laws that they are expected to obey? If felons are responsible to uphold the standard set by society, they should have the same rights and privileges as others. Steve Chapman stated, \"We let ex-cons marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property, and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination, or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their home in a time of war. But, the assumption in most places is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders. If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place.\" In some states, Maine and Vermont, felons are allowed to vote even while being incarcerated. How can one justify this being fair to a convict in Missouri. It should be a standard all across the board that everyone's voting rights are treated equally, even a felon's(see Equal Protection Clause, Contention 3). Allowing one felon to vote and not allowing another to is creating a double standard based on location, which has no legitimate effect on voting rights. Contention 2:Felons are serving or have served the punishment they were sentenced for their crime. A judge is a highly trained professional. They make decisions to determine punishments and consequences accordingly. When they sentence a felon they sentence them to a punishment that is adequate to the crime they committed. There is no reason for society to think of themselves above a felon and impose further regulations. It is not our place to judge others when we ourselves could just as easily be in their place. By denying a felon this right we are demoralizing them and depriving them of their basic human rights. We are alienating them from society. A felon has already been given a punishment for the crime they committed so why should we make them keep suffering for something that happened in the past and was already dealt with? We are taking away the capability for a felon to fix their life and reform into the \"average Joe.\" By doing this we are putting society in a susceptible position. Contention 3: The right for everybody to vote is protected by the constitution. Amendment VIII of the Constitution states, \"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.\" Also according to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, \"Congress finds that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right.\" Contrary to the beliefs of many that voting is a privilege, Congress itself wrote that it is a right that ALL United States citizens have, regardless of any discriminatory factor. Lastly, there is this little part of the Constitution that is referred to as \"The Equal Protection Clause.(Amendment XIV, Section 1).\" It states that, \"No state shall enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.\" This makes it clear that any ordinance outlawing a citizen's right to vote is unconstitutional. The United States was established under the values and morals of our country's founding fathers. As I have shown with my three points of contention, they clearly had the intent of allowing all citizens the right to vote, no matter what the circumstances may have been. Felons, as I stated in my first contention, are expected to follow the same laws. Taking away more basic human rights separates them from society. If citizens expect laws to be followed, everyone needs equal input on the making of these laws. Not only do we need to follow through with the resolution because of the hypocrisy and double-standards involved, but also because it is protected constitutionally. The VIII amendment to the constitution, The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Equal Protection Clause all reference that disenfranchisement is wrong. Also, Making a felon pay for their mistake even after completing their sentencing completely violates my second point of contention. They were given an appropriate sentencing. Taking away the right to vote was not included in it. For the reasons I have stated above I know the affirmative side is the right side. This is why I urge you to return a negative ballot today. Thank You.", "title": "Felon Voting", "pid": "bcb43496-2019-04-18T19:26:12Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.54127502441406}, {"text": "I'll respond to my opponent's defenses of his main points. P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime. Does it make sense to take away the rights of a citizen just because of something they MIGHT do? Why not give all of them life sentences while you're at it? Obviously the answer is that they don't deserve a sentence for life. It's too big a punishment, However, isn't this what disenfranchisement is? It's inability to vote -- for LIFE -- just because of something they might or might not do. Is this fair? P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony. Citizens are not on even ground with felons. For example any person with a criminal record (ex-felons fall under this category) will get heavier fines and punishment than a normal person if they were caught shoplifting or exceeded the speed limit. It's also harder for convicts to get a job, because (admit it) no one wants to hire a criminal no matter how changed they are. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid. If disenfranchisement is a punishment, then the disenfranchised convict is not an ex-felon. Since we're debating ex-felons, the point about disenfranchisement being a punishment is invalid. My opponent also argues that a felon needs to prove that his/her judgement is valid, however, voting is very subjective and varies from person to person. There is no such thing as a \"valid\" vote in an election. No politician is going to go up there and say, \"We should legalize all types of drugs and drop the smoking age completely.\" We all know that's completely crazy and the millions of non-felons in the US are going to vote against it. A felon's vote won't cause something really crazy to happen, but their vote will matter when it comes to something like the Affordable Care Act. Now I'll defend my main points. I will be splitting the defenses into A), B), C), etc. since my opponent made multiple refutations to each point. P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. A) \"If a US citizen commits a felony, isn't that sufficient means to revoke the right to vote?\" Actually, I do agree that a convicted felon shouldn't be able to vote from prison, jail, or while on parole or probation. But after the sentence is over, the right should be returned along with the felon's liberty, freedom of speech, etc. However, since we're debating ex-felons here, my opponent's point is invalid. B) \"Also, restricting a person from voting does not seem to be a cruel or unusual punishment...\" I never said this. I said ex-felon disenfranchisement violated the part of the 8th amendment about excessive sanctions. C) \"As for the 15th amendment, I would interpret it to mean that a right should not be refused as a result of a previous condition of servitude, but would the right be refused as a result of the felony committed?\" Again, we're debating ex-felons, not convicted felons in general. Perhaps disenfranchisement could be a form of capital punishment, but once the felon is free and served all sentences, he/she can't have the right to vote taken away. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A) \"...African Americans and Hispanics already make up a minority in this country, and so your claim that felon disenfranchisement \"creates an imbalance between races\" would be true regardless.\" The problem is that even though these races make up a minority of the country's total population, they occupy the majority of prison cells. If felon disenfranchisement didn't exist, the imbalance would be gone. B) \"It's not as if white people vote for one thing and minorities vote for another, so I see it as one million people simply not voting, and do not assume that most of them would have voted for X person due to the color of their skin.\" It's not just race, it's class and socio-economic status. Race and class are inseparable because minorities make up much of the lower income class, more so than the majority race. Overwhelmingly, the people who commit crimes are from the lower income class, and these are also the people who tend to vote for Democrats. Wealthier people tend to vote for Republicans. Indirectly (please note this statement is not trying to discriminate) Caucasians tend to vote for one candidate while minorities vote for the other. C) \"...If they would break the law a second time because their individual opinion was not heard, then they probably should not have the right to vote.\" Then how do you explain the countries that do not disenfranchise ex-felons? These countries have a way lower crime rate than the US and other ex-felon disenfranchisement countries. Obviously, a felon's right to voice his/her own opinion prevents him/her from breaking the law. D) \"I'd like to point out that although ex-felons cannot vote, they are still able to do a lot of other things such as organize a peaceful protest, or petition for change, etc.\" Remember, the topic states ELECTIONS. Not laws or policies. Felons need to vote on who leads their country for the next 4 years of their lives. Felons can't petition for a new president. How do you suggest to replace the right to vote in elections? P3: Felons deserve a right to vote. A) \"I don't believe that they deserve this right until they can prove that they can handle the right responsibly\" My opponent seems to think that if felons are allowed to vote, they'll somehow vote to legalize marijuana or something, but again the topic states elections not issues. The most felons will base their vote on is ObamaCare and other extremely controversial issues because no candidate is going to come out and say they want to legalize marijuana. B) \"Assuming that felons could influence the outcome of an election, which is very unlikely, wouldn't it be detrimental to the majority?\" My opponent has asked me a direct question. My answer is that no, it will not be a detriment, because again I'm arguing for them to vote in elections, not on bills or policies or issues. They make up part of the population and their voices need to be heard. This is actually better for the majority as there are more opinions on the election rather than just one group. Thanks, I look forward to the next round.", "title": "Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections.", "pid": "ffc1c5ad-2019-04-18T16:49:56Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.51849365234375}, {"text": "Vote for me please.", "title": "ex felons should be able to vote", "pid": "d8496939-2019-04-18T16:39:08Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.49085998535156}, {"text": "\"Well if they lost them for commiting a crime they should not be able to get them back.The way you put it they shouldn't be taken away to begin with so after they commite a crime they should be able to go back to there life without any changes so there rights haven't changed at all and it's like they didn't commited the crime at all.\" --> I never said they should be taken away, however for the desirability of the resolution we need to also see the imapct of returning to society. *He refutes none of my case, thus extend the whole thing.*", "title": "in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote", "pid": "c9139d24-2019-04-18T19:32:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.48934936523438}, {"text": "Generally, PRO goes first. However, if you accept this debate, then you forfeit your right to go second and will therefore go first (I don't feel like going first) Felony disenfranchisement is the term used to describe the practice of prohibiting people from voting based on the fact that they have been convicted of a felony. I stand against felon disenfranchisement, convince me otherwise [...]", "title": "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote", "pid": "4972f443-2019-04-18T19:20:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.47781372070312}, {"text": "I will be debating against the topic, \"Resolved: In the United States, Felons should not be allowed to vote upon release from prison. \" Now, to jump right in. Sorry about that last round; I was a little bit busy, but I would like to provide constructives and rebuttals in this round. I would first like to point out one statistical discrepancy in the proposition\"s case. He has stated that 5.9 million people, or 6% of our country\"s population cannot vote, but this is clearly an incorrect statistic. According to the most recent statistics from 2014, our country\"s population is 318.9 Million. 5.9 million people out of 318.9 Million is just under 2%, not 6%. This brings us to question all of proposition\"s evidence and empiric. Now, to get on to constructive assertions. 1: Allowing these felons to vote is not a federal issue and cannot be decided by the U. S. Government or the Supreme Court to encompass the entire United States, as proposition is arguing. According to the Bill of Rights, this issue is decided by the states. Most prominently, the 14th Amendment makes felon voting a state prerogative, not a federal one. If voters choose to change state laws regarding felons and voting, it's their prerogative. Federalism allows for such state-level experimentation, and it's at the state level where the consequences of new felon-voting laws will best be judged. This assertion itself negates proposition\"s whole case. Proposition is arguing that we should make a law encompassing the entire United States to allow these released felons to vote. This is not legal, according to the 14th Amendment of our Bill of Rights. 2: The reason we don\"t let children vote in the United States is because they have not developed proper judgment and cannot decide which party to vote for. These felons are not allowed to vote for this same reason. If someone has gone to jail for over one year, then they have committed a fairly bad crime such as assault, they have shown that they are not trustworthy and their judgment is not good. I will now strengthen my case with rebuttals. As pointed out earlier, we come to doubt Pro\"s evidence because of the discrepancy. Rebuttal to 1a: A change of an election outcome is not enough reason to base changing the law on. If children were allowed to vote, the result of elections would drastically change, but they are not allowed to vote. A change in outcome has nothing to do with the positive or negative values of Felon voting. Many things may cause a change in the outcome of elections. That doesn\"t mean they are good. Rebuttal to 1b: In fact, punishment, more often than not, does not end after a prison sentence is over. Parole is a punishment that is given to the majority of felons coming out of prison, which means their punishment is being continued to make sure that they have learned their lesson. Rebuttal to 1c: Pro has provided no solid evidence for this point, just that it \"seems to be excessive\" to not let these felons vote. But we have these punishments for a reason. Rebuttal to 2a: This point is invalid to this debate, because this debate is about felons, and tampering with crab traps is not a felony, its only major punishment is a fine. A felon is someone who has been convicted to death or one or more years in prison for a crime. Rebuttal to 3: It is not racist that these felon voting laws are not allowing these felons to vote. The laws are the same for all races. If the laws specifically didn\"t allow African Americans to vote, then they would be racist. But the fact that minorities can\"t vote because of these laws doesn\"t prove the laws to be racist, it just proves that these minorities commit more than the average amount of crimes. Rebuttal to 4: This argument about other countries having felon voting as a law is invalid because the fact that other countries have instated these laws doesn\"t prove they are good. Pro has provided us with no statistics to show that with these laws, these other countries were benefited, and all he says is that America \"would maybe gain more international respect. \" First of all, America doesn\"t need any more international respect. And second of all, it is not gain respect in the eyes of other countries if we go against our own constitution. I have refuted all of Pro\"s points and added two points to this debate.", "title": "Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison.", "pid": "ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.4471893310547}, {"text": "My opponent didn't attack my first contention so it holds contention 2 THE FELON HAS COMMITTED A CRIME the criminal has done a crime and should be punished for it.", "title": "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "6bf94fce-2019-04-18T19:32:42Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.42544555664062}, {"text": "In ordor to better form a flowing argument, I will boldface quotations from previous arguments and leave a line \"---\" to clarify a natural pause. If readers can recommend a better way to quote previous arguments then please leave a comment explaining the technicalities or a guide that details this.---\"Thank you for the link to the documentary, I watched it (parts one and two) and found it very insightful and although it did reinforce a few of the points you made I do find it disturbing that you are willing to form opinions off the basis of one documentary showing one situation.\"This video is the most recent, valid source I could find of people that showed a mentality that fundamentally opposed organized law. Whats more--A lot of these men were unconvinced, thus they still, technically, retained the right to vote. Citing this video was a way for me to express the prison culture of violence that is embedded into the minds of many ex-felons.Overall, There are many reasons for me formulating this opinion. This video does not encapsulate my entire morality foundations. Also, personal rational is not on debate. The legitamacy of stripping felons of their rights is the topic of this debate.---\"The people in that documentary are pre-trial, meaning that despite the fact that many have been there for years they have not yet served their debt to society. The purpose of being sentenced and serving time in prison is to over come these issues that they have dealing with normal members of society. Is it true that many of these felons will be released with the same immaturity shown here? Absolutely, but more than anything this points to a flaw in our justice system and our ability to rehabilitate our citizens. This is not grounds for denying them the right to vote.\"I cited grounds for denying them voting rights in my previous argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.These are cited example in our legal code which enable states to strip citizens of their voting rights. I would flip your argument on it's face.It is more immoral to strip states of their rights, which are documented on the books at the federal levelthen it is to strip citizens of their voting rights. I'm sure there are judges out there that calculate the stripping of these rights into their final judgment. (Example: A judge sentencing a felon to 35 years in prison, and later being stripped of their voting rights rather then a more sever length of sentence with retained voting rights.)If Felons object to a lose in voting rights in that state, then they should move to another state that allows them to vote. Nobody is demanding that they stay; As long as it doesn't break their probation.There is a historic president for this. After the Civil War, many confederates left the southern states for the Great American Southwest. There, these traitors could remake themselves, elect representatives and build a society they wanted.---\"You also said that we do not let children vote. This is true and we do this for very good reasons. But we do let them vote when they no longer are classified as children. This is similar to having been released from prison. Upon serving your sentence it is assumed that you have taken the time in prison to think about your mistakes and learn from them, which is very similar to a child turning eighteen. After serving in prison you are supposed to be released and join society. Part of this means taking on the responsibility's that children face when turning into adults, including the responsibility of voting.\"You claim to care about children growing up and conducting themselves in a democracy. Wouldn't this contradict your account on the rights of citizens to retain full rights after they ‘serve' their time in jail?Rational: How do you feel about pedophiles rights? Is a judge saying, \"We need you to stay away from children\" outside his sentencing procedure? You can see the necessity in keeping pedophiles away from Middle Schools and Elementary Schools, right? But, in your legal system, a judge would not be allowed to do that. That sort of bias against pedophiles would be unconstitutional by your standards.And, as a reminder, it is constitutional to strip felons of their voting rights according to the article and two amendments I cited in my earlier argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.---\"Another point you made was that released inmates would 'manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means'. By saying this you are bringing up a point you had made earlier about felons having a 'pathological hatred for justice' which is simply not true. The majority of inmates do not 'hate' justice. When released many felons become one hundred percent normal citizens, with political opinions formed similar to the way that you and I form ours. And another point to be made about them 'manipulating' the justice system is that it would be virtually impossible. Released felons account for somewhere around two percent of the United States, so even if all of them had this hatred for justice that you mentioned (which they don't) it would simply not make a dent in our elections.\"The fact that felons, as you admitted, account for two percent of the United States population just means that the stripping of voting rights is good deterrent for people to not commit crime. You said that the majority of inmates do not \"‘hate'\" justice, but you have nothing to cite otherwise.---\"My final point for this round is I think my most important. One of the ideals that this country was founded on was 'No taxation without representation'. Upon being released from prison, felons are supposed to incorporate themselves into society, find a job, and pay taxes. One of the reasons that slogan exists is so the citizens could have a say as to where their tax dollars were being directed. Taxing felons and denying them this right is unconstitutional and immoral.\"Why should the American tax payer pay for the incarceration of these felons, but then be on an even keel with them when they are released. I say that you are the one trying to strip people of their rights. You are the one advocating the stripping of states rights, as guaranteed by the constitution, but then asking them to catch the bill of these felons. That is the true definition of taxation without representation.---\"There are many people in the United States who did some regrettable act when they were young, served time and upon being released found a job, and for dozens of years have been respectable members of society including paying their taxes. Should we deny them their right to vote upon some stupid thing they did that long ago?\"Yes. We should deny them their vote.A vote in favor of felons voting rights is a vote against taxpayers and state rights as guaranteed by:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.Vote Con.Thankyou, and Jesus bless America.", "title": "Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote.", "pid": "85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.4205322265625}, {"text": "In ordor to better form a flowing argument, I will boldface quotations from previous arguments and leave a line \"---\" to clarify a natural pause. If readers can recommend a better way to quote previous arguments then please leave a comment explaining the technicalities or a guide that details this.---\"Thank you for the link to the documentary, I watched it (parts one and two) and found it very insightful and although it did reinforce a few of the points you made I do find it disturbing that you are willing to form opinions off the basis of one documentary showing one situation.\"This video is the most recent, valid source I could find of people that showed a mentality that fundamentally opposed organized law. Whats more--A lot of these men were unconvinced, thus they still, technically, retained the right to vote. Citing this video was a way for me to express the prison culture of violence that is embedded into the minds of many ex-felons.Overall, There are many reasons for me formulating this opinion. This video does not encapsulate my entire morality foundations. Also, personal rational is not on debate. The legitamacy of stripping felons of their rights is the topic of this debate.---\"The people in that documentary are pre-trial, meaning that despite the fact that many have been there for years they have not yet served their debt to society. The purpose of being sentenced and serving time in prison is to over come these issues that they have dealing with normal members of society. Is it true that many of these felons will be released with the same immaturity shown here? Absolutely, but more than anything this points to a flaw in our justice system and our ability to rehabilitate our citizens. This is not grounds for denying them the right to vote.\"I cited grounds for denying them voting rights in my previous argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.These are cited example in our legal code which enable states to strip citizens of their voting rights. I would flip your argument on it's face.It is more immoral to strip states of their rights, which are documented on the books at the federal levelthen it is to strip citizens of their voting rights. I'm sure there are judges out there that calculate the stripping of these rights into their final judgment. (Example: A judge sentencing a felon to 35 years in prison, and later being stripped of their voting rights rather then a more sever length of sentence with retained voting rights.)If Felons object to a lose in voting rights in that state, then they should move to another state that allows them to vote. Nobody is demanding that they stay; As long as it doesn't break their probation.There is a historic president for this. After the Civil War, many confederates left the southern states for the Great American Southwest. There, these traitors could remake themselves, elect representatives and build a society they wanted.---\"You also said that we do not let children vote. This is true and we do this for very good reasons. But we do let them vote when they no longer are classified as children. This is similar to having been released from prison. Upon serving your sentence it is assumed that you have taken the time in prison to think about your mistakes and learn from them, which is very similar to a child turning eighteen. After serving in prison you are supposed to be released and join society. Part of this means taking on the responsibility's that children face when turning into adults, including the responsibility of voting.\"You claim to care about children growing up and conducting themselves in a democracy. Wouldn't this contradict your account on the rights of citizens to retain full rights after they ‘serve' their time in jail?Rational: How do you feel about pedophiles rights? Is a judge saying, \"We need you to stay away from children\" outside his sentencing procedure? You can see the necessity in keeping pedophiles away from Middle Schools and Elementary Schools, right? But, in your legal system, a judge would not be allowed to do that. That sort of bias against pedophiles would be unconstitutional by your standards.And, as a reminder, it is constitutional to strip felons of their voting rights according to the article and two amendments I cited in my earlier argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.---\"Another point you made was that released inmates would 'manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means'. By saying this you are bringing up a point you had made earlier about felons having a 'pathological hatred for justice' which is simply not true. The majority of inmates do not 'hate' justice. When released many felons become one hundred percent normal citizens, with political opinions formed similar to the way that you and I form ours. And another point to be made about them 'manipulating' the justice system is that it would be virtually impossible. Released felons account for somewhere around two percent of the United States, so even if all of them had this hatred for justice that you mentioned (which they don't) it would simply not make a dent in our elections.\"The fact that felons, as you admitted, account for two percent of the United States population just means that the stripping of voting rights is good deterrent for people to not commit crime. You said that the majority of inmates do not \"‘hate'\" justice, but you have nothing to cite otherwise.---\"My final point for this round is I think my most important. One of the ideals that this country was founded on was 'No taxation without representation'. Upon being released from prison, felons are supposed to incorporate themselves into society, find a job, and pay taxes. One of the reasons that slogan exists is so the citizens could have a say as to where their tax dollars were being directed. Taxing felons and denying them this right is unconstitutional and immoral.\"Why should the American tax payer pay for the incarceration of these felons, but then be on an even keel with them when they are released. I say that you are the one trying to strip people of their rights. You are the one advocating the stripping of states rights, as guaranteed by the constitution, but then asking them to catch the bill of these felons. That is the true definition of taxation without representation.---\"There are many people in the United States who did some regrettable act when they were young, served time and upon being released found a job, and for dozens of years have been respectable members of society including paying their taxes. Should we deny them their right to vote upon some stupid thing they did that long ago?\"Yes. We should deny them their vote.A vote in favor of felons voting rights is a vote against taxpayers and state rights as guaranteed by:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.Vote Con.Thankyou, and Jesus bless America.", "title": "Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote.", "pid": "85363321-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.4205322265625}, {"text": "Countries like our own are succeeding with letting their felons vote Half of all the European countries allow all current inmates to vote, and virtually all former inmates in Europe have full voting rights. Take Ireland for example. For elections in the Republic of Ireland, there is no disenfranchisement based on criminal conviction, and prisoners remain on the electoral register at their pre-imprisonment address. Prior to 2006, the grounds for postal voting did not include imprisonment, and hence those in prison on election day were in practice unable to vote, although those on temporary release could do so. In 2000 the High Court ruled that this breached the Constitution, and the government drafted a bill extending postal voting to prisoners on remand or serving sentences of less than six months.However, in 2001, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court ruling and the bill was withdrawn.After the 2005 ECHR ruling in the Hirst case, the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2006 was passed to allow postal voting by all prisoners. Also, judge, we have Germany, in which the law even calls on prisons to encourage prisoners to vote. Only those convicted of electoral fraud and crimes undermining the \"democratic order\", such as treason are barred from voting, while in prison. However, as soon as they are released from prison, they regain their voting rights! Now judge, i would like to mention how these countries are going in their criminal ways. According to a 2004 study done by Oxford Univ., former prisoners who vote are half as likely to re-offend, and so far, half of these European countries, whom are letting their felons vote, are having their repeating felons reduced by half. Judge, this shows that with letting their felons vote, these countries are not having repeated crimes! This is reducing the amount of crimes committed by ex-felons by HALF, Lets also think about this logically. these countries are both democracies, and their governments are very similar to ours. and yet, they are letting their felons vote. while letting their felons vote, they are not only reducing the amount of crimes occurring in their countries, but they are also letting more people have a say in who gets to govern over the people. How judge, how can this be harmful to anybody? and judge, as i will state in my 2nd cont., giving people a second chance does not hurt, and in some cases, it even provides benefits.", "title": "Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections", "pid": "e540288d-2019-04-18T16:49:57Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.34017944335938}, {"text": "First off, i would like to point out that my competitor used the U.S. as an example, and this resolution is not specific to any one democracy, nor is the ban of double jeopardy an inherent trait of democracy. I also would like to add that by losing the right to vote while in prison, felons are not \"retaining\" that right, because it has been lost for a period of time, therefore by arguing that felons should only have the right to vote after their process in the penitentiary system is finished, my competitor is validiting my side of the argument.", "title": "Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society", "pid": "c2a70fea-2019-04-18T19:34:28Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.33604431152344}, {"text": "I will first reply to his comment that only 2% of American population is not allowed to vote, he is saying that that isn't enough Americans worth fighting for, there are a total of 316.13 Americans in the U.S. Just 2% is a big chunk. Also what my opponent is clearly saying is that if lets say only 5 million Americans lets say, had any sort of rights violated, or needed help it doesn't matter. My opponents next argument is about prioritizing companies hiring the ex-felons rather then voting rights, I agree that getting them a job is important, so why not do both? All we have to do to allow them to vote is get a law passed or a bill or whatever may be needed to get them to vote, there is no reason why you can't prioritize both. Again in my case I specifically talk about how some felons go back to the economy and find jobs so of course that is on my side and has no impact onto he round. Here is part of the contention I posted earlier for reference. an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. His main point however is that we should teach them a lesson not to break the law, and I agree with that, but I don't see how removing voting rights will make them better citizens or effect them heavily, yes they would love to vote but removing voting rights isn't as sever a punishment as going to jail or being fined. The punishments already set for a felony are more then enough to teach them a lesson. \"Nineteen states \"may terminate the parental rights of convicted felons. \"In twenty-nine jurisdictions (includes states and the District of Columbia) being convicted of a felony is \"legal ground for divorce.\" \"In twenty-five jurisdictions, convicted felons can never hold public office. \"In six states a felon can never hold public employment. \"Federal law forbids felons from holding many government jobs or receiving federal contracts. \"In thirty-one jurisdictions convicted felons are permanently barred from serving on a jury. \"Federal law forbids all convicted felons from owning a firearm. \"Forty-six jurisdictions require former felons to register with local law enforcement. \"All sexual offenders must register with local law enforcement officials for at least ten years after release from prison; longer times for certain offenses. The names of those registered are made available to any member of the public. \"People convicted of a drug felony can be denied all forms of federal assistance, including food stamps. Although states can opt out or narrow the focus of these penalties, only twelve states have entirely rejected them; slightly more than half have narrowed the scope of these rules. \"Everyone convicted of a drug-related felony, and indeed, many former felons, can be denied access to federal housing. \"The Higher Education Act of 1998 suspends their eligibility for student loans for at least a year, even for simple possession; longer, for second offenses and for selling drugs. This loss of benefits may be reinstated if the person goes through an \"approved\" drug treatment program. The scope and significance of these collateral consequences show that the real world of punishment is far different from the one most people imagine. In this world a felon's debt to society is rarely paid in full. For these felons the Mark of Cain is permanent. The current punishment is just like my opponent wants it, deadly, strict, and hard to resolve, he wants to add even more punishments for felons in general and keep them restricted instead of helping them develop the qualities of a proper citizen to ensure crime is less. Felons have more then enough punishments so why not give them the right to vote? Also the only reason some felons are repeat offenders is because lack of job opportunities , \"Justice.gov shows that 50% of felons who could not secure any employment during the time of their supervised release (generally two-to-five years) committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release and were sent back to prison. However, an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. So since some find job opportunities and become citizens they should be allowed to vote, again I agree if we provide more job opportunities for ex-felons this method will be even more effective. So the clear solution is to help ex-felons returning to the society find jobs and again not all return to jail anyway. 4. Racial disfrenchment laws are still a big problem as I pointed out \"In America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. I also pointed out that if these people were allowed to vote it would have effected as much as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election. Conclusion: I agree that some level of punishment must be set for actions in order to ensure order and tranquility continute to be established, however I believe the current punishments are more then enough and that crimes committed at a order age, either due to the influence from their environment or stealing food because they are poor and hungry shouldn't make them lose the right to vote in the future. Sources: 1. http://www.bing.com... 2.http://www.justice.gov... 3.http://www.hughlafollette.com...", "title": "Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote", "pid": "d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.30027770996094}, {"text": "I regret that my opponent has forfeited this round as I enjoyed the debate.", "title": "In a democratic society, felons out to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "68fed5c1-2019-04-18T19:35:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.26480102539062}, {"text": "Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called \"civil death\" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.”(1)“5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.”(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/5,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) Sourceshttp://www.ncsl.org... Comment if interested.", "title": "R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "7da97fb8-2019-04-18T14:19:59Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.23365783691406}, {"text": "Generally, PRO goes first. However, if you accept this debate, then you forfeit your right to go second and will therefore go first (I don't feel like going first) Felony disenfranchisement is the term used to describe the practice of prohibiting people from voting based on the fact that they have been convicted of a felony. I stand against felon disenfranchisement, convince me otherwise [...]", "title": "Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "cfa9c036-2019-04-18T19:26:00Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.22569274902344}, {"text": "Rules: Clarification: Minor as in like, a crime as a child, minor theft, driving away from a car wreck out of fear, basically anything that isn't huge like rape, or murder. Childhood crime could be minor theft. 1. Try not to forfeit. 2. have fun 3. go by resolution", "title": "Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote", "pid": "d57ca0db-2019-04-18T15:34:22Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.17604064941406}, {"text": "Obviously we shouldn't jail people forever (unless they have committed a VERY serious crime) which is why we have the 8th amendment. However, stripping them of their right to vote is cruel and unnecessary punishment. Voting is not a privilege, voting is a right. If you were born in a country you have the right to vote in elections. Would you argue that the right to a fair and speedy trial is a privilege? Or that the 2nd amendment is a privilege? Or that the 1st amendment and all our freedoms are just privileges? Who are we to say that felons don't have good morals? Thomas Jefferson had slaves, he wasn't felon but I wouldn't argue those are good morals. Donald Trump grabs women by the p*ssy. He isn't a felon but I would't argue those are good morals either. People make mistakes, people also commit horrible crimes. But regardless, we can't dehumanize them. We can't say, \"Oh you committed tax fraud? You are no longer an American citizen! Haha, go to jail and when you come out you don't get to vote because you don't count anymore.\" We don't get to decide who votes to benefit ourselves. We allow the democratic process to occur because we are a democracy. You serve your time in jail and then you are released. Your punishment should be over.", "title": "You Choose the Topic!", "pid": "36c2c315-2019-04-18T11:41:22Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.14723205566406}, {"text": "um...my opponent barley responded. Extend my arguments again. I clearly won this round.", "title": "in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote", "pid": "c9139d24-2019-04-18T19:32:47Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.12155151367188}, {"text": "Extend my arguments", "title": "ex felons should be able to vote", "pid": "d8496939-2019-04-18T16:39:08Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.07638549804688}, {"text": "This is an infringement on equality because felons are in fact not equal with the rest of the citizens. And in a democracy, everyone has to be equal, or it is no longer a democracy. Punishment is for people to learn from mistakes. If felons are punished by taking their right to vote away FOREVER, then they will never learn becasuse they wont have that chance to learn. In a democracy everyone must have equal rights and the same individual rights.", "title": "In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "cb1a30bc-2019-04-18T19:35:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.0296173095703}, {"text": "Whoever excepts this debate please have some knowledge of how LD debate works. The Affirmitive side always goes first so whoever excepts this challenge should go first.", "title": "In a Democratic Society Felons ought to Retain the Right to Vote", "pid": "d9cbf4c0-2019-04-18T19:33:26Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.99612426757812}, {"text": "My sincere condolences are extended to opponent, as surely only a crisis of major propositions would have prevented him from typing the word \"Continued\" some time within the three day response period. Proponents for felons retaining the right to vote often suppose that withholding the right must be either punishment or retribution. Such is not the case. We imprison serial killers not only on grounds of punishment or retribution, we imprison them to prevent them from committing similar bad acts. Depriving a felon of the right to vote is unlikely to be a significant punishment to discourage criminal behavior. Even as retribution it would be trivial. However, removing the right to vote prohibits the felon from committing the bad act of voting for a candidate because the candidate is likely to weaken the justice system. As an example, consider the famous Willie Horton case http://forerunner.com... that came up during the 1988 presidential campaign. Michael Dukakis opposed George H.W.Bush. Willie Horton was a convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. However, as governor of Massachusetts Dukakis permitted Horton to be let out of prison on a furlough program that Dukakis thought would aid rehabilitation. During a furlough, Horton murdered another person. As governor, Dukakis commuted so many sentences for first-degree murder that the time actually served for life without parole was 19 years. (op. cit.) I have no doubt that Governor Dukakis was sincere in his belief that leniency leads to rehabilitation. However, felons will certainly want leniency regardless of whether rehabilitation occurs or not. The recidivism rate proves that most often it does not occur. We may therefore suppose that allowing felons to vote would sway close elections to the side of leniency, particularly when issues other than the justice system dominate the campaign. Felons should not have the right to vote in the interests of pursuing a life of crime. Suppose that there are no criminal justice issues evident in a campaign. We know that many convicted felons are characteristically averse to working for a living. They are therefore likely to vote for whichever candidate promises the largest amount of unqualified government benefits. This is also contrary to the interests of ordinary voters, who are likely to be willing to help the poor, but unlikely to want to support criminals. For these reasons, the resolution should be rejected.", "title": "Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote", "pid": "e2b0dc54-2019-04-18T19:35:06Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.98321533203125}, {"text": "I extend all my arguments.", "title": "R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "7da97fb8-2019-04-18T14:19:59Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.9823455810547}, {"text": "I extend all arguments.", "title": "R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "7da97fb8-2019-04-18T14:19:59Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.93939208984375}, {"text": "Voting is a right, but not an unconstrained one. The right to vote is not granted to those under the age of eighteen. That age limitation demonstrates that voting rights may be restricted when there is reason to doubt the potential voter's good judgment. Resident aliens are excluded from voting on the grounds that their interests are not necessarily coincident with the interests of ordinary citizens. Convicted felons are another class of citizens whose judgment is reasonably called into question. The interests of convicted felons are likely to be contrary to the interests of citizens as a whole, who want to be protected from criminals. The U.S. Constitution does not grant individual citizens the right to vote for president. The electors for the President are determined by state legislators *by any means*; Clearly, the Constitution does not make voting in a preeminent right. The Constitution defines a republic, which generally subordinates the right to vote upon legislation to voting for legislators. There are clauses granting equal rights based based upon race and religion, and equal voting rights based upon gender, but there is nothing that prevents voting restrictions based upon other criteria. Non-citizens are also excluded from voting. That is because the interests of non-citizens are likely to diverge from those of citizens on some important issues. The argument that the interests of criminals diverges from that of ordinary citizens is stronger than that for non-citizens. Convicted criminals have demonstrated where their interests lie, but for non-citizens it is only a reasonable supposition. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall claimed that once a prison sentence is served, that felons have \"fully paid their debt to society\" [1] However, being a jurist qualifies one to interpret laws, not to make them. Whether or not felons have fully paid there debt is a matter to be determined by law, and ultimately of the values of society as reflected in the lawmaking processes. For example, convicted sex offenders must register with the government and are restricted from certain interactions with children. The \"three strikes and you are out\" laws identify career criminals and remove them from society. The justification for both sex-offender registration and \"three strikes\" is that convicted felons are more likely to commit additional crimes than persons without a criminal record. One can argue what the correct level of continuing debt to society ought to be, but the fact that convicted felons are more likely to commit crimes is unquestionable. The U.S. Bureau of Justice reports that \"over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years\" [2]. Note that the two-thirds only reflects released felons who where caught within three years. It does not count those who committed crimes but were not arrested. Overall, only about 45 percent of violent crimes are solved, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics [3] Factoring in the criminals not caught, we may reasonably suppose that the true recidivism rate is in the neighborhood of 85 or 90 percent. Because recidivism rates are so high, the debt to society at the heart of this issue is not with respect to serving a sentence for a particular crime, it is in having adopted a criminal lifestyle. The convicted felon ought to have the obligation of establishing that his interests have become aligned with those of ordinary citizens and contrary to those with a criminal lifestyle. For example, that might be established after ten years without an arrest for a felony. It is not established by release from prison. Only eight states currently prohibit convicted felons from voting for life. Two states (Vermont and Maine) permit felons to vote while in prison. Thirty-three states remove the franchise while convicted felons are on parole. Thus even if one accepts Thurgood Marshall's argument that voting rights should be restored after felons have paid their debt, it is not mainly about criminals who have done so. The issue is mainly about criminals who are in prison or on parole and have not paid their debt. Criminal rights advocates claims that in the 2000 election in Florida, that felons would likely have swayed the presidential election to John Kerry and away from George Bush. They claim that preventing that was undemocratic. There is no doubt that in a close elections the votes of those with an established criminal lifestyle voting for someone they feel to be in their interests could determine the outcome of an election. That, however, is a powerful argument that justice demands that election not be determined by such people. Criminal rights advocates claim that fencing off a certain voter demographic is a fundamentally unjust principle. In reality, it depends upon the reason for fencing off the demographic. People under the age of 18 are fenced off on the reasonable grounds that in general they lack the knowledge and experience to cast an informed vote. Note that this is done despite some seventeen-year-olds being more informed than some citizens who are fifty or sixty. The fencing off is justified because the odds are so heavily against it. Similarly, not all convicted felons remains committed to the criminal lifestyle. But with about 85% recidivism, the odds are much against it. Therefore, it is reasonable and just to identify the demographic and exclude them. Convicted felons are an identifiable target for politicians, who can seek votes by making various promises to tilt the justice system in favor of criminals. Politicians are clever enough not to go to prisons to make the appeal directly, as that would alienate other voters. They would use surrogates who espouse \"improving\" the justice system by weakening it. Even if no targeted appeal were made, criminals would figure out for themselves which candidate was most likely to facilitate their criminal lifestyle. Crime victims are also an identifiable demographic. However, victims are less likely to vote based upon the single issue of weakening the justice system. For example, victims are citizens who worry about the health of the general economy because a good economy facilitates their making a living. A criminal lifestyle, however, is only facilitated by weakening the justice system. The issue has frequently posed as one in which removing the right to vote is either punishment or retribution. This a false dichotomy. A completely separate reason for imprisoning criminals is to keep them from doing further harm. That is why convicted felons should not be allowed to vote. We should not want people whose primary interest is in pursuing a criminal lifestyle determining the outcome of close elections. 1. http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu... Richardson v. Ramerez, in which three ex-felons sued to restore their voter registration. The applicants lost the case. 2. Bureau of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov... Recidivism 3. http://www.ncpa.org... National Center for Policy Analysis, Violent Crime Clearance Rate http://www.ncpa.org...", "title": "In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote.", "pid": "3771ef2c-2019-04-18T19:30:15Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.93765258789062}, {"text": "I hold all three contentions. Seeing as my opponent has forfeited the round i think it's only fair that i too do that. I trust that he probably had something more important to do and couldn't find time to debate.", "title": "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "e5aaa393-2019-04-18T19:35:11Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.92800903320312}, {"text": "Since you must have had something important going I will also miss this round to keep things fair. I hope you have not quit this debate. I hope the judges do not dock points.", "title": "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "e5aaa355-2019-04-18T19:35:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.91114807128906}, {"text": "i need help :[ with this topic..", "title": "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "8fdec11b-2019-04-18T19:35:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.8902587890625}, {"text": "I negate the resolution: Felons Ought to Retain the right to vote. My value for determining this is social contract. My criterion for this is the ability of the social contract to uphold societal welfare. Contention 1: By breaking the social contract, citizens have forfeighted their right to vote. By granting any felon the right to vote would contradict the purpose of the social contract.", "title": "Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society", "pid": "c2a70fea-2019-04-18T19:34:28Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.86895751953125}, {"text": "Look forward to a great confrontation in round 3! BOPNow, my opponent's case is that felons should be able to vote; logically, this means we should restore voting rights for all felons, and that future felons would not be penalized by removing their right. My opponent bears sole BOP, which means he is responsible to prove that felons should be able to vote. If he fails to do so, or I demonstrate any situation where a felon should not be allowed to vote, I would win. Contention 1 - Government is just, and its powers derive from societyThomas Jefferson says it best in the Declaration of Independence, \"All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness\". The idea of God-given rights form the cornernstone of American justice and a key part of traditional American values. Jefferson continues: \" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed\". That is, government exists to protect rights. Its powers, when derived from and held by the people, are just. This includes, by nature, the power to punish those who violate rights. Contention 2 - Punishment consists of revoking of rightsWhat does punishment entail? In general, the idea in common law is that punishment should fit the crime - that is, the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment. The most common methods of securing punishment - those society has, throughout our history, deemed most just - are through fines, community service, and imprisonment. Outside of a governmental context, these all would be crimes. If I were to forcibly take money from you, require you to work without pay, or lock you in a small room and make it impossible for you to leave, I would be arrested. But, for governments, this is fine. Why? Because when you violate the law, you forfeit rights. Essentially, by refusing to respect the rights of others, you lose some of yours. Loss of voting privileges is just another way to punish people. It's serious nature connotes the seriousness of the crime. Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal opportunity says \"It makes sense that felons should lose their right to vote. You don’t have a right to make the laws if you aren’t willing to follow them yourself. To participate in self-government, you must be willing to accept the rule of law. We don’t let everyone vote – not children, not noncitizens, not the mentally incompetent. There are certain minimum and objective standards of trustworthiness, responsibility, and commitment to our laws that we require before people are entrusted with a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. Those who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. \"[1]Contention 3 - Voting rights should only be revoked for violent criminals. One area of common ground might be that there are many people who are felons that do no deserve that connotation. Felonies should be limited to the most serious crimes - things like arson, sex crimes (rape, child rape, incest), murder, and treason. In the past and presents, states have been too loose in regards to drug crimes. People can become felons for what should be minor drug crimes, if they should even be crimes at all. The definition of 'felon' should be reduced to violent or treasonous crimes - the most despicable and terrible of actions. It is on firm ground to say a convincted child rapist, murderer, or rapist has forfeited his right to decide laws for others through his actions. These violent criminals have rejected society and its laws, and society is well within its rights to reject them. Contention 4 - Rights could be restored through an arbitration committeeAfter a felon has served their time, it might be reasonable to consider returning their right to vote. This would not be automatic - it might be handled in a similar way to how we handle parole - there might be a voting board, which would thoroughly vet the person to determine if they are truly sorry for what they have done and are committed to living by the laws of society. This would provide incentive for felons to reform - they will be accepted back into society if they are willing to accept the laws that the government of the people has made. ConclusionIn short, there is nothing wrong with restricting voting rights for felons. It works with the American legal tradition, and is a reasonable way to punish those who have decided to reject the laws of society. While the definition of 'felon' might need to be smaller, and a system to allow restoration of rights might be reasonable, there is no reason a pedophile or murderer should be allowed to decide the laws of a society he plainly rejected. References:1. . http://www.ceousa.org...;", "title": "R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "7da97fb8-2019-04-18T14:19:59Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.8640594482422}, {"text": "again my opponent seems to be absent, therefor this debate will have to be again postponed until a later date", "title": "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "e5aaa393-2019-04-18T19:35:11Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.85870361328125}, {"text": "I took the core value assumed by Pro to be achieving justice. Pro claimed, \"The creation of justice, by preserving the democratic society, is the pathway towards the achievement of the perfect democracy.\" Now Pro seems to claim that justice should be defined as whatever democracy produces, no matter how unjust. The vote of cannibals provides a simple example of the fact that democracy does always achieve justice. Moreover, the fact that democracy does not achieve justice is reflected in the U.S. Constitution by its establishing a republic, by using a system of electors chosen by state legislators \"by any means,\" and by having a Bill of Rights that protects individuals from unfettered democracy. Moreover, the exclusion of minors and the exclusion of non-citizens is done to foster justice at the expense of unfettered democracy. Pro made no argument that justice would be achieved by expanding democracy. In his opening statement Pro asserted \"If all of these Voters were re-enfranchised and 1726 more of those voters cast ballots in favor of Al Gore Rather than George Bush the presidential election would have turned another way.\" then in rebuttal he contradicts himself by asserting \"Also felons are only 2% of the population not enough to win an election.\" Pro was correct in his first assertion, and the numbers Pro recited prove that 2% more than enough to swing an election. Pro asserts that recidivism rates are \"mere speculation.\" It is not speculation that convicted felons still have a substantial interest in preserving a criminal lifestyle. When about 60% are rearrested and more are not caught, that is solid proof that they maintain that interest. It would be a fine idea to exclude felons who have never been caught from voting, but the lack of a practical way of doing that does not mean we should honor the judgment of those we know to have interests in weakening the justice system. Pro asserts that the only purposes of imprisonment are punishment and rehabilitation. I refuted that at the outset. An additional purpose is to prevent the offender from committing additional bad acts upon the public. Denying the vote to a convicted felon prevents the felon from committing the bad act of fostering criminal interests through the voting process. That can, fortunately, be prevented without imprisonment. Note that the proposition restores the vote to felon who are in jail or on parole, yet Pro seems to insist that the issue is solely about those who have completed their sentences. The fundamental error in the Pro position is the assumption that greater democracy always means greater justice. Clearly it does not. I therefore urge a vote against the proposition.", "title": "Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote", "pid": "e2b0dc54-2019-04-18T19:35:06Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.8484649658203}, {"text": "My opponent has conceded his points to me because of forfeit. Please vote neg.", "title": "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "e5aaa3b2-2019-04-18T19:34:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.83895874023438}, {"text": "Wow.I was looking forward to a great debate. I don't feel as though I need to post another argument here, I summed up my points and they were not refuted. Due to the fact that my arguments stand on their own I have negated the resolution and hope that you VOTE CON. Thank - you.", "title": "ToC:Resolved in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "52f90272-2019-04-18T19:19:15Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.8292999267578}, {"text": "Forfeit I have no arguments, and I have too much work to continue this. Thanks for debating anyway.", "title": "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote", "pid": "8fdf3cdd-2019-04-18T19:32:52Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.82284545898438}, {"text": "I affirm the resolution \"in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote\" For the purposes of clarification I would like to define the following terms Democracy-government by the people Felon-any person who has committed a felony Retain-to keep All of these definitions came from the Webster's dictionary I would now like to offer the following value of Equality Equality is defined as the right of all people to have the same opportunity as everyone else in this case voting. Equality is essential because if you don't have equality in a democratic society then it isn't a true democracy because all people don't have the right to have a say in that society. To accompany my value is would like to offer the criterion of Mills Marketplace of Ideas This criterion pertains to the resolution because it states that the best or most accurate idea comes from when all people have a say in an idea. This is perfect for a democracy because it lets all people have a say in the democracy. And when the most people have a say then the best outcome happens and this is the best thing for society. Moving on to my first contention Felons wouldn't use their votes for election fraud. The argument that a felon would commit election fraud with his/her vote is an invalid argument for many reasons. First there aren't enough felons to significantly create a large scale fraud. Second they have no reason to. There is evidence to support this Harvard Law Review 1 says In their most straight forward incarnations, these two concerns have been expressed respectively, as a fear that ex-convicts might use their votes to alter the content or administration of the criminal law as a relief that the disqualification of former felons is necessary to guard against vote fraud and related election offenses. No evidence suggests that ex-felons would base their votes solely, or even partially, on candidate's positions on penal issues rather than other matters of policy and politics. Furthermore, even if ex-offenders were to base their votes on matters of criminal justice, it does not follow that their positions on these matters necessarily would be more permissive that those of the population as a whole., regardless of how they might vote on issues of crime and the administration of justice, ex-felons are unlikely to constitute more than a tiny percentage of the population, and thus are electorally insignificant. What this means is that supporters of disenfranchisement argue that, having shown a propensity to break the law felons are more likely to violate the particular prohibition against election fraud. Whether or not this characterization holds true, however a blanket exclusion of all ex-offenders and felons in order to protect society from those who would commit electoral offenses is clearly over inclusive. Other, less restrictive means of preventing vote fraud exist. This relates to my value because it states that since felons would not use their votes to alter the validity of the ballot box that they should have the same opportunity as everyone else. This brings me to my second contention Disenfranchisement works against rehabilitation. Disenfranchisement hurts felons because it takes away their right to have a say in their society. It also works against the prison systems attempts to rehabilitate the prisoners. This claim is validated by Harvard Law Review 2 which says Disenfranchisement of offenders simultaneously justifies and is justified by and idea that deviants are the source and embodiment of corruption, pollution, and moral turpitude: that they can and must be isolated, fenced out, and politically sterilized. As they are not we, their impurities are not ours. Self-congratulation of this sort may comfort, but does not heal. Disenfranchisement should be recognized and rejected as an atavistic, self-perpetuating reflex that serves no legitimate purpose. Disenfranchisement indisputably harms the stigmatized offender. Disenfranchisement also shows that people have little faith in the rehabilitation attempts of the prison systems. It shows the prisoners that society thinks that they cannot be trusted to make a decision about the way that they would want to live. There is evidence to support this Harvard Law Review 3 says The very premise of lifelong disenfranchisement, that a former offender must never again participate in the political life of the community, indicates that society has less faith in the rehabilitatative possibilities of the prison that its rhetoric might suggest. Regardless of whether the penal system can attain the goal of rehabilitation, pretending that we are doing something we are not does not advance the debate. Such pretence merely advances an illusion of enlightenment, which serves only to mask the brutal nature of the prison from those who incarcerate others. What this means is that by disenfranchising felons we are degrading them in a society and working against rehabilitation. It also shows that people have little faith in the governmental programs in the prisons as well. This relates to my value because if you begin to work against people then you begin to separate them from the equality of the society which leads me to my third contention Disenfranchisement helps support discrimination. When a felon has their right to vote revoked it leads to other discriminations against that felon. It is also shown that disenfranchisement is driven by racism so it is in fact discriminatory there is evidence to support this Harvard law review 4 says the notion that criminality springs solely from hopelessly different moral defectives blinds us to the social and political components of crime. As long as crime is conceived of as \"their\" problem rather than ours, amelioration of its causes will remain an impossible task. Legislators in states that disenfranchise offenders should consider carefully the meanings and effects of this exclusionary regulation. As a discriminatory practice based on irrational fears and destructive stereotypes, disenfranchisement has no place in an American community. Disenfranchisement is a symbol, and it is the wrong sort of symbol to legitimate in law. It is a symbol of rejection, not reconciliation; a symbol of difference, rather than commonality; a symbol of domination instead of equality. What this evidence proves is that Disenfranchisement separates felons from the rest of society by sending a symbol of domination over the felons. This relates to my value because when you have dominion in a society it can never fully reach its potential because someone's voice is always going to be left out but when you have equality then no one gets discriminated against and everyone becomes successful it is for all of these reasons that I urge an affirmative ballot thank you.", "title": "In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote", "pid": "b20f7665-2019-04-18T19:34:59Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.81256103515625}, {"text": "Rebuttals: Con states that “First off, Felons already have voting rights when they get out of prison.” I noted this in round one. There are some cases where voting rights are restored after the sentence is served, but not always. This is also off-point as I am arguing that felons should not have to regain their right, I am asserting they should retain/ never have lost the right to vote. Contention 1; Dishonesty and Poor Character. Con states \"We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgment... “ We don’t let children vote, it’s true. I disagree that it is due to us not trusting their judgement. Rather it is their inability to reason. This is due to the Pre-frontal cortex of the brain not being fully developed. (1)(2) Non-citizens don’t vote it is true, not because we don’t trust them, but rather because voting is part of the social contract of which non-citizens are not a part of. Con than asks “do criminals belong in that category?” I am assuming the category being children, noncitizens, or mentally incompetent. Clearly felons should not. Felons are not children, are citizens, and if mentally incompetent would have made the insanity plea. Thus Felons do not fit in this category. We see contention one is negated. Contention 2; Congressional Authority over Voting Much of this contention merely states the status quo, not support for it. I have shown in my argument why the status ought to be changed. Merely stating the status quo does not negate or support Con’s Argument. Con argues that “the fundamental reason we do not let felons vote is that we have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility, trustworthiness and loyalty to our laws that must be met before someone can participate in the sacred enterprise of self-government.” This is in contrast to America’s fundamental principles of Government. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Con has added a multitude of criteria to vote that is un-necessary. The only legitimate government gets its consent from the governed. If felons can’t vote, they can’t give consent. Thus, making the government that takes away the right to vote illegitimate. We ought not have an illegitimate government. Thus Felons should retain the right to vote. Overview: Con has argued against the resolution essentially as follows…. 1: Felons fit into a category with the mentally underdeveloped, handicapped, or non-citizens and thus should not have voting rights. 2: Felons under the status quo do not have the right to vote and thus should not have the right to vote. 3: To have voting rights you must meet the specific criteria she lists. Number one is entirely untrue and dismissed. Number two is just a statement of the status quo not support for it. Number 3 is arbitrary and thus not strong support to negate. (1) http://www.wisegeek.org... (2) http://hrweb.mit.edu...", "title": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.80372619628906}, {"text": "My opponent forfeited the round so I thought I didn't have to attack the round. My opponent didn't disagree that because he forfeited he agreed with all my points so the neg in this debate has clearly won please vote neg.", "title": "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "e5aaa3b2-2019-04-18T19:34:25Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.79531860351562}, {"text": "Alright lol i tried LD once last year so i'll go against you. Put your pro case up.", "title": "In a democratic society felons ought to retain teh right to vote.", "pid": "41f862a6-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.7652587890625}, {"text": "Overview of my case: We live in a society that accepts… 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting Con has claimed voting to not be a right. This misses the mark, as while I do argue that voting is a right my main argument is that the governments function is to protect and ensure rights and that the government can only do so legitimately through the consent of the governed. Voting is how that consent is given. Thus the impact of taking the vote away from felons is 1: Government cannot receive legitimate power through consent of the governed if the governed cannot vote. 2: Without consent or power the government cannot secure unalienable rights Con asks what I intended by my Power of the People segment stating “ Are you trying to say that if the government takes away a right, the people will rebel? ” This is not at all what that portion of my argument is stating. Rather, I am stating that our society accepts that the people give power to the government through consent. Without consent people cannot give the government consent. Overview of Con’s case: Con has argued against the resolution essentially as follows…. 1: Felons fit into a category with the mentally underdeveloped, handicapped, or non-citizens and thus should not have voting rights. 2: Felons under the status quo do not have the right to vote and thus should not have the right to vote. 3: To have voting rights you must meet the specific criteria she lists. Number one is entirely untrue and dismissed. Number two is just a statement of the status quo not support for it. Number 3 is arbitrary and thus not strong support to negate. Conclusion: It becomes clear that If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. Thanks for reading, vote Pro!", "title": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.75454711914062}, {"text": "Legislatures in 16 states have loosened voting restrictions on felons over the last decade, according to a new report, a trend hailed by some rights advocates as a step toward democratic principles and fairness, especially for black Americans. What voting restrictions, if any, should be placed on felons? Because of their high incarceration rate, blacks are most affected by the voting bans that vary widely among the states, with many barring current inmates and parolees from voting until they have fulfilled their sentences, and some barring felons for life. In recent years, Iowa, Nebraska and New Mexico have repealed their lifetime bans on voting by people who have been convicted of felonies, and several other states made it easier for freed prisoners or those on probation to vote, according to the report, issued yesterday by the Sentencing Project, a liberal advocacy group in Washington. The recent changes have restored voting rights to more than 600,000 individuals, the report said. But because the country's prison population has continued to rise, a record number of Americans, 5.3 million, are still denied the vote because of criminal records, it concluded. \"It's good news that many people who'd been disqualified from voting are being re-engaged as citizens,\" said Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and a leader of the movement to smooth the re-entry of prisoners to society. \"I think people are realizing that the country had gone too far in marginalizing a large group of people who have been convicted of felonies,\" Mr. Travis said. \"This has had profound consequences for our democracy and the participation of minorities.\" But some conservatives remain philosophically opposed to any wholesale loosening of voting restrictions. \"If you're not willing to follow the law, then you shouldn't't claim the right to make the law for someone else,\" said Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative advocacy group in Washington. Mr. Clegg, who was a senior Justice Department official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, said that those convicted of felonies should be given the vote only case by case, when they have proved to be constructive members of society. Some restrictions on voting date to the early years of the country or to the post-Civil-War period, while others were tightened during the \"get tough on crime\" era of the 1980's. By federal law, voter rules are mainly set by the states. As a result, even in presidential elections, former prisoners can vote in some states but not others. Only two states, Maine and Vermont, have no restrictions, even permitting inmates to vote. At the other extreme, three states, Florida, Kentucky and Virginia, still have lifetime bans on voting by felons. Nine others bar selected groups of offenders for life. New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, like most states, do not allow current inmates or parolees to vote. In a ballot initiative in Rhode Island this November, voters will decide whether to restore voting rights to prisoners on parole or probation, who far outnumber inmates. Early polls show public support for the measure. Advocates of change emphasize broad arguments about democratic process, but the racial disparities give the issue a special resonance and raise questions about the representation of minorities in politics. In 2004, one in eight black men were unable to vote because of a felony conviction, the report said, a rate many times higher than that for other groups. Felony convictions have left one in four black men barred from voting in five states: Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Virginia and Wyoming, said Ryan S. King, author of the report and a policy analyst at the Sentencing Project. But Mr. Clog argued that the voting restrictions were applied evenhandedly, and that just because they had a disproportionate impact on one group, that did not make them racially discriminatory. Though data on felon voting patterns are murky, a large majority of former prisoners are believed to lean Democratic. Even with a low turnout rate, their participation could make a difference in close races, experts say. Florida's rules, for example, might have been a factor in the 2000 presidential election. Most black voters in Florida say that the state should overturn the law that prevents a half-million people of all races from casting a ballot because they are convicted felons, a St. Petersburg Times poll shows. The survey says that nine of 10 black voters in Florida think that felons who pay their debt to society should automatically have their voting right restored. Florida is one of nine states that deny the right to vote to all convicted felons who have served their time. Felons can have their rights restored by appealing to the governor and Cabinet, often a lengthy process. Support for a change to the state law is uniformly high among men and women, Republicans and Democrats, and all age groups, according to a survey of 600 African-Americans conducted by Washington-based Schroth and Associates for the St. Petersburg Times. Florida's law has been part of the state's political landscape since the 1800s and has spurred a federal class-action lawsuit against the governor and spawned several legislative efforts to overturn it. The law disproportionately impacts blacks, who tend to vote Democratic. Indeed, some research suggests that ex-felons of all races lean toward the Democratic Party. Some experts contend a change could have a big political effect in a state that was shown during last year's presidential race to be closely divided between Republicans and Democrats. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law estimates that 500,000 felons in Florida are affected by the law. Of those, 139,000 are black people, according to the center. Christopher Uggen, a University of Minnesota sociologist who has studied the political consequences of felon disenfranchisement laws, contends that Gore would have won Florida if felons would have been allowed to vote last year. He also speculates that Florida's retired U.S. Sen. Connie Mack probably would not have won his close 1988 election if felons had been allowed to vote. However, lawyers for Gov. Jeb Bush's office have argued that the number of people who can't vote because of the law is much lower than the 500,000 cited by opponents. State Rep. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, has filed two bills that would give felons their voting rights one year after they satisfy all sentences. Four similar bills are filed in the Senate. All are assigned to several committees -- a sign that they might have tough going in the GOP-controlled Legislature. But Smith said House Speaker Tom Feeney has floated a compromise that would allow ex-felons to apply to a local judge for clemency. Feeney was not available to comment. House Majority Leader Mike Fasano said he was unaware of any compromise offers, adding that he thought the state's present clemency process is adequate. The Republican caucus has not taken a stance on the bills though, Fasano said, and he expected vigorous committee discussion on them. Whether the bills make it to the floor of the Republican-dominated body depends on the committee chairs, he said. Gov. Bush's Select Election Task Force also has identified the issue as critical and referred it to the Legislature for review and possible action.", "title": "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "e5aaa355-2019-04-18T19:35:37Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 217.75302124023438}, {"text": "I too thank you for this debate. It has been a good one with a direction of a good finish. Good luck! Value Clash: My opponent made a claim that the values are the same thus it is a tie here. But this is not true at all. They ARE the same, but only CON achieves it. This is because throughout the process of a person being a citizen, and a person being a citizen with a felony, people are equally treated. All citizens can be felons; however, we only take the right of voting away from those who actually commit a felony. Therefore, the CON side achieves the value of Equality/Fairness. Criterion of Just Deserts: Here, you assume that the court's sentence means that they are off scott free. This is not true. There can be (an is) more than one punishment for being a convicted criminal/felon. Just like a convicted sex offender must register as such, a felon can't vote. Just like a restraining order can be issued against someone who commits a crime against someone, a felon can't cast a vote FOR society when he/she has already gone against it. The criterion serves its purpose as such: If you commit a felony against our society, you lose the right to have your voice (vote) heard on how the society is run. And thus, we are FAIR (equal) in our system. Since the resolution talks about a theoretical situation, I must admit that we are not being fair/equal to the people as of now (states Maine and Vermont vs. Mississippi). However, in each of these states, one another ARE treated equally to each other. Furthermore, I advocate that ALL felons should not get the vote back. Therefore, I urge that the government recognizes everyone as equal by having additional punishments of not being able to vote after committing a penalty. The value still stands on the CON side. Here, you make two interesting points worth addressing. 1) You assume that all of these elections are only federal elections. But the right to vote goes beyond just the national level it also has state and local elections. In one city, the mayor race was won by one vote. In another election, a school board race was tied and decided by a coin flip. What if instead of a coin flip, it was a felon who decided. Has the felon really earned that right? 2) Also, you assume that 2% of the vote and 2% of the population are the same. For example, you say that the closest presidential race was 2% so that means it's 2% of the vote. 2% of the vote very well could be substantially under the 5.3 million people that have committed a felony. --> Besides this, the biggest question you have to be asking yourself is \"Have these felons earned the right to vote? The answer is no. Contention 1: To be honest, a crime against society = a person not deserving to be a part of that society. But since that isn't a political option, removing their right to help run society (through their vote) is the best way to say \"If you commit a crime against society, you can't decide how society is going to be run.\" Therefore, they do get what they deserve. Perhaps they do deserve to be exported after committing a felony, but that is non-resolutional. So for now, let's just take away their right to vote. Contention 2: I think you misinterpret the point of my argument. You see, felons wouldn't ALWAYS be the swing vote, however, sometime they will be (whether local, state, or federal election). And when they are, you must ask yourself, do they really have to right to have a say in the same government and society that they go against, the answer is NO. Contention 3: You do not have to qualify in order to vote, but you can't be unqualified. The law states that the ‘right of voting can not be denied because of' (several things). This means that it can be denied for other reasons such as felonies. And as long as this law has been around, no abuse has been created. You can't vote if you're not 18 (excluding some rarities in state laws) and you can't vote if you're a felon (also excluding some rare state laws). These are ways to be able to lose your vote, but you don't have to qualify by passing tests or having money, it is guaranteed unless you're not registered, not 18, or not a felon. I see no abuse in the system and my opponent has not pointed out any abuse so this argument must be flowed to the CON side. HIS CASE: Contention 1: Again, felons wouldn't control all of the elections, but they will be the swing vote in several of them. Once again, they do not deserve this right. Contention 2: Woah woah woah, where is your evidence that says that felons that can vote have a 50% less chance of committing a crime. This claim is abusive and unrealistic. Other than that, my opponent claims that felons have the right to have their voice heard. Even though he doesn't say why they deserve to have their voice heard (I have proved the opposite (crime against society = no voice in society)). Contention 3: This argument is completely abusive. Amendments talk about why rights CAN'T be taken away, not who we guarantee them to. Felons are not one of the reasons to be able to take it away, so legally, CON wins. Even though they're minorities by definition, everyone is capable of being one and no one is born one. Becoming a felony is a CHOICE, and they are assumed to know the consequences of making that choice particularly in the states that outlaw a felony from voting. Analysis: Democracy STILL exists whether pro or con wins. This criterion is thus useless. However, when you vote CON, you gain the criterion of just deserts (by them getting what they deserve) AND both of the values (taking away the right of felonies voting is fair and equal among the states). NO amendment says that felonies MUST be given voting capabilities, so this argument is useless. There is no substantial reason to give felonies a right to vote but I give you plenty of reasons as to why to take away the right to vote (crime against society = no voice for society). Therefore, I urge a CON vote. I eagerly await your speech and good luck!", "title": "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "e5aaa317-2019-04-18T19:37:54Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.7467041015625}, {"text": "I'm starting on my side of this debate then moving to the affirmative's side. My value: My opponent for some reason says my value is inferior because \"democracy is a means to obtaining human rights for everyone.\" If this is true, then my value of the Preservation of a Democratic Society is the best because clearly we want to keep our democracy. My criterion: He says my criterion is only doing what the people want... that is not what it is. It is upholding a democracy that best serves the interests of the people. I am not saying that whatever the people vote for should be done... obviously just because the society votes for slavery doesn't mean that we should implement slavery. But the purpose of government in general (including a democracy) is to protect the people, and i have shown/ will show more why I am serving the best interest of the people and my opponent is not. My 1st contention: First off, my opponent agreed that it is important to follow the social contract, so if i can show that disenfranchising felons is consistent with the social contract, I win this contention. My opponent's only response to this is that the punishment felons should get is jail. I agree, felons should be put in jail, and while in that jail they should have their vote taken away. In jail people don't have many important rights like liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. If we don't allow them these basic rights, why should we allow them to vote? Jail is also not the only punishment. After felons are released from jail they cannot carry guns for obvious reasons. My opponent also says \"This is in no way proportional to a felony\": I agree, taking someone's vote away is not nearly as bad as raping or killing someone. So the main point is, while the felons are in jail they should not get to vote because they have not completed the rehabilitation process or paid there debt to society. And once again, LET THEM VOTE ONCE THEY'RE OUT OF JAIL. Another point, my opponent dropped my Richard L. Lippke card about treason... so I win this round because i proved that a group of felons ought NOT have the right to vote. 2nd contention: My opponents only response to this is that i agreed to his definition of democracy, and best benefiting the people is not in it. I do agree to his definition of a democracy, a democracy is a government in which supreme power is vested in the people. But the people choose this type of government because they believe that they themselves can best make laws to benefit society. Also, in the U.S gov't does determine laws. We elect congressmen who are part of the government, and the CONGRESSMEN vote on laws, not the people directly. UNDERVIEW: my opponent didn't respond to this AT ALL. You can vote negative because we can't decide what ought to be done in a democracy. We cannot establish a normative rule in a democracy because what democracies ought to do is listen to the people. ================================================================ Now the Affirmative's case: Value: I was simply saying that voting is not a human right, it is clearly a political right because you can only vote if you have a government. So my opponent cannot say that we need to protect human rights and have it be relevant to this debate. Criterion: My opponent talks about felons being treated as secondary citizens because they can't vote. Again, let them vote OUT OF PRISON, but while they're in prison don't let them vote. In prison you already are a second class citizen pretty much, so taking away the right to vote will not hurt them anymore. My opponent also says \"all citizens need to have an equal voice to protect their basic human rights.\" This is not true: just because people can't vote doesn't mean they don't have rights. For example children can't vote and they still have basic human rights. Also there are millions of people who choose not to vote, but just because they don't share their voice doesn't mean they don't have rights. Contention 1: \"He never says the reason to disenfranchise felons this argument falls\"... that is what my whole case is about. To my second response to this contention he says that the purpose of democracy is to protect the felon's rights. I agree that we need to protect felons rights in general, but when they commit such a serious crime we have a reason for restricting their rights. It's the same when we send someone to prison, we try not to restrict rights, but when someone commits a felony they clearly deserve to have some rights taken away. Also, taking away the felons' right to vote while they're in prison is not restricting any of their \"human rights\". My opponent makes no connection to not letting them vote in prison and not having human rights. Contention 2: My opponent's second contention is all about reintegrating felons into society. I say that taking their vote away ONLY IN PRISON will not hinder the reintegration process at all. My opponent's response to this does not make sense at all, \"I defined the democratic society as the US and it is a problem in the US.\". If my opponent is trying to say that because this is about the US, then we're talking about permanent disenfranchisement... then i propose we change the law limiting it to only disenfranchisement in prison. So pretty much you can take all of the affirmative impacts of helping reintegrate felons and put it on the negative's side. Contention 3: My opponent's 3rd contention talks about how felons would not be able to get welfare if they couldn't vote. I ran out of letters responding to this, but i meant to say LET THEM VOTE OUT OF PRISON. If we let them vote once they are released from prison then they will be able to get welfare. Conclusion: One of the key points of this debate is about letting felons vote out of prison. Take away their right in prison while they haven't rehabilitated yet, and give them it back once they leave prison. This point is key because it takes away his 2nd and 3rd contention. My opponents first contention is irrelevant because he talks about human rights, but voting clearly isn't a human right, it is a political right. Voting is only a right at all if you live in a democracy, so it cannot be considered a right that can be applied to all humans. I win on my side of the case because i defended all of my contentions, and my opponent never responded to my underview. Good luck.", "title": "Felon Disenfranchisement", "pid": "a2f0ee79-2019-04-18T19:33:42Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.73789978027344}, {"text": "In this round, I will state my arguments. First off, Felons already have voting rights when they get out of prison. For example, in California [1] California – Voting rights are restored after parole is completed and no longer incarcerated. Anyways, I will argue why Felons shouldn't have the right to vote. Contention 1; Dishonesty and Poor Character. [2] \"We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgment... So the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy.\" People who are felons have committed crimes and have taken other rights of people. Such as committing murder and taking away an innocent life. As my opponent has stated above \"“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” When a felon takes can take a life, and the happiness of that person, and the happiness of that family. What gives that felon to have rights that every American bestows? \"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. When someone commits a felon, they should have some rights taken away. Voting privileges should be taken away as well. [3] \" Children, non-citizens and the mentally incompetent can't vote because of standards involving trustworthiness and responsibility. The same requirements should apply to felons\" Contention 2; [2] Congressional Authority over Voting \"Most prominently, the 14th Amendment makes felon voting a state prerogative, not a federal one...\" According to section 2 of the 14th Amendment, it's okay to take away a felons right to vote [4] \"Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants states the authority to deny voting rights to anyone with a criminal conviction, and it is up to the states to determine their own restoration process if they choose to enact one.\" The 1st Amendment doesn't state \"Every U.S citizen no matter what the background, has the right to vote.\" The 1st Amendment doesn't give that right to everybody, instead they give the states the choice. This is to show, Felons don't have the right to vote, it's not a right. By the 14th Amendment, Felons don't have the right to vote depending on the States choice. This Amendment clearly shows, it's not taking away a right. What should happen. [5] \" Your July 16 editorial “Disenfranchised Felons” asserts that the only reason not to let felons vote is “to stigmatize them or to continue punishing them.” To the contrary, the fundamental reason we do not let felons vote is that we have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility, trustworthiness and loyalty to our laws that must be met before someone can participate in the sacred enterprise of self-government. So we don’t let children vote or the mentally incompetent or noncitizens — or those who have committed serious crimes against other people. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully and case by case, to ensure that the person has really turned over a new leaf. To put it another way: If you are not willing to follow the law, you cannot demand the right to elect those who make the law.\" Felons should be able to vote once they have turned over a new leaf and have shown over a span of time that they are capable to vote in a trustworthy matter. They need to have consequences, if they don't, what have they learned? Sources: [1] https://exoffenders.net... [2] http://felonvoting.procon.org... [3] http://www.newsmax.com... [4] https://www.aclu.org...", "title": "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.", "pid": "826727db-2019-04-18T14:31:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.73785400390625}, {"text": "Though my opponent's profile says he lives in India, this debate is about felons and the right to vote in a democratic society. I am unfamiliar with Indian laws and societal expectations, as well as their standards for democracy, and under the assumption that most debat.com members are from the US I will address this issue from an American standpoint, unless my opponent can show me a reason to do otherwise. Also, standards for felonies are no longer applied in other common law countries as they have been replaced with \"summary offences\" and \"indictable offences\". In modern democracies, a felon is someone convicted of a felony. Felonies under the US Criminal Code are generally offenses that mandate a prison term of one year or more. Anything less is generally a misdemeanor or civil offense. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu...) Because of the different gravity of different crimes which may be considered felonies, it is impossible to lay out a blanket ban on voting by convicted felons. Punishment for crimes in the US and other democracies is generally considered \"correction\" or rehabilitation, and the goal is to re-integrate rehabilitated criminals into society. The deprivation of life, liberty, and/or property is generally considered appropriate punishment for various felonies, and an assigned timeframe is allotted that is generally considered befitting the crime. The basic use of punishment and reward is the basis of all criminal theory. Ordinary crime is not a threat to the social order, and society needs criminal behavior and the legal responses to it to function properly. (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu...) Putting aside the fact that all 50 states allow felons to vote to some degree(http://www.ncsl.org...), I personally believe that to fully integrate a rehabilitated criminal into society he/she must first believe he/she will be allowed that opportunity. Indeed, living in a democratic society, the right to vote is an essential part of full integration into a democratic society. So unless felons are executed or jailed for life, the right to vote should be an incentive of completing rehabilitation when rehabilitation is an option. Now on to my opponent's contentions... My opponent's first contention is based on retribution to prevent chaos and despair. I point to the US where, again, all 50 states and DC allow felons to vote to some degree- some states only through a pardon, and the US has not devolved into chaos and despair. The US has stiff penalties for crimes such as murder, espionage, treason, and other felonies for which a criminal's voting rights may never be restored, and it has lesser penalties for, say, possession of more than one ounce of marijuana which is a felony in most states, and constitutes an average of 1 year in prison(www.norml.org). I assure you this crime is not grievous enough for society to devolve into chaos should it continue, and a person convicted of this crime is not necessarily too \"untrustworthy\" to be involved in electoral politics. My opponent's second contention, unfortunately, does not make much sense to me. I cannot imagine a democratic society NOT made up of people. In a democratic society of a few or millions of people, it would be up to those people to decide how felons should be treated. The former Assistant State Attorney General for the State Elections Division of Alabama says: \"Under the longstanding system, a felon may apply to regain his right to vote after serving his sentence and paying all fines and restitution that may be due. This is a sound practice. It ensures that only those criminals who have met their obligations to their victims and who have enough civic pride to apply for renewed voting rights can play a role in selecting our community, state and national leaders.\" (http://www.al.com...). I don't contend that felons \"should have the right to vote in every circumstance and situation\", and it is both unreasonable and unrealistic to take an absolute position on an issue that will have varying degrees of circumstance, ie. a murderer vs. an old lady who assists inmates with legal issues without realizing she was breaking the law (http://www.ahrc.com...). My opponent's third contention only addresses murder. Even with murder there are several degrees. My opponent affirms that one right violation allows another rights violation to exist, but in the same paragraph he states that individuals in a society may not violate others' rights in a society. This is a contradiction, but I will nonetheless address the issue. The deprivation of rights for violation of rights is part of the criminal theory. It is necessary for the proper function of society, but the deprivation of rights should (in most cases) be employed as rehabilitation. Once all faults are corrected, fines paid, and punishment completed it should be recognized as such. The continued disenfranchisement of a convicted felon who has put effort into reintegration is unjust, and goes against the fundamentals of both the correctional system and democracy itself. My opponent's fourth contention is based on semantics, but he wrote the resolution, not me. In recognition of this clever trap, let's define \"ought\" in the context of the resolution and the debate: ought: —used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence All points can be argued for pro successfully, but please choose one so as not to turn this into a wasted debate about semantics. Should society be \"obligated\"? No. My personal opinion is that a society attempting to be just will at least to some degree allow felons to vote based on established law, which would imply obligation to do so. Because it is my personal opinion, I would use my vote to \"advise\" society to allow felons to vote to some degree. It is a \"natural expectation\" of many criminologists as cited in my previous sources. It is also the \"logical consequence\" of laws already in place in the US. Thank you.", "title": "In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote", "pid": "8fa3a9aa-2019-04-18T19:35:39Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.71437072753906}, {"text": "Banning prisoners from voting is one part of a package of measures that exclude prisoners from normal society, the most obvious of which are restrictions on movement, communication and employment. By itself, a ban on voting may have minimal deterrent effect. As part of this package of measures, however, it sends out a strong signal of society’s revulsion at those who commit crime, thereby discouraging lawbreaking.", "title": "Denying felons a vote sends a strong message, deters crime", "pid": "9acf5a44-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00083-000", "bm25_score": 217.71353149414062}, {"text": "No problem, good debate (as it was). Hope to debate you again in the future.", "title": "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote", "pid": "8fdf3cdd-2019-04-18T19:32:52Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.71307373046875}, {"text": "I don't unerstand what my oppenent did. He reposted his original argument exactly (his 1st and 2nd round posts are identical) Please respond to my objection I put foward in round 1, and please respond to my side of the argument. Thank you", "title": "In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote", "pid": "8fa3a98b-2019-04-18T19:35:48Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.70736694335938}, {"text": "I cite Con for bad conduct in forfeiting the round. Ya gotta keep on top of it. Arguments are continued.", "title": "In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote.", "pid": "3771ef2c-2019-04-18T19:30:15Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.6894073486328}, {"text": "Felons have bad judgement, should not help elect reps", "title": "Prisoners right to vote", "pid": "9acf5a44-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00040-000", "bm25_score": 217.68508911132812}, {"text": "That really is rather abusive isn't it?? I Urge you to vote on the posted arguments not by a technicality as voting upon arguments is in the true spirit of debate and is what debate is for, who presented better arguments, who refuted better and so on... That is debate, technicalities do not make a good debate. So I think that you, as the judge for our rounds vote upon the presented arguments not upon a technicality. and Of course I urge you to vote Negative", "title": "in a democratic society a felon ought to retain the right to vote.", "pid": "f54c20fb-2019-04-18T19:34:35Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.68264770507812}, {"text": "Attorney and philosopher George Brooks once said, \"When someone commits a crime, he commits not just an action against the victim, but against our entire society. Protests that time served is enough, and that society should prioritize the rehabilitation and reintegration of felons should fall on deaf ears. Opponents of disenfranchisement claim that the inability to vote stymies felons' 'remittance into a law-abiding society.' Yet they neglect to explain why the tonic of voting did not curtail felons from committing crimes initially.\" The fact is felons have hurt society, and the privilege of suffrage must be a punishment as otherwise they will continue to hurt society. Thus I negate the resolution, and believe felons should not retain the right to vote. Definitions Democratic Society - A society that has political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who vote directly on laws Felon - somebody who is guilty of a felony, and serving time for one year or more Retain - To maintain possession of Right To Vote – A right granted to all citizens and protected by a government, which enables citizens to have power or say in government; suffrage Highest Moral Value - Justice Justice is defined as \"giving someone what he or she is due [or deserves].\" A felon has committed a crime, and deserves to be punished. Today's debate is a question of whether taking away suffrage should be a part of the punishment. Felons should be disenfranchised. I justify this based on my criterion of Justice Value Criterion – Societal Welfare Societal welfare is \"acting in a way which uphold the good of a society as a whole.\" When serving justice to a society, we must consider societal welfare, as a society achieves justice (giving each citizen what he or she deserves) by making decision that benefit the welfare of a society. My first contention will be Felon's Set the Precedence That They Have Bad Judgment by Committing a Crime. My second contention will be John Locke's Philosophy And Theory of Justice. Contention #1 – Felon's Set the Precedence That They Have Bad Judgment by Committing a Crime a) Felon's have hurt society; we should limit this harm by removing suffrage rights I'm sure my opponent will agree that a citizen who has raped or murdered a fellow citizen has shown he or she has bad judgment. Thus it would hurt society to allow these people with bad judgment to vote. A November 21, 2005, Washington Times article stated that \"perpetrators of serious crimes have violated the public trust and cannot be permitted to help determine the future of the communities they harmed.\" The fact is, there are good and bad people in all societies. Felons are bad people. They have violated another's individual rights, thus showing they had bad judgment and they no longer deserve suffrage. Disenfranchisement is the only way to uphold justice. b) Universal Deceleration Of Human Rights Article 29 (2) states \"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society.\" Most simply, the UD of HR is saying we can justify take away a right of a citizen if he or she has hurt the welfare of society. Contention #2 – John Locke's Philosophy And Theory of Justice a) Who Locke Believed Has A Say In Society Locke once said \"if you don't respect the laws, then you shouldn't have a say in them.\" Felons show no respect for law, and should thus have no power in the formation of the law. b) What Locke Believed Was Appropriate Punishment Locke believed that \"under certain circumstances citizens can lose even the rights they do have by nature. Someone who violates another's rights to life, liberty, and property forfeits his own rights to these things; society can legitimately punish him by removing these rights. The criminal has broken the social compact and violated the trust of his fellow citizens.\" Most simple, individual rights are a privilege, not a birth right. If you improve society, you keep you rights. If you harm society, you don't deserve these rights. Conclusion. In conclusion, negating the resolution is a very easy thing to do. A felon has shown bas judgment by hurting society. Because they have hurt society, we must punish them in a just way. Disenfranchise is a just punishment as it aids societal welfare. I will not move on to my opponent's case. So with this information in consideration please cast your vote in the con's side.] Now to attack. In your first contention you stated that there is not enough felons to cause election fraud. This is true that they are spead out enough not to cause major damage, but what if there is a close race. There are 2 example of this: In California the deciding for mayore came down to one vote. In Alaska a schoolboard official got voted in on a coin flip. Would you really want someone that went against society to choose a leader of the free world. Your second cotention was about disenfranchisement working against rehabilitation. This is just plain retarded. Disenfranchisement has nothing to do woth rehab. 55%of all felons commit multiple crimes so rehab doesnt work anyway. Now time for you to attack my case Good Luck and lets make this fun.", "title": "In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote", "pid": "b20f7665-2019-04-18T19:34:59Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.67144775390625}, {"text": "1. Suppose a missionary and four cannibals are stranded on an island. Does justice demand that the issue of what's for lunch be settled democratically, with a vote granted to each of the five residents of the island? Pro argues that democracy is the preeminent value of justice, that no one can be excluded from the society, and that fencing off any demographic, in this case the cannibal demographic, is clearly wrong. If these arguments are true, then the missionary is not only in the soup, he should be pleased that justice has prevailed. I argue that such is not the case. 2. I accept the definitions offered by Pro. I note, however, that the definition of a \"right\" does not tell us what is and what is not a right. Moreover, there are inevitable conflicts among rights which must be resolved. The U.S. Constitution grants no right to vote for president. The electors for the President are determined by state legislators \"by any means.\" Clearly, the Constitution does not make voting a preeminent right. The Constitution defines a republic, which subordinates the right to vote upon legislation to voting for legislators. There are clauses granting equal rights based based upon race and religion, and equal voting rights based upon gender, but there is nothing that prevents voting restrictions based upon other criteria. The right to vote is not granted to those under the age of eighteen. That limitation shows that voting rights may be restricted when there is reason to doubt the potential voter's good judgment. Convicted felons are another class of citizens whose judgment is reasonably called into question. Resident aliens are excluded from voting on the grounds that their interests are not necessarily coincident with the interests of citizens. The interests of convicted felons are likely to be contrary to the interests of citizens as a whole, who want to be protected from criminals. That is stronger grounds for excluding convicted felons than the grounds for excluding resident aliens. 3. Pro cites Thurgood Marshall as evidence in supporting the proposition. Justice Marshall is a distinguished jurist who is an expert on interpreting laws. However, being highly qualified to interpret laws does not qualify one as an expert on making laws. The good justice claims that once a prison sentence is served, that felons have \"fully paid their debt to society.\" Whether or not they have fully paid there debt is a matter of law, and ultimately of the values of society as reflected in the lawmaking processes. For example, convicted sex offenders must register with the government and are restricted from certain interactions with children. The \"three strikes and you are out\" laws identify career criminals and remove them from society. The justification for both sex-offender registration and \"three strikes\" is that convicted felons are more likely to commit additional crimes than persons without a criminal record. It is arguable what the correct level of continuing debt to society ought to be, but the fact that convicted felons are more likely to commit crimes is unquestionable. The U.S. Bureau of Justice reports that \"...over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years\" http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.... Note that the two-thirds only reflects released felons who where caught within three years. It does not count those who committed crimes but were not arrested. Overall, only about 45 percent of violent crimes are solved, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics http://www.ncpa.org.... Factoring in the criminals not caught, we may reasonably suppose that the true recidivism rate is in the neighborhood of 85 or 90 percent. The \"debt to society\" at the heart of this issue is not with respect to serving a sentence for a particular crime, it is in having adopted a criminal lifestyle. The convicted felon ought to have the obligation of establishing that his interests have become aligned with those of ordinary citizens and contrary to those with a criminal lifestyle. For example, that might be established after ten years without an arrest for a felony. It is not established by release from prison. Only eight states currently prohibit convicted felons from voting for life. Two states permit felons to vote while in prison. Thirty-three states remove the franchise while convicted felons are on parole. Thus even if one accepts Thurgood Marshall's argument that voting rights should be restored after felons have \"paid their debt,\" it is not at the heart of the issue. The issue is mainly about criminals who are in prison or on parole and have not paid their debt. 4. Pro claims that in the 2000 election in Florida, \"The fact that these voters were disenfranchised caused a serious lapse in democracy, and therefore did no justice. Because Disenfranchisement restricts the democratic process the resolution is a just principle.\" I agree that in close elections the votes of those with an established criminal lifestyle voting for someone they feel to be in their interests could determine the outcome of an election. That is a powerful argument that justice demands that election not be determined by such people. 5. Pro claims \"It must be agreed that fencing off a certain voter demographic is a fundamentally unjust principle.\" I do not agree. It depends upon the reason for fencing off the demographic. People under the age of 18 are fenced off on the just grounds that in general they lack the knowledge and experience to cast an informed vote. Note that this is done despite some sixteen and seventeen year olds being more informed than some citizens who are fifty or sixty years old. The fencing off is justified because the odds are so heavily against it. Similarly, not all convicted felons remains committed to the criminal lifestyle. But with about 85% recidivism, the odds are much against it. Therefore, it is reasonable and just to identify the demographic and exclude them. Convicted felons are, I agree, an identifiable demographic. That makes them an identifiable target for politicians, who can go to prisons to seek votes by making various promises to tilt the justice system in favor of criminals. (Note that the proposal is to for convicted felons to retain the right to vote, with no criteria that they even have been released from prison.) Politicians are clever enough not to make the appeal directly, as that would alienate other voters. They would use surrogates who espouse \"improving\" the justice system by weakening it. Even if no targeted appeal were made, criminals would figure out for themselves which candidate was most likely to facilitate their lifestyle. Crime victims are also an identifiable demographic. However, victims are less likely to vote based upon the single issue of weakening the justice system. Victims are citizens who worry about the health of the economy because a good economy facilitates their making a living. A criminal lifestyle, however, is only facilitated by weakening the justice system. Therefore, the fact that criminals constitute a single-issue demographic is just grounds for excluding them from voting. 6. Justice is not served by having cannibals voting democratically on the fate of missionaries. The interests of justice are best served by subordinating democracy to human rights. We should not want people whose prime interest is in pursuing a criminal lifestyle determining the outcome of close elections.", "title": "Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote", "pid": "e2b0dc54-2019-04-18T19:35:06Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.66339111328125}, {"text": "The electoral system is based on a society's collective sense of respect for the law, citizenship, and democratic processes. These are precisely the values that felons have flaunted. In this way, offering them a right to vote demeans the entire spirit of the electoral system.", "title": "Prisoner voting would demean the entire electoral system.", "pid": "9acf5a44-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00052-000", "bm25_score": 217.6631317138672}, {"text": "Introduction Attorney and philosopher George Brooks once said, \"When someone commits a crime, he commits not just an action against the victim, but against our entire society. Protests that time served is enough, and that society should prioritize the rehabilitation and reintegration of felons should fall on deaf ears. Opponents of disenfranchisement claim that the inability to vote stymies felons' 'remittance into a law-abiding society.' Yet they neglect to explain why the tonic of voting did not curtail felons from committing crimes initially.\" The fact is felons have hurt society, and the privilege of suffrage must be a punishment as otherwise they will continue to hurt society. Thus I negate the resolution, and believe felons should not retain the right to vote. Definitions Democratic Society - A society that has political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who vote directly on laws(wordnet) Felon - somebody who is guilty of a felony, and serving time for one year or more (encarta.msn.com) Retain - To maintain possession of (dictionary.com) Right To Vote – A right granted to all citizens and protected by a government, which enables citizens to have power or say in government; suffrage (American heritage dictionary) Highest Moral Value - Justice Justice is defined as \"giving someone what he or she is due [or deserves].\" A felon has committed a crime, and deserves to be punished. Today's debate is a question of whether taking away suffrage should be a part of the punishment. Felons should be disenfranchised. I justify this based on my criterion of Justice Value Criterion – Societal Welfare Societal welfare is \"acting in a way which uphold the good of a society as a whole.\" When serving justice to a society, we must consider societal welfare, as a society achieves justice (giving each citizen what he or she deserves) by making decision that benefit the welfare of a society. Contention #1 – Felon's Set the Precedence That They Have Bad Judgment by Committing a Crime a) Felon's have hurt society; we should limit this harm by removing suffrage rights I'm sure my opponent will agree that a citizen who has raped or murdered a fellow citizen has shown he or she has bad judgment. Thus it would hurt society to allow these people with bad judgment to vote. A November 21, 2005, Washington Times article stated that \"perpetrators of serious crimes have violated the public trust and cannot be permitted to help determine the future of the communities they harmed.\" The fact is, there are good and bad people in all societies. Felons are bad people. They have violated another's individual rights, thus showing they had bad judgment and they no longer deserve suffrage. Disenfranchisement is the only way to uphold justice. b) Universal Deceleration Of Human Rights Article 29 (2) states \"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare in a democratic society.\" Most simply, the UD of HR is saying we can justify take away a right of a citizen if he or she has hurt the welfare of society. Contention #2 – John Locke's Philosophy And Theory of Justice a) Who Locke Believed Has A Say In Society Locke once said \"if you don't respect the laws, then you shouldn't have a say in them.\" Felons show no respect for law, and should thus have no power in the formation of the law. b) What Locke Believed Was Appropriate Punishment Locke believed that \"under certain circumstances citizens can lose even the rights they do have by nature. Someone who violates another's rights to life, liberty, and property forfeits his own rights to these things; society can legitimately punish him by removing these rights. The criminal has broken the social compact and violated the trust of his fellow citizens.\" Most simple, individual rights are a privilege, not a birth right. If you improve society, you keep you rights. If you harm society, you don't deserve these rights. Conclusion. In conclusion, negating the resolution is a very easy thing to do. A felon has shown bas judgment by hurting society. Because they have hurt society, we must punish them in a just way. Disenfranchise is a just punishment as it aids societal welfare. I will not move on to my opponent's case. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------On to my opponents case----------- I will start with my opponents frame work. (1) my opponent incorrectly claims that the United States in a democratic society. My opponent never defined democratic society, so my definition stands for the round. In a Democratic society, people vote directly on laws. That is not how it is done in the USA. We vote for people to represent us. Thus, the USA is a constitutionally limited republic, not a democratic society. (2) has no relevance in the debate, so i guess i accept My opponents 1st contention a) this is irrelevant to the debate. The resolution is asking about felons, not people who were never caught. Again, my opponent never defined felon. Looking at my definition, these people never caught are not felons. Thus this argument is void. Furthermore, just because certain people were not caught, there is no argument here why this matters to people who were caught. His argument is if we allow 5 people with bad judgment to vote, we should allow 10 more. That is illogical b) this is irrelevant to debate for reasons stated above. a misdemeanor is a much less serious offence than a felony, and who knows, maybe people who commit a misdemeanor should be disenfranchised. either way it is irrelevant. c) again the resolution says nothing about misdemeanors. i think they should also be disenfranchised d) really an ignorant claim. under this logic, we should never put murders in jail becuase some may be innocent, and we wouldn't want to risk one innocent person in jail. i agree, it is a sad truth that innocent people will be disenfranshed, but it is for the good of a society as a whole. e) there is great reason to believe that felons have bad judgment. they killed or murdered or raped someone. they don't even pay taxes in jail. they should thus obviously have nothing to do with laws they didn't view as important. again my opponent infers something about misdemeanors, which i have previously answered. on to contention II a) the criminal had the right to vote before he committed a crime----this didn't stop him or her from committing a crime it is that simple---my opponent provides no sources for his 50% less likely study, b) based on US, not a democratic society. and it is a conspiracy theory. this is not a problem of they system in place, but the people. further more, saying that there was problem in 2004 or 2006 does not prove anything. there is not facts to support my opponents claims. a) again purely hypothetical, no evidence b) again, USA not relevant to debate c) really just a stupid argument which defeats itself. if someone is dumb enough to think that they cant vote when they can, then they shouldn't vote cause their retarded In conclusion, my opponents entire case is based on the United States. He did not define Democratic Society, so my definition stands threw out the debate. Moreover, my opponents entire case is based on technicalities and hypothetical arguments with no evidence to support them. Thank you for reading, I look foward to my opponents reponce.", "title": "In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote", "pid": "8fa3a98b-2019-04-18T19:35:48Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.66104125976562}]}
{"idx": 7, "qid": "8", "q_text": "Should abortion be legal?", "qrels": {"b44abf31-2019-04-19T12:47:38Z-00004-000": 0, "e12b54d9-2019-04-18T12:19:14Z-00001-000": 2, "f98398d2-2019-04-18T13:31:20Z-00007-000": 0, "cc79677d-2019-04-18T13:11:27Z-00006-000": 0, "b18598c4-2019-04-18T17:30:42Z-00004-000": 2, "984c99de-2019-04-18T15:23:08Z-00004-000": 2, "c42f2f40-2019-04-18T19:22:14Z-00005-000": 2, "c2b2fdab-2019-04-18T16:52:21Z-00003-000": 2, "be3faafa-2019-04-18T11:18:53Z-00002-000": 2, "b38c2a52-2019-04-18T14:11:17Z-00009-000": 1, "b1853388-2019-04-18T18:16:45Z-00001-000": 2, "b187dade-2019-04-18T11:17:01Z-00009-000": 2, "b1878123-2019-04-18T11:44:29Z-00008-000": 2, "b187725d-2019-04-18T12:06:49Z-00007-000": 1, "b1876a21-2019-04-18T12:22:58Z-00001-000": 0, "984c99de-2019-04-18T15:23:08Z-00005-000": 2, "b1869bc9-2019-04-18T13:46:50Z-00004-000": 1, "b185332b-2019-04-18T18:20:04Z-00003-000": 2, "b1869884-2019-04-18T13:49:38Z-00001-000": 2, "b1868ca6-2019-04-18T14:12:07Z-00004-000": 1, "b38c2a52-2019-04-18T14:11:17Z-00006-000": 0, "81ed9aa-2019-04-18T16:01:44Z-00003-000": 2, "6702c51d-2019-04-18T13:27:45Z-00000-000": 0, "7945d7cc-2019-04-18T14:27:21Z-00006-000": 0, "c9418b72-2019-04-18T19:18:42Z-00002-000": 0, "b67fc3fb-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00108-000": 2, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "b18528e0-2019-04-18T18:31:01Z-00004-000": 2, "1420e340-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00004-000": 2, "3e1e0ade-2019-04-18T16:30:20Z-00005-000": 0, "3e9ff172-2019-04-18T12:09:10Z-00005-000": 2, "416207df-2019-04-18T15:57:04Z-00005-000": 2, "670240e1-2019-04-18T19:43:42Z-00002-000": 2, "6702bd7c-2019-04-18T17:08:15Z-00004-000": 0, "7f91756b-2019-04-18T17:20:44Z-00004-000": 1, "6702c0a2-2019-04-18T16:52:16Z-00003-000": 2, "6702c425-2019-04-18T15:23:27Z-00001-000": 2, "b185ab89-2019-04-18T16:46:42Z-00004-000": 2, "6702cba7-2019-04-18T11:43:44Z-00000-000": 2, "6702cbc6-2019-04-18T11:40:47Z-00000-000": 0, "6702cc04-2019-04-18T11:32:09Z-00001-000": 2, "67e96422-2019-04-18T17:11:59Z-00002-000": 2, "7586b840-2019-04-18T16:39:25Z-00006-000": 2, "6702c13d-2019-04-18T15:40:34Z-00003-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Given my knowledge on abortion, if it is legal then it will benefit the mother. If abortion is legal then it will create a safe way for a mother to abort her baby and it will give the mother the ability to decide what she wants to do with her body. Abortion has been legal since the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, on January 22, 1973, where women were given their personal rights to decide on what they would like to do to their bodies, which has led to safe ways to abort a mother's baby; therefore abortion should be legal, presumably, unless abortion brings harm to the mother.", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "a039e5e3-2019-04-18T18:54:55Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.51516723632812}, {"text": "Abortion- A topic everyone has argued about for years. Let's decide whether or not it should be legal- First round acceptance.Rules:No argument from ridiculeNo Ad HominemNo Ad LapidemThank you if you accept, and good luck.", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702c4a1-2019-04-18T14:16:55Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 217.39541625976562}, {"text": "x", "title": "Abortion should be legal.", "pid": "6702417c-2019-04-18T15:16:55Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.3154754638672}, {"text": "x", "title": "Abortion should be legal.", "pid": "6702417c-2019-04-18T15:16:55Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.3154754638672}, {"text": "Abortion is a very controversial issue in the United States, as well as in several developed nations of the world. I come forward with a position that is even more controversial. I believe abortion should be legalized. But not only during the first trimester, or limited to rape and incest cases, but rather throughout the pregnancy of a woman, whatever her reason for aborting is. I take an evictionist point of view, according to which the womb of a mother should remain the woman's property as it is her body, and an unborn child does not have the right to occupy it without consent.", "title": "Abortion should be legal in every case, even late-term", "pid": "bd47aa60-2019-04-18T18:35:54Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.29957580566406}, {"text": "Abortion is legal, and should remain legal because it is a woman's right.", "title": "Abortion should remain legal in the United States.", "pid": "95429d47-2019-04-18T18:54:49Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.25428771972656}, {"text": "Yes. Abortion should be legal but only in very specific scenarios. I am sorry that you had to go through that whole deal with being left at an adoption center. Look at it this way, at least you are alive. You can make a difference in the world. Don't let anyone tell you anything different. Everyone is here for a reason, its just up to you to decide why. You need to write your own story. Thanks for the sporty debate, even when I wasn't necessarily arguing correctly.", "title": "Abortion should be legal.", "pid": "6702415d-2019-04-18T15:27:01Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.24661254882812}, {"text": "So you agree that abortion should be legal? And thanks for the rape scenario opinion.", "title": "Abortion should be legal.", "pid": "6702415d-2019-04-18T15:27:01Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.19033813476562}, {"text": "Thousands of American women died and thousands more were maimed before abortion was legal. For this reason and others, women and men fought for and achieved women's legal right to make their own decisions about abortion. However, there are people in our society who still won't accept this. Some argue that even victims of rape or incest should be forced to have the child. And now, having failed to convince the public, certain of these people have become violent, engaging in a campaign of intimidation and terror aimed at women seeking abortions and health professionals who work at family-planning clinics. Some say these acts will stop abortions, but that is ridiculous. But, the same urgent reasons will exist for safe, legal abortions as have always existed.", "title": "Abortion should remain legal in the United States.", "pid": "95429d47-2019-04-18T18:54:49Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.17910766601562}, {"text": "I accept, but first definitions.Abortion- the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.Plus, I would like to clarify that we are talking about abortion should stay legal in the U.S.Good Luck to my opponent.", "title": "Abortion Should be Legal", "pid": "2928a4a1-2019-04-18T18:11:02Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.13894653320312}, {"text": "Abortion should remain legal, because it's the right for a women to do what she wants to her own body because of either unplanned pregnancy, deformed baby, or the possibility of harm to the woman from the pregnancy. I also think that the Freedom of Choice Act should be signed.", "title": "Abortion Should Remain Legal", "pid": "c42f2f21-2019-04-18T19:22:30Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.1361083984375}, {"text": "I believe that abortion should be kept legal. Abortion where it concerns the invidivual woman is a health and life choice. Abortion where it concerns society is a legal and/or political issue. The moral or religious oppinions of a third person - should not have an affect on the law or the health care choices of another individual. Women should not be forced - by government officials - to gestate and birth feoti agianst thier will.", "title": "Abortion should be kept legal", "pid": "48e4db2d-2019-04-18T19:52:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.13467407226562}, {"text": "My position on this topic is that abortion should be allowed. I feel that it is a woman's natural right to choose. I am looking forward to hearing someone who disagrees as well as why they disagree, in order to understand different viewpoints. Thank you c:", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702c7e6-2019-04-18T13:16:45Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.11099243164062}, {"text": "It is my belief that it is a mothers natural inherited right to choose rather or not to terminate a pregnancy.", "title": "Abortion should be legal.", "pid": "7945d7eb-2019-04-18T14:14:13Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.1008758544922}, {"text": "Abortion should be legal. Regardless of whether the fetus is classified as a human, it is not wrong to have an abortion. The woman has a right to her body and her life. Denying her the write to an abortion is wrong.", "title": "Abortion Should Be Legal", "pid": "32f403e5-2019-04-18T13:07:08Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.09725952148438}, {"text": "Today I will be arguing that abortion should be legal. The way this debate will work is this:R1: Opening statementR2: Defend your opening statement.R3: Rebut opponents defense.R4: Closing statement Thanks to whoever accepts and good luck.", "title": "Abortion should be legal.", "pid": "7945d7cc-2019-04-18T14:27:21Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.0940704345703}, {"text": "First off, sorry I forfieted. I completely forgot about the debate because I had lots of work to do. Anyway, for my closing statement.Abortion should be legal. Mothers to be are dying from failed pregnancies, and because of abortions, they are surviving. If we take that freedom away, mothers will die, leaving the baby with a very bad chance of survival. Abortion equals good!", "title": "Abortion should be legal.", "pid": "7945d7cc-2019-04-18T14:27:21Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.06103515625}, {"text": "It should be", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702c425-2019-04-18T15:23:27Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.03778076171875}, {"text": "First round for opening position statement and acceptanceSecond round for opinion and pointsThird round for rebuttalI Believe that the practive of abortion is murder and should be banned by the government.", "title": "abortion should be legal", "pid": "8123a8ff-2019-04-18T17:44:07Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.0158233642578}, {"text": "Hello. I would like to start a debate on the topic of abortion to see where people stand on it and hear their opinions. I personally believe that it is a woman's right to choose weather to terminate her pregnancy or not and that making abortion illegal would not stop women from looking to get abortions and that unprofessional and unsafe abortions can cause women infections and death. Please tell me your stance and your reason(s) for it.", "title": "Abortion should stay legal", "pid": "cff9b0d3-2019-04-18T16:44:56Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.00030517578125}, {"text": "Hello, I'm just a 13 year old kid who just like to debate. So the argument is abortion should be legal because people can choose to have a kid or not, and forcing them can suffer the child and the parent. Making it illegal will make women who want to abort go to dangerous place that can harm them and possibly kill them. Unborn baby only feel pain at 20 weeks and most of these abortion is when the women life is in danger.", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702cba7-2019-04-18T11:43:44Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.982421875}, {"text": "Abortion is the terminating of a pregnancy due to the removal of an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside of the uterus. When I say \"All Abortion\" I mean that women should have the right to choose to abort a pregnancy in any circumstance as long as the pregnancy has not lasted more than the current legal period of 20 weeks. Abortion post-20 weeks risks causing pain and suffering to a conscious human being which could survive outside the womb and thus is immoral.", "title": "All Abortion should be legal up to 20 weeks of pregnancy", "pid": "c5d7c9d7-2019-04-18T11:20:06Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.97027587890625}, {"text": "Women should have the option of having an abortion, either because they are unable to take care of the child, they were raped, it is an unwanted child, or because they know they have drug problems. QUESTION: Whether you are for or against abortion, how should the idea of abortion be avoided, where both sides compromise? In others, what is a solution?", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702c862-2019-04-18T12:51:56Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.96566772460938}, {"text": "Ill wait for a response.", "title": "Abortion should be legal.", "pid": "7945d7eb-2019-04-18T14:14:13Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.96530151367188}, {"text": "1. Abortion is murder. The killing of an innocent human is wrong, even if the human hasn't been born. 2. Abortion is the killing of a human being which defies God. This is the 6th commandment thou shall not kill. Abortion is breaking that commandment. 3. Abortions cause psychological damage a 2008 review study showed that young woman who go abortion increase risk for depression. 4. Abortion reduces number of adoptable babies. If parents don't want them give them to an orphanage. With that I end my post", "title": "Should abortion be legal", "pid": "e12b49d4-2019-04-18T14:13:13Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.9602813720703}, {"text": "I accept. Good luck.", "title": "Abortion Should Be Legal", "pid": "32f40423-2019-04-18T13:02:48Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.95436096191406}, {"text": "Should abortion be legal", "title": "Abortion", "pid": "b1870922-2019-04-18T12:50:45Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.94422912597656}, {"text": "Hello to my opponent. I would like to set some ground rules and regulations for this debat, then explain my stance. I DO NOT want this to be a debat about the MORALITY of abortion, but rather, whether it should be legal in the US. I am fine with morality used as an argument, but not as a debate topoc. Beyond that, sources are not the primarily most important thing, but should be used, nevertheless, and also NO BASHING (ie you are pro-choice, you moraless b@$!ard!). This round is for acceptance of the debate. Definitions pro-choice: the mindset that a woman has the right to abortion. This does not mean a pro-choicer thinks abortion is moral, just that a woman has the right to one. pro-life: The mindset that abortion should be illegal. abortion: The act of aborting a baby VOLUNTARILY. Not a miscarriage. Thank you", "title": "Abortion should be legal.", "pid": "670241ba-2019-04-18T15:02:59Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.93829345703125}, {"text": "I accept your challenge :D", "title": "Abortion Should Be Legal", "pid": "32f3fcfe-2019-04-18T15:50:42Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.92254638671875}, {"text": "abortion should be legal", "title": "abortion", "pid": "81e767ea-2019-04-18T13:52:10Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.9142303466797}, {"text": "Abortion should be entirely legal, although it should never be paid for by taxpayers. The simple fact that it is the mothers choice to terminate an UNBORN child/fetus, and she can afford to pay for the procedure is good enough reason to keep abortion legal.", "title": "Abortion", "pid": "b186236b-2019-04-18T15:07:33Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.88145446777344}, {"text": "Abortion should be legal because:1. Some woman have certain circumstances where abortion is needed, for example rape, incest, abuse etc.2. It is not the job of the goverment to decide whether or not a woman can have an abortion. 3. If a woman even wants an abortion, the baby is unwanted. It is better to terminate a small blood cell, then to let it grow up unwanted or in a bad environment.", "title": "Abortion should be OK", "pid": "ecb3571b-2019-04-18T16:51:54Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.88070678710938}, {"text": "I believe that abortion is not an absolute evil, but rather a necessary evil. But please, since you started the debate, you make the first argument sir/madam, and I will respond in kind with a rebuttal and counter-argument. :)", "title": "Should abortion be legal", "pid": "e12b4d76-2019-04-18T13:41:53Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.87319946289062}, {"text": "Abortion is, and should be legal in most cases. The right of the mother to make her own health decisions must always be protected. Making abortion illegal will not help to stop the procedure, it will just move the location to a more unsafe environment.", "title": "Abortion", "pid": "b185b349-2019-04-18T16:29:28Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.87042236328125}, {"text": "I believe as a society we can come to the conclusion that abortion is an absolute evil on the same level as murder. It should therefore not only be unavailable but criminal.", "title": "Should abortion be legal", "pid": "e12b4d76-2019-04-18T13:41:53Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.85081481933594}, {"text": "Abortion is completely monstrous and immoral. Just because the woman's body is hers, doesn't mean the beating heart in her whom is. No matter if it's her body or not, it should still be considered murder. So many girls murder their innocent,defenseless, barely developed fetus, no way to fend or fight.", "title": "Should abortion be legal", "pid": "83226e0f-2019-04-18T17:42:33Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.84304809570312}, {"text": "Ok, here's the deal. I was looking over this trying to decide what I want to say for my next argument, and I realized something. I am arguing the right point in the wrong debate. What I am saying is that abortion is wrong. You are saying abortion should be legal. Well, I agree. Abortion should be legal because if it isn't, we end up with really bad scenarios like in Dirty Dancing (Yes, I have seen that movie). When people need abortions, they go to the back allies and get some half wit who just got his medical license revoked to cut them open and take out the baby. Well, that isn't safe. Abortion should be legal, but there should be tons of regulations on getting one. For example, rape. If you get raped, that is one way you should be ALLOWED an abortion. But if you are a 25 year old woman who got knocked up a month before her wedding, to bad. No abortion for you just because you want to look good in your wedding dress. What I am trying to say is we are both right. Abortion is wrong but unfortunately should be legal so that when someone NEEDS it, they have access to it and don't have to go to some shady guy in a back alley. I probably won't make a next round argument as I have nothing to argue for. My point doesn't belong in this debate, and I should have thought about it more before I jumped in.", "title": "Abortion should be legal.", "pid": "6702415d-2019-04-18T15:27:01Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.83602905273438}, {"text": "Should abortion be legal? Thank you for posting this question, I actually had conversation about this subject with my sister. I also believe that abortion is morally wrong, yet we live in a country that secures too many freedoms to take away abortion. If we take away the freedom for a woman to have an abortion, anyone can make the argument to take away any other freedoms. What if someone's religion is that you must have a male be your first born (which it is in some cultures). If abortion is illegal than that would contradict the 1st amendment in the constitution saying that we must have freedom of religion. If we don't have freedom of religion than what was the purpose of the founding of this country. Most of the people left Europe to the United States for freedom of religion. As much as I think abortion is a morally wrong thing, I don't get a say to what people have a right and wrong to do. People have to have their freedoms and without abortion, some might not get religious freedom.", "title": "Should abortion be legal", "pid": "83226e2e-2019-04-18T17:40:10Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.81263732910156}, {"text": "Abortion should definitely be legal. . Many arguments against that statement would be that she would be killing an innocent life that cannot speak for itself, but by oppressing the right of a woman's decision, you are in fact limiting that right to the speech of a born citizen. It does not make sense to limit the right of speech for those who are born and make conscious decisions for those not born. It may not be practical for the women to kill her infant and she could give up her baby for adoption, but after delivery, a mother will feel the need to take care of the baby as her own, which usually is not practical for her financial state. Most women, around 83.4% , who opt for adoption are either in high school, or in a financial state not able to provide for her child, causing an increase in the individual's poverty line. According to the 14th Amendment, we all have equal rights, and since the baby can not live outside of its mother, the mother must be able to choose over her body,", "title": "Abortion", "pid": "b1870922-2019-04-18T12:50:45Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.80221557617188}, {"text": "Abortion is not immoral. It should be legal.", "title": "Abortion Should Be Legal", "pid": "32f40423-2019-04-18T13:02:48Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.79403686523438}, {"text": "! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !! !!! Fourth round for rebuttal and closing statements, no new arguments. !!! Definitions/Explanations Restricted abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy. Abortion - is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics. The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.", "title": "Restricted abortion should be legal", "pid": "423a6af5-2019-04-18T13:35:03Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.79299926757812}, {"text": "! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !! !!! Fourth round for rebuttal and closing statements, no new arguments. !!! Definitions/Explanations Restricted abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy. Abortion - is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics. The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.", "title": "Restricted abortion should be legal", "pid": "423a6ad6-2019-04-18T13:35:13Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.79299926757812}, {"text": "I'm happy to see you change of heart on the topic. It always saddens me when I hear people that they are pro for human life, and yet they are all for abortion. I hope we could change that one day. If you have or anyone else viewing have any questions addressing Abortion, I would be happy to give you my best answer. Thank You! :D", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702c4a1-2019-04-18T14:16:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.7843475341797}, {"text": "The legality behind abortion is very clear. Our \"unalienable rights\" -- as implicitly stated in the Constitution -- ensure us \"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.\" Without legalizing abortion, women wouldn't be granted the right to care for their own bodies and make decisions regarding their unborn child/children.", "title": "Abortion should be legal.", "pid": "6702411f-2019-04-18T18:02:03Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.78123474121094}, {"text": "Abortions should be completely up to the person that is pregnant. It is their body and they should be able to decide whether or not they would like to keep the baby. While putting a child up for adoption may be free, someone that is looking to adopt has to spend a lot of money just to be considered. Along with that, a lot of children are left unadopted. There are approximately half a million children (possibly adults, as well), currently in foster care. The mother would be expected to endure lots of pain during the nine months while being pregnant. Someone could never be fully aware of the financial situations of the expecting parents. Bills aren't cheap and caring for a child on top of that could put some in financial debt or make it nearly impossible to care for a child, either leaving them neglected, or there being no food, no power, etc. Contraceptives are not always effective either. Condoms, while they are roughly 85%-98% effective that doesn't cover for all the time. The right to decide on abortion is similar to telling a person whether or not they can get a tattoo. At the end of the day, it is their body and their choice and what they want to do with it should be up to them and no one else in society or otherwise should be able to have an opinion on that or change that.", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702cc23-2019-04-18T11:24:19Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.77267456054688}, {"text": "Restrictions placed on abortion by U.S. lawmakers have no factual or substantial reasoning. A woman's bodily autonomy should be her decision only, and she has the right to terminate her own pregnancy for any reason. Abortion is necessary for many women that become pregnant, and taking away reasonable access will only harm the woman (and possibly her potential child.)", "title": "Abortion Should Be Legal and Unrestricted", "pid": "4d5807f9-2019-04-18T13:03:58Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.7587432861328}, {"text": "This argument is to be made without god. Abortion has been around long before conventional medicine, by restricting women the right to have an abortion, they will revert back to these dangerous methods that will either disfigure the fetus, kill it, or kill the mother. By allowing women access to contraceptives and abortions, the number of abortions would both decrease, and the ones that exist will be much safer. Having an abortion will lead to a greater quality in life for both the mother and the child she may have later on. Saying that the fetus should be carried to term and given up for adoption, is not the best option. It puts more pressure on the foster care system and it is a hard decision to make.", "title": "Abortion Should be Legal", "pid": "2928a805-2019-04-18T16:59:26Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.75643920898438}, {"text": "Cheers.", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702c0e0-2019-04-18T16:04:55Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.75132751464844}, {"text": "Abortion is the taking away of human life. Ever heard the saying \"You will miss every single shot you don't take\"? That can be applied here. If you kill your child (which is exactly what you are doing), that child will never grow up to be anything. What if that child was going to be the next Albert Einstein? What if they were going to cure cancer? There is no way of knowing unless you allow your child to be born and allow life to take its course. On top of taking away a human's life, you are just being selfish. What right do you have to claim that a human life is more important than you? Even in rape cases, that child is a blessing. Have the child and give it to an adoption clinic or to a family that wants a child but can't have one. Just about every option is better than aborting. Abortion is wrong. I understand that this is probably shorter than what people are used to seeing, but there really isn't much more that needs to be said. Abortion should not be legal.", "title": "Abortion should be legal.", "pid": "6702415d-2019-04-18T15:27:01Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.7355499267578}, {"text": "Abortion should be legal because if a woman doesn't want to have a child than she should have the right to prevent herself from having one. If the government bans abortion then they would be forcing a woman to have a child. If a pregnant woman doesn't have an abortion then she is going to have a child. So if the government takes away that right then pregnant women will have no choice but to have a child. Adoption is a option that is not used often after a woman gives birth to a child. Most women don't want to put their child up for adoption. If the government bans abortion then some women will have an unsafe abortion. More women will have an unsafe abortion if abortion is illegal. Every year approximately 78,000 women die from unsafe abortion. If abortion is legal then less unsafe abortions will occur. Abortion is a safe medical procedure. 88% of women who have an abortion do so in their first trimester. Medical abortions have less than 0.5% risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future ability to become pregnant or give birth. The government should make sure that late term abortion is safe. The fetus is in the woman's body so therefore the government should not control their bodies. Banning abortion is bad for women and is anti-women's rights.", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702bd00-2019-04-18T17:57:26Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.72787475585938}, {"text": "I think it should because if a woman is raped she shouldn't have to have the baby.", "title": "should abortion be legal at all", "pid": "84cf09b2-2019-04-18T17:05:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.7205047607422}, {"text": "Abortion is not immoral and it should be legal.", "title": "Abortion Should Be Legal", "pid": "32f40404-2019-04-18T13:07:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.71998596191406}, {"text": "Okay, I'll take a stab at it. I will be arguing why \"Abortion should not be legal\". I would like to request some rules to be implemented into the argument: Do not ask questions that you cannot answer. Please list sources of your information at the end of each paragraph, and if you came up with it, then say, \"by - MyName\" at the end of the paragraph. Let the debate begin.", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702c4a1-2019-04-18T14:16:55Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.71864318847656}, {"text": "Many people agree that abortion should be legal under some circumstances (i.e. if the girl is raped). Others argue that abortion should be legal for minors, only if they are able to obtain consent from their parent or legal guardian. But does the government have the right to control what a girl does to her own body? Does the government have jurisdiction over any person's own body and what happens to it? I do not believe it does. By controlling the circumstances under which a woman can have an abortion the government is essentially controlling the rest of her life for her. The descion to get an abortion can effect her education, her chance to be employed, and even her relationship with other people in her life. I do not believe that a government body (especially one that is overwhelmingly masculine) has any right to decide a woman's life for her.", "title": "Abortion should be legal.", "pid": "670240c2-2019-04-18T20:00:30Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.70346069335938}, {"text": "I am FOR Abortion. Abortion should be legal at all points during pregnancy. I believe a woman has the right to decide what to do with HER body. A fetus is not a human being when it is conceived; I believe it is considered a human being and is given all the rights we have when it leaves the womb and enters the world. Abortion is not murder because the baby is not a person yet! Abortion should be legal in every case, such as when having the baby will kill the mother, or even if the baby is just an inconvenience and the mother does not want it. Murder is killing anyone from the day they LEAVE THE WOMB to the day they die. Fetus' cannot live without the assistance of their mothers and therefore they are not living, breathing people yet!", "title": "Abortion", "pid": "b1877906-2019-04-18T12:02:38Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.70242309570312}, {"text": "Let's pose the question: \"Should abortion be (il)legal? \"This is a very difficult question to answer without bias and it comes down to your fundamental beliefs, But it is clear that the right to abortions in the U. S is being challenged and debate of the topic has been fired up for the longest. My side: I am against abortion. Access to abortion whether it's legal or not varies from state to state and it also varies from country to country. In Ireland for example, Abortion is illegal unless there are circumstances where the health of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy. A fetus is a person from the moment of conception. A baby's heart begins to beat at about 3 weeks old, Therefore a baby is a real living person and killing it is immoral. Religions. Many religions are also against abortions. In the bible it states \"Man shall not kill\". Hindus and Buddhists believe the act of abortion is one of the greatest possible sins. Consent. If a woman willingly has sexual intercourse then she should not abort as that is her responsibility because she consented. For every action there's a reaction. In that case, It would be immoral to abort and that isn't right. If you do not wish to get pregnant you should either abstain or use some sort of contraception be it a type of birth control or condoms. Rape. Some women become pregnant as the result of sexual assault. No woman should be forced to conceive a baby that was a result of a rape. I believe a woman can abort if they were raped, Because it was forced and it wasn't consensual. Conditions. Other reasons are that abortion allows the parent to discriminate against the child. One of the most common conditions that it's screened for it down syndrome. There are some instances in pregnancies where the baby is diagnosed with down syndrome are aborted. The trouble with these tests is that they are not always accurate, Meaning the baby is aborted on the chance that the child might have down syndrome, Not because the baby does have it indefinitely. Pro-choice angle. At the end of the day, Women do have the right to choose whatever they want to do as it is their body. I'm not saying otherwise, But I'm just saying I am more against abortion than for it. Abortions should be only done if rape was involved or if the health of the mother is at risk (Ireland example) as I said before. The unfortunate problem is that abortion is also done for the wrong reasons, Such as consensual sex.", "title": "Abortions should be legal", "pid": "fe8a2184-2019-04-18T11:12:03Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.69931030273438}, {"text": "Abortion should be legal, Because women have the right to control the uses of their own body, And they shouldn\"t be forced to have children and raise them if they don\"t want to, Nor should they be forced to go through with the scars and pain of childbirth if their life is at risk or the babies is. Abortion should also be legal because of complications like rape or child marriage, Children shouldn\"t be forced to have children.", "title": "Abortion", "pid": "b187e2fb-2019-04-18T11:11:54Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.69898986816406}, {"text": "Okay, I accept your challenge. Abortion should be legal.", "title": "Abortion", "pid": "b1853b86-2019-04-18T17:50:46Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.6946563720703}, {"text": "x", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702c13d-2019-04-18T15:40:34Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.69302368164062}, {"text": "x", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702c13d-2019-04-18T15:40:34Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.69302368164062}, {"text": "x", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702c13d-2019-04-18T15:40:34Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.69302368164062}, {"text": "Abortions should always be legal because that is your body and every decision you make about your body is yours. If you believe you aren't ready for a child or possibly you were force into a physical altercations involving a man. I believe you should be able to handle the scenario in the best of your ability which is abortions.", "title": "Abortions", "pid": "b54275ec-2019-04-18T11:43:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.68931579589844}, {"text": "Abortion should be legal in most cases, And there should be fewer restrictions on abortions.", "title": "Abortion should be legal in most cases.", "pid": "18dd4096-2019-04-18T11:17:01Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 216.68443298339844}, {"text": "I will be taking the Pro side of the debate: \"Abortion shold be legal.\" First and foremost I would like to thank the Con for the opportunity to debate this topic! I would like to take this opportunity to define the argument further and common terminology that will be used. DefinitionsAbortion: : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. b : induced expulsion of a human fetus [1]Legal: Permitted by law. [2]Argument structure:Abortion has a number of gray areas, one common one which the Con defined in her first argument was that of rape. If it is amiable to the Con, I would like to look only at black and white of the subject and leave the gray areas be. The argument will be looked at only in terms of legality. I look forward to the debate!Sources:1.) http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2.)https://www.google.com...", "title": "Should Abortion Be Legal", "pid": "cf4a147c-2019-04-18T13:21:10Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.68414306640625}, {"text": "I accept. Thanks to tejretics for the challenge.", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702cc04-2019-04-18T11:32:09Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.6809844970703}, {"text": "I believe that abortion is wrong and should be illegal. Life starts at conception. The only reason I believe this is because it is the only constant point to measure from and it is at the exact point of when a new life is made. It is now open to anyone to argue that it should be legal and I am open to having my mind changed, if there is good evidence and reasoning. If you have come to just be hateful I ask that you keep scrolling for another topic. -Thank you", "title": "Abortion Should Be Illegal", "pid": "a188ba0-2019-04-18T11:33:34Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.67782592773438}, {"text": "I will be arguing that abortion should be legal. Definitions:Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. Rebuttal 1: My opponent states that a person who wants an abortion shouldn't have gone out an gotten pregnant in the first place. By my opponent has yet to explain what's so wrong with getting an abortion because of an accidental pregnancy. There's no basis for her argument. The argument is also flawed. Some women are forced to have a baby due to being raped. Telling this woman she cannot get an abortion is wrong because she did not have any say in the matter to get pregnant. It would also force the raped person to live with a condition she was not prepared for. Termination of a fetus should be acceptable in this case. I will start the rest of my debate in Round 2. Good luck, 1dustpelt, may this debate serve to be an informative one and I hope to learn a lot by researching the topic.", "title": "Abortion should be illegal.", "pid": "75863939-2019-04-18T18:29:52Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.66685485839844}, {"text": "Abortions should be legal as Personhood begins after a fetus becomes viable or after birth, not at conception. According to the U.S. Supreme Court a person is to get their age when they are out of the mother's womb and breathing oxygen starting at the 0 mark eventually working their way up to be 1 years old.", "title": "Should abortion be legal", "pid": "e12b54d9-2019-04-18T12:19:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.66339111328125}, {"text": "I dont believe abortion should be legal unless two situations exist, rape or the mothers life is in danger. Abortion shouldnt be an option for young women (or older women) who dont wish to be burdened with carrying and delivering a child. Especially with the numerous forms of birth control for little or no cost.", "title": "Abortion", "pid": "b1859921-2019-04-18T17:23:41Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.6623077392578}, {"text": "Abortion should remain legal; in all states. Making abortions illegal would be a violation of our constitution. The fourteenth amendment, a part of our constitution, clearly states, \"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property.\" Women's bodies are just that, women's. They should not be deprived of doing as they see fit with their body. It goes against what our country was founded on- freedom. Freedom to choose. Freedom to choose our president, senators, religion, and opinions. And what we want to do with our bodies. Abortion is a choice, a personal choice, that women should be able to make for themselves. Our country also faces population issues. If abortion became illegal, they would only grow worse. This is a serious issue. I'm not pro-death, I am pro-choice.", "title": "Abortion should be legal in all states.", "pid": "f2c294b-2019-04-18T12:20:34Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.65956115722656}, {"text": "Abortion should be legal because a woman should be able to make her own decisions. They have to carry a baby for 10 months, then deliver, and then take care of them for the rest of their lives. Plus, raising a child is not an easy job, according to all parents, they are needy since the day they are born. If someone doesn't have the appropriate living conditions or they don't have enough money to raise a child, they should be able to decide weather they want to have a child or not. 1) http://www.psychologicalscience.org... 2) https://www.guttmacher.org...", "title": "Abortion", "pid": "b186fa1e-2019-04-18T13:11:57Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.64608764648438}, {"text": "I oppose all of your resolution. Abortion should be legal as long as the fetus isn't viable outside the womb. Until that time it is up to the woman to decide what she wants to do with her body including any living beings living off of her body.", "title": "Abortion", "pid": "b1870162-2019-04-18T13:07:32Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.6387176513672}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702c425-2019-04-18T15:23:27Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.63775634765625}, {"text": "My arguments against abortion: Abortion is killing a fetus. A fetus is human and alive therefore it is a human life. Killing an innocent human life is murder. Murder is wrong. Therefore abortion is wrong. The right to life is more important than the right to end a pregnancy. The right to life is more important than convenience to the mother. Adoption is a great alternative that does not involve killing. Fetuses develop quickly. For example, in 8 weeks the eyes, nose, mouth, and tongue have formed. Electrical brain activity begins at week 6. By week ten the fetus can make bodily movements. The heart begins to circulate blood at day 22. We can establish that fetuses being aborted have the basic features of a human life [1]. Lack of development is not an argument for abortion because a newborn is far less developed than an adult but has the same right to life. 1: http://frc.org...", "title": "Abortion should be legal in the United States", "pid": "f8b7357b-2019-04-18T16:24:40Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.6321563720703}, {"text": "Abortion should be legalized because when you deal with \"circumstance\" it becomes tricky. The usual argument is if a woman gets raped or incest occurs, she should get an abortion. What about sex salves (By force) and a pregnancy that can go bad? If a woman needs to have an abortion, she will know it because it is her body. The doctors they attend will also give expert advice.", "title": "In the united states Abortion should be legalized\"", "pid": "30477273-2019-04-18T18:26:02Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.62860107421875}, {"text": "Definitions/Explanations Early abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy. Abortion - is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics. The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.", "title": "Early abortion should be legal", "pid": "fd9ef4ff-2019-04-18T13:30:14Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.626708984375}, {"text": "Definitions/Explanations Early abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy. Abortion - is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics. The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.", "title": "Early abortion should be legal", "pid": "fd9ef4e0-2019-04-18T13:32:52Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.626708984375}, {"text": "Definitions/Explanations Early abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy. Abortion - is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics. The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.", "title": "Early abortion should be legal", "pid": "fd9ef53d-2019-04-18T13:27:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.626708984375}, {"text": "Abortion - the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus . http://www.merriam-webster.com... So termination of a pregnancy. I argue it should be illegal, except if it dangers the woman's life. My opponent argues in all cases it should be allowed.", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702bcc2-2019-04-18T18:18:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.62567138671875}, {"text": "Abortion Shouldn't be Legal, 50-60 Million Soon to be lives were killed, but it isn't the woman's fault if they were raped, the rapist should be forced to take care of the family even if they are poor or jobless.", "title": "Should Abortion Be Legal", "pid": "cf4a147c-2019-04-18T13:21:10Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.6240997314453}, {"text": "Definition Abortion: 'The termination of pregnancy performed in the first 28 weeks of pregnancy' Abortion is a very cruel way to handle with pregnancy yet the women has no right to take abortion. 1) A fetus is created inside the women's and is a unburned creation performed in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. The fetus inside women is a baby being created. Not only that your killing the baby with Abortion but some women intend to . Die when taking Abortion . They feel more depressed and gain more stress . They could also be sent to prison While taking abortion all these facts I listed above could happen. If I was a women I rather take the pain then die or get sent to jail. When killing a child during the abortion process it is also murder and murder is against the law. This is taking a life away from a innocent child and this also makes a women feel bad. If you don't want the baby you can place it for an adoption for someone else to take care of it. And if you were religious it also counts as killing gods creation and follows part of the seven deadly sins. Rape is not an excuse to kill a human baby. Some couples also have sexual intercourse reproduction and plan on taking the abortion when they were the ones who raised the baby. This is another case on how abortion is murder and how it is not right. We all want a life and we all want to live. Why kill a innocent baby that didn't do any harm? Would you like it if you were a raped baby and your mom killed you? An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases. Abortion is also a lot of money. For a first timer the average range is 350-550$. Sure is a lot of money. To conclude abortion is a cruel way to hand with pregnancy Waiting for your argument", "title": "Abortion should stay legal", "pid": "cff9b0d3-2019-04-18T16:44:56Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.6197509765625}, {"text": "It is preferable to err on the side of liberty when an action is not obviously immoral. Abortion is a highly debated topic and is thus not obviously immoral. Abortion should thus be legal.", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702cbc6-2019-04-18T11:40:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.6156463623047}, {"text": "You should thank your islamic teacher for widening your view on abortion. I understand that you now agree with me on first trimester abortion, but what about my other two reasons abortions should legal, rape and when the mothers life is in danger. I would like to see your opinions on them. Ok, I guess I will just strengthen my opinions. 1)When rape occurs. It is not the Women's fault that she got raped and she should still be able to get an abortion after the first trimester. 2) When the mothers life is in danger. We might lose two lives if an abortion doesn't happen here, but of course if the women doesn't want an abortion that is her choice. Hopefully next time there is more to write about.", "title": "Abortion should be legal under certain circumstances", "pid": "1ffe2b23-2019-04-18T17:32:58Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.61553955078125}, {"text": "I will argue why abortion is okay and why this justification should make it legal. Good luck. Meow.", "title": "Is abortion ok? (should it be legal?)", "pid": "59424b06-2019-04-18T14:10:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.6070098876953}, {"text": "hey.. i just got home from cfl quals and there's only like 10 mins. to respond.. so can you just post something random in the next round so i can just reply to your previous?", "title": "Abortion should continue to be legal here in the U.S.A (first thing to pop in my head)", "pid": "f56f8687-2019-04-18T19:12:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.6058349609375}, {"text": "Greetings. Let's pose the question: \"Should abortion be (il)legal? \"This is a very difficult question to answer without bias and it comes down to your fundamental beliefs, But it is clear that the right to abortions in the U. S is being challenged and debate of the topic has been fired up for the longest. My side: I am against abortion. Access to abortion whether it's legal or not varies from state to state and it also varies from country to country. In Ireland for example, Abortion is illegal unless there are circumstances where the health of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy. A fetus is a person from the moment of conception. A baby's heart begins to beat at about 3 weeks old, Therefore a baby is a real living person and killing it is immoral. Religions. Many religions are also against abortions. In the bible it states \"Man shall not kill\". Hindus and Buddhists believe the act of abortion is one of the greatest possible sins. Consent. If a woman willingly has sexual intercourse then she should not abort as that is her responsibility because she consented. For every action there's a reaction. In that case, It would be immoral to abort and that isn't right. If you do not wish to get pregnant you should either abstain or use some sort of contraception be it a type of birth control or condoms. Rape. Some women become pregnant as the result of sexual assault. No woman should be forced to conceive a baby that was a result of a rape. I believe a woman can abort if they were raped, Because it was forced and it wasn't consensual. Conditions. Other reasons are that abortion allows the parent to discriminate against the child. One of the most common conditions that it's screened for it down syndrome. There are some instances in pregnancies where the baby is diagnosed with down syndrome are aborted. The trouble with these tests is that they are not always accurate, Meaning the baby is aborted on the chance that the child might have down syndrome, Not because the baby does have it indefinitely. Pro-choice angle. At the end of the day, Women do have the right to choose whatever they want to do as it is their body. I'm not saying otherwise, But I'm just saying I am more against abortion than for it. Abortions should be only done if rape was involved or if the health of the mother is at risk (Ireland example) as I said before. The unfortunate problem is that abortion is also done for the wrong reasons, Such as consensual sex.", "title": "Abortion should stay legal", "pid": "cff9b14f-2019-04-18T11:12:43Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.60504150390625}, {"text": "5 rounds 72 hours 10,000 characters I will be arguing, clearly, that abortion should be legal in the US. Con will argue that it should be illegal. Distinctions such as in the case of rape or life endangerment, etc., are flexible. I only ask that you argue against abortion, in some cases, immediately after conception. It would be a less interesting argument if all we were debating was late-term abortions. Thank you, and I'm looking forward to some fun, some practice formulating a solid argument, some learning and some widening of both of our views on this topic!", "title": "Abortion should be legal in the United States", "pid": "f8b7357b-2019-04-18T16:24:40Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.60496520996094}, {"text": "I am BUTTER.", "title": "Abortion should be legal", "pid": "6702c4a1-2019-04-18T14:16:55Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.59397888183594}, {"text": "it is quite heart breaking that so many women die during legal abortions, but if abortions were illegal, it would not stop them, and women seeking an abortion would find one by unsafe and illegal means, so it is best to provide a safe and legal means of abortion. wikipedia states that unsafe and illegal abortions symptoms include, but are not limited too: abdominal pain, vaginal infection, abnormal vaginal bleeding and shock. women have abortions to choose when to have children based on their age, financial stability and relationship stability. It is not the government's position to legislate against women's choices. The fetus is like a dead brain without self-awareness or consciousness, so it's actually dead. Abortion prevents unnecessary unplanned pregnancies and prevents children from neglecting because their mothers did not want to have that child at that time. Many women who choose abortion don't have the financial resources to support to raise him or her.", "title": "abortion should be legal and not be shamed", "pid": "75c64edd-2019-04-18T11:57:02Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.59315490722656}, {"text": "I also believe life begins at conception and also agree that all life should be given a chance. Though I am 100% pro choice I would almost never advocate someone aborting a child. Though I am against abortion I believe it is a mother right to choose to abort her pregnancy. As the giver of life I believe until a baby is born its life is in the hands of its mother. No one should be allowed to tell someone what to do with their body and until a baby is born child and mother are one.", "title": "Abortion should be legal.", "pid": "7945d7eb-2019-04-18T14:14:13Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.5916748046875}, {"text": "Abortion is never an easy decision, but women have been making that choice for thousands of years, for many good reasons. They have the right to decide what they put their bodies through. Whenever a society has sought to outlaw abortions, it has only driven them into back alleys, where they became dangerous, expensive and humiliating.", "title": "Abortion should remain legal in the United States.", "pid": "95429d47-2019-04-18T18:54:49Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.59132385253906}, {"text": "No it shouldn't. For one, it is democratically supported. For another, it is the individual who has signed the social contract who benefits from society, and no-one else, unless predefined. That is, the child gains no inherent rights in the society - only through personal morality. Abortion is a good form of birth control, and finally we can use the aborted fetuses to help our country in other ways, from stem cell research to save lives to new flavoured ice cream.", "title": "Abortion should be illegal.", "pid": "75863958-2019-04-18T18:07:56Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.58865356445312}, {"text": "Abortion should be legalized because everybody mistakes and the baby might have defects that family can not support and the baby might be in pain for life with that defect. Sometimes young women make mistakes and accidentally get pregnant, if they are unprepared financially and emotionally they should have the option of having an abortion. When the person finds out the baby has a defect and the family can't support the costs to support the child or the child will live in pain for his/her life because of the defect, it is ok to put it out of its misery.", "title": "Abortion", "pid": "b18614c4-2019-04-18T15:36:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.58395385742188}, {"text": "I accept. Good luck.", "title": "Resolved - Abortion Should Be Legal", "pid": "f98398d2-2019-04-18T13:31:20Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.58090209960938}, {"text": "No problems. Please start.", "title": "Abortion Should Be Legal", "pid": "7541ad49-2019-04-18T19:06:53Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.579833984375}, {"text": "I don't think abortion should be legal because no matter if it is unwanted, you should give it up for adoption. Or just let someone else carry it. You killing a baby is something you will have to live with for the rest of your life. Also its taking away a chance for someone who wants a family. Abortion is basically murder. Even an morning after pill, its the first stage of an abortion, which is still killing a baby. I know most people don't want a child, and it should be your decision, but still a kid is a kid, no matter how you got it. I also think that if you can live with killing a baby, you don't have an heart. I'm sixteen years old, and I believe abortion is bad, and unfair to the new life that you are bringing to the world. you should let them have a life just like you got one. I know I'm to young to understand, but I know what loosing something could do to you. And you wouldn't want to live with murder for the rest of your life.", "title": "Should abortion be legal in cases of rape or incest", "pid": "dd88472c-2019-04-18T12:40:16Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.5782928466797}, {"text": "!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !! !!! Fourth round for rebuttal and closing statements, no new arguments. !!! Definitions/Explanations Abortion - is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics. The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.", "title": "Abortion in the embryonic period should be legal", "pid": "420c99de-2019-04-18T13:37:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.57809448242188}, {"text": "!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !! !!! Fourth round for rebuttal and closing statements, no new arguments. !!! Definitions/Explanations Abortion - is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics. The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.", "title": "Abortion in the embryonic period should be legal", "pid": "420c99bf-2019-04-18T13:39:29Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.57809448242188}, {"text": "I say NO it should not be legal, i only see it able to be legal is if it's Rape, Other then that it was their choice to have sex, and they know the consequences of that action/s .", "title": "Should abortion be legal in all 50 states of the U.S? (Before the nervous system is fully developed)", "pid": "e0d020b2-2019-04-18T13:45:32Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.57684326171875}, {"text": "Abortion should not be legal because its killing a real living humans , people from left might say that the women should get to choose if want to abort a baby or not. This is completely untrue, for example if your a mom/dad with a kid just because your \"own\" them does not mean you get to kill them for your own convenience. I do believe a abortion would be appropriate if the baby affected the mothers health.", "title": "Should abortion be legal", "pid": "e12b543e-2019-04-18T12:39:42Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.57650756835938}]}
{"idx": 8, "qid": "9", "q_text": "Should students have to wear school uniforms?", "qrels": {"a10422fa-2019-04-18T14:07:56Z-00001-000": 2, "bcd57385-2019-04-18T12:26:16Z-00001-000": 2, "a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00003-000": 2, "aa02d263-2019-04-18T13:53:11Z-00001-000": 0, "99da1031-2019-04-18T11:12:29Z-00001-000": 2, "188872ba-2019-04-18T16:43:31Z-00004-000": 2, "9389d854-2019-04-18T18:50:20Z-00002-000": 2, "caa63d4b-2019-04-18T12:31:31Z-00001-000": 0, "109aed09-2019-04-18T16:36:24Z-00001-000": 2, "16833a0f-2019-04-18T14:31:17Z-00001-000": 2, "bd58bcfa-2019-04-18T12:49:24Z-00001-000": 2, "24035fd1-2019-04-18T12:22:39Z-00005-000": 1, "28f316b1-2019-04-18T18:27:06Z-00000-000": 0, "299509f8-2019-04-18T14:50:55Z-00001-000": 0, "38c6731a-2019-04-18T19:33:25Z-00003-000": 2, "38c6731a-2019-04-18T19:33:25Z-00004-000": 2, "4b51d325-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00015-000": 2, "4b51d325-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00030-000": 2, "51d6d74d-2019-04-18T15:18:10Z-00001-000": 1, "54d229b5-2019-04-15T20:22:18Z-00012-000": 2, "573179dd-2019-04-18T16:24:35Z-00005-000": 2, "573179dd-2019-04-18T16:24:35Z-00000-000": 0, "5c0d9fa0-2019-04-18T11:11:55Z-00003-000": 2, "610216c4-2019-04-18T17:07:45Z-00001-000": 2, "6a52a7de-2019-04-18T13:44:47Z-00003-000": 2, "7bf53995-2019-04-18T19:33:59Z-00000-000": 0, "7bf53995-2019-04-18T19:33:59Z-00002-000": 2, "9084bde3-2019-04-18T17:31:55Z-00001-000": 0, "99da1031-2019-04-18T11:12:29Z-00005-000": 2, "c901992b-2019-04-18T16:23:35Z-00002-000": 2, "1d95bd3f-2019-04-18T13:40:48Z-00004-000": 2, "cf842d6a-2019-04-18T17:28:15Z-00006-000": 1, "fe10ede9-2019-04-18T11:30:33Z-00003-000": 0, "c9019969-2019-04-18T16:25:29Z-00003-000": 2, "f4ca2630-2019-04-18T11:15:38Z-00001-000": 2, "f380cbdd-2019-04-18T12:44:24Z-00000-000": 2, "f4e9fcc1-2019-04-18T14:49:34Z-00000-000": 1, "e185aed6-2019-04-18T12:33:18Z-00002-000": 2, "e02123fe-2019-04-18T18:48:55Z-00001-000": 0, "debd317e-2019-04-18T16:46:28Z-00005-000": 2, "dc63d66b-2019-04-18T19:15:40Z-00003-000": 0, "eb9a4d4d-2019-04-18T18:18:05Z-00000-000": 2}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "I will be taking the Con side (students should not have to to wear uniform). Firstly, uniforms restricts a student's individuality and identity. Forcing students to wear uniforms constricts their creativity and freedom of expression. Clothes do not detract from a student's ability to learn. School uniforms are completely unnecessary. Secondly, people tend to believe that if everyone is wearing the same clothing, it will decrease the chances of getting bullied for what you wear, but this is totally not the case. Bullying is a huge problem that effects many students whether they are in schools that require uniform or not. Forcing children to wear the same uniform does not make issues such as this magically disappear. Schools want children to make good decisions and take responsibility for their actions, but how can we expect the children to do so if we do not give them decisions to make in the first place?", "title": "Students should wear school uniform.", "pid": "a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.56219482421875}, {"text": "I think students should wear school uniforms. It is because in schools where students are allowed to wear whatever they want, there are school bullies that make fun of other students who may not have a good taste in fashion. But if they all wear the same school uniforms, they can't make fun of one anothers' fashion senses which prevents this type of bullying from happening. And also, if students can wear whatever they want, they might take a longer time to leave their houses for school due to taking too long to choose what they want to wear which may cause them to be late for school.", "title": "Students should wear school uniform.", "pid": "a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.4459228515625}, {"text": "In my opinion school uniforms should not be mandatory. Students should have the will to express themselves through there clothing. Some girls don't like to wear skirts or can't wear skirts. Boys like to play. they wear t - shirts and shorts so they can move around. Not every boy likes to be dressed up. Then theres also the money problem. Uniforms aren't the cheapest clothing and some familys can barely buy normal clothing. Wearing a uniform does not make kids smarter or beahve better what so ever so there really is no point in wearing uniforms. A Website With Cons: http://kids.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Pros_and_Cons_of_School_Uniforms", "title": "School Uniforms Not Mandatory", "pid": "4b51d325-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00046-000", "bm25_score": 219.24583435058594}, {"text": "Prove that it is obvious that students should wear uniforms in schools. Students should be free to wear whatever they choose, aside from certain items such as clothes with inappropriate speech. School uniforms restrain the students' freedom of expression and create an environment of conformity. You might argue that school uniforms contribute to order in a school, but I don't think it's obvious that uniforms should be implemented in schools.", "title": "High school students should wear uniforms", "pid": "f84713e2-2019-04-18T18:06:56Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.20277404785156}, {"text": "I think uniforms should be worn in schools. To support my statement I will lay out some points: 1. When all students have to wear the same thing, none of them can brag about wearing the latest, most expensive fashions. 2. Whether they're from the upper, middle or lower class, all students dress the same. 3. Uniforms can increase self-confidence when students don't feel pressured to wear a certain type of clothing. 4. A study by the University of Nevada found the middle school students felt safer and more confident when wearing uniforms. 5. School uniforms lessen distraction in the classroom so no one is sidetracked by someone's T-shirt message or where a friend got new leggings. 6. Studies have shown an increase in academic test scores in schools that have enforced uniform policies. I will now allow the CON to lead out their points and arguments.", "title": "Uniforms should be worn in school", "pid": "8156d8db-2019-04-18T13:53:21Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.19467163085938}, {"text": "School that have uniforms have more intelligent and efficient students, because they have uniforms. When schools have uniforms kids focus more on they're studies not on they're clothes or how they look. If everyone wore the same clothes no one can say theirs is better and no one will be teased of what they wear. When everybody wears the same thing their will be less prejudicism and more nationalism. Kids will get along better and create more social groups. Students spend less time deciding what to wear, because no one will judge what they choose because they're all wearing the same thing. Nobody likes to be mocked when you choose the best clothing you had and then the other laugh and bully him for trying. When theirs the uniform policy kids will be friendlier and smarter because of the intelligent decision the school made for the kids own good.", "title": "Students should have to wear school uniforms", "pid": "5f1c7022-2019-04-18T15:36:48Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.93902587890625}, {"text": "I've never seen a good reason for school uniforms or dress code. Of course there has to be a certain level of decency kept on a campus but beyond exposing sexual organs or showing up basically nude I don't think that there should be restrictions such as a uniform put on students at any level.", "title": "Students should wear uniforms.", "pid": "ddb0b6b8-2019-04-18T14:08:45Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.85641479492188}, {"text": "I Believe that school uniforms should be in all schools. it would teach kids to accept each other more and help kids find themselves, instead of worrying about how to fit in as far as dressing goes, and it would help kids follow the dress code of their school. If more schools required that a student wear uniforms maybe they wouldn't be so expensive but there are places you can get them cheap, just like every other expensive thing in this world , and usually a school will offer a loan uniform to the kids who can't afford one.", "title": "Should schools require uniforms", "pid": "c617f5ab-2019-04-18T14:18:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.84652709960938}, {"text": "Public schools should not have to wear school uniforms. By wearing school uniforms you are not able to express yourself. I do believe that there should be rules about what you wear at a public school but everyone should not be forced to wear the same thing.", "title": "Public Schools should not have to wear school uniforms", "pid": "b5339025-2019-04-18T18:30:27Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.841064453125}, {"text": "We didn't, and currently this country's schools don't have uniforms for students and doing great! So apparently not needed, at all, at least here. K?", "title": "should students have to wear school uniforms", "pid": "caa63d4b-2019-04-18T12:31:31Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.82936096191406}, {"text": "We should be focusing on the performance of the students rather than the way they are dressed. Uniforms provide almost no benefits whatsoever. The only valid benefit for school uniforms is the safety they bring. They prevent outside intruders from entering the school unannounced and they make it easier to spot a student that is lost. Even so, most schools have scanner machines so that students can use their school district ID's to sign in. If someone that was not a student at the school happened to trespass, they would be caught immediately. Personally, I think dress codes would be better. They allow students to wear want they want and to be creative, but still restrict students to wear only school appropriate attire.", "title": "Students should wear school uniform.", "pid": "a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.81488037109375}, {"text": "In my opinion uniforms are too strict. It makes people look dole and it doesn't brighten the environment. For safe learning experience let everyone feel free by not wearing uniforms.", "title": "Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms", "pid": "573179dd-2019-04-18T16:24:35Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.8061981201172}, {"text": "I am arguing that students should not be forced to wear uniforms in school. First, if students have to wear the same thing as everyone else, then there is no way to express your personality. Your clothes are a way to show who you are to others. Next, this would be another thing to buy. People will say that you will not have to buy as many outfits, but although you do not wear these clothes to school, you still need clothes to wear around town and at home. You buy clothes as it is, so why not get more use out them before you outgrow them. You will never wear your uniform after you're done with school, so why not pay for clothes that you can re wear over sand over again. Also, some people may feel restricted and uncomfortable in these outfits that they are forced into. Everyone has a different body shape and type. Why should we force everyone to look and dress the same? Some people also say that clothes can distract students from learning, but if they are uncomfortable in the uniforms, they will not learn. We should allow student to dress in clothes that they are comfortable in. Lastly, I believe that it can draw away from school spirit. If you have to wear uniforms, you cannot wear a specific outfit with your sports team. You do not have the option to show team spirit when you are forced to wear the same outfit as everyone else. I believe that there are some pros to having uniforms, but the cons outweigh them. Your clothing is a way to express yourself and is a freedom that should not be taken away from you.", "title": "High school students should wear uniforms.", "pid": "109aed09-2019-04-18T16:36:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.78610229492188}, {"text": "I have read your argument, thoroughly. My argument: As many have said, school uniforms are a huge disadvantage, but, I will say, has some advantages. I have heard many times that school uniforms take away the freedom of the students expressing themselves through their items of clothing. Many girls love having the freedom to pick and choose what they wear to school, but that changes with a school uniform. They have to always choose this one, boring, outfit that they wear weekday after weekday. Boys will also want to wear items of clothing such as Jordans, Nikes, KDs... When you have on a school uniform, they can't express themselves through their shoes. Another disadvantage is that clothing takes away the privilege of the students' expressing their culture. Many students' come from different cultures- African, Hawaiian, French, European... The list goes on and on. Uniforms don't allow the students' to express and take pride in their culture through their items of clothing. They could come from an African culture and have African items of clothing. The uniform-based school will not allow them to wear it. That goes for other cultures also.", "title": "School uniforms should be required.", "pid": "e00774d1-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.77789306640625}, {"text": "Hello. Simple debate, I will be Pro and I will argue that students should wear school uniforms in private schools. DefinitionsUniform - Identical clothing issued to school students to wear during school. Student - Person who is recieving an education whether through school, or by other means. Rules1. Forfeit will resut in an auto loss and all 7 points going to the other person.2. No semantics.3. No trolling.4. Nothing that would be considered innapropriate to the average DO member i.e plagiarism.", "title": "Private Schools Should Have Students Wear Uniforms", "pid": "9084bde3-2019-04-18T17:31:55Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.77134704589844}, {"text": "Students should be required to wear specific items of clothing for school. It eliminates bullying, stereotypes, and stress free mornings. It stops bullying because I know at my old public school a lot of kid were talked about and made fun of because they didn't have the clothes that were \"cool\" or \"in style\". Many people are judged and bullied for what they wear, having a uniform would eliminate this issue. I understand that every person has their own specific style that they like to express, but having a uniform leaves the impression that everyone is equal. Many people who wear black are stereotyped as \"emo\" or \"goth\" and with eliminating one's decision on what to wear would immensely reduce a student/ person judging and making fun of others.", "title": "Students should be required to wear dress code", "pid": "89208796-2019-04-18T17:01:01Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.73406982421875}, {"text": "School uniforms do not help students an any way at all. The take away students ability to express themselves through their clothes and how do they reduce bullying at all? Also, we are entitled to a free education. Therefore, students should not be required to buy uniforms. There have been studies done on if uniforms help kids academically at all and almost all of them have shown that uniforms have absolutely no effect at all on kids academic performance. That's why school uniforms should not be required in schools.", "title": "School Uniforms Should Not Be Required in Schools", "pid": "b959db22-2019-04-18T18:05:43Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.71591186523438}, {"text": "I affirm that school uniforms1) Help students resist peer pressure - freeing them to develop deeper scoical skills.2) Reduce economic and other social divisions between students from different backgrounds.3) Help security in identification of students and reduce gang issues.", "title": "schools should not have school uniforms", "pid": "b43265c3-2019-04-18T15:18:20Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.71343994140625}, {"text": "Should the be school uniforms? Yes. I feel school uniforms are a must for teachers and students. This will minimize the issue with dress code and kids getting made fun of for the clothes they wear. If we all look the same, no one will get judged.", "title": "School Uniform", "pid": "6a52a7de-2019-04-18T13:44:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.70970153808594}, {"text": "I think students shouldn't wear uniforms because kids want to be able to express there style. People say its going to help with the 'bullying' problem but its not. it will make the bull even more creative. They wont have to make fun of your cloths they will make fun of what you look like, what you think is fun, and how much money you have.", "title": "students should not were uniforms in school", "pid": "46c53f41-2019-04-18T16:27:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.70094299316406}, {"text": "My position is strong about wearing the school uniform. First and foremost, it is not place for fun, for stroll or something like that. The most important feature is discipline and that's why it must differ from another situations.", "title": "High school students should wear uniforms.", "pid": "109aecea-2019-04-18T17:09:12Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.67701721191406}, {"text": "I believe that uniforms should not be necessary, as having unique and different clothes lets a student express themselves, and be comfortable, and also to have the responsibility of having their own choices, and not be just put into the same group as everyone else, wearing the same clothes. It is very similar to freedom of speech, students should be allowed to wear what they want, within reason, and also saves the families of students money as school uniforms tend to be expensive. Also, just to shed some light on this. For older students nearing the end of school, how can we expect them to make important life decision when they can't even choose their own clothes?", "title": "Every school must have a uniform", "pid": "7ba06a9e-2019-04-18T13:30:49Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.66278076171875}, {"text": "While it\"s true that less wealthy students can\"t always afford to compete with other students, lesser fortunate students won\"t always be able to afford the high prices of school uniforms. Other efforts can be made to make students feel more united that don\"t include stripping them of their individuality. School uniforms negatively enforce the idea that all people are the same, should look the same, and should fit in with everyone else. Schools should promote individuality rather than enforcing conformity. Pro\"s argument can be considered a Red Herring fallacy argument because their focal points are centered on bullying instead of school uniforms. Conclusion: All schools should not mandate or require school uniforms.", "title": "Whether students should wear uniforms", "pid": "466a544c-2019-04-18T15:32:32Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.66259765625}, {"text": "Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing not in favor of requiring students to wear uniforms in schools.", "title": "Schools should not require their students to wear uniforms", "pid": "16833a0f-2019-04-18T14:31:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.60977172851562}, {"text": "This is a debate that is on school uniforms. I have asserted that they should be worn and am sticking with it. The second round will be the main argument. The third, rebuttals. And the forth closing statements. (no language or fallacies will be tolerated.if they are used, you forfeit)", "title": "Students should wear uniforms.", "pid": "ddb0b6b8-2019-04-18T14:08:45Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.60693359375}, {"text": "For this debate, I will argue for a school uniform, although I do not necessarily support it. Your main argument is that clothing is a way of showing creativity, and expressing one's self, which is hard to argue against. However, a school is a learning environment created for everyone to have a safe and positive experience, and as uncertain as it may sound at first, personalized clothing can be a opposition to this. First of all, bullying may occur as less well-off students may be harassed for their clothing, if it does not fit the modern \"style\". Second of all, some clothing may be considered indecent, and to put a strict line to differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable clothing is difficult, and their will always be loopholes. To address your concern about school spirit, the uniform may be democratically \"elected\", or voted upon by a mix of students, teachers, and parents, to create the perfect costume representing the school in a mature, and fashionable way. I can understand concerns about the censorship of creativity by enforcing uniforms, but the voting should take care of them.", "title": "High school students should wear uniforms.", "pid": "109aed09-2019-04-18T16:36:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.5950469970703}, {"text": "School uniforms are costly ( contrary to popular belief), destroys personality, the list goes on. The truths are self-evident that students should not be forced wear uniforms, and in the case were schools make uniforms mandatory the students do not even have a say in the matter. It is unjust to make students go through such an attack on their freedoms.", "title": "School uniforms should not be allowed in schools", "pid": "94533937-2019-04-18T17:03:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.59292602539062}, {"text": "Ok i will start this off, to me if my school made us wear uniforms i would not be happy for one that would be a drastic change for me, because i have never had to wear a school uniform other than CPI but thats not school thats trades. on the other hand i feel that your cloth tells about a persons personality and it shows what they like to wear. and i feel that a uniform constricts them from there creativeness in cloths. But i know that some people may wear inappropriate cloths and i hopeful they get that taken care of and just because someone wears something that is not school appropriate that does not mean you should jump the gun and mandate uniforms but what they should do is make rules about what type of cloth are appropriate like no shorty shorts, and no perverted cloths, one those students are about as old as 18 and under and there just not old enough to be wearing that kind of wardrobe. So thats what i have to state now its your turn, make it good.", "title": "should schools make it mandatory for students to wear uniforms during school time.", "pid": "8ae1260a-2019-04-18T15:33:35Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.5895233154297}, {"text": "I believe that public schools should be required for their kids to wear school uniforms.", "title": "School uniforms should be required by U.S. public schools.", "pid": "a56d6e37-2019-04-18T18:23:00Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.57806396484375}, {"text": "Being forced to wear school uniforms will do little to prevent bullying from happening. If a student isn't being bullied about their clothing they could get picked on for what shoes they wear or what accessories or backpack they have. School Uniforms don't create a safer environment but instead enforce a more hostile one. Students who violate the uniform dress code can be taken out of instructional time based on their outfit. Some students might also stress over having enough uniforms or how much money they spent on their uniform, these feelings exist with both regular clothing and uniform apparel. While uniform policies try to even the playing field among students, students find ways to break the dress code or modify their uniform to outshine each other. Uniforms don't even the playing field instead they create a whole other playing field that students still compete on. School uniforms enforce unrealistic expectations of unity amongst a large number of people. In the real world you don't dress exactly the same as the person next to you. Everyone strives to be their own person in society and one way of showcasing your individuality is through uniforms. Students can begin to lose a sense of individuality by continuously looking like everyone else. Students should have the right to express themselves through their choice of dress as long as it abides by the safety dress code regulations. Uniforms can't fix the bigger picture of creating a safer environment for students to attend.", "title": "Whether students should wear uniforms Part 2", "pid": "f4a3ee69-2019-04-18T15:32:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.5628204345703}, {"text": "Finally, also it's my last time for say my opinion about this topic. In general, still i think students don't need to wear school uniform. Nobody can't say \"Oh, you have to wear school uniform\" or something else. It's their own liberty. So, i think students don't need to wear a school uniform at school.", "title": "wearing a school uniform at school", "pid": "4430de8b-2019-04-18T15:28:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.55624389648438}, {"text": "Schools should not force students to wear uniforms because it violates freedom of expression and freedom of speech, which are in the First Amendment. It also will not prevent bullying as people can still bully based on disability, gender, race, etc.", "title": "Students should wear uniforms", "pid": "9389d854-2019-04-18T18:50:20Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.5359344482422}, {"text": "School Uniforms should be required in all education institutions for the following reasons: i) They bring unity and uniformity within the school community ii) They destroy social barriers and puts everyone on an equal paying field in terms of clothing iii) They hide the poor backgrounds of certain students which protects them from ridicule. iv) Since certain social barriers have been destroyed. This less distractions from study and other scholarly duties.", "title": "School Uniforms Shouldn't be Required.", "pid": "fa922cd8-2019-04-18T16:13:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.53558349609375}, {"text": "students should not have to wear uniforms, because they get no chance to show their personality, and the students hate them.", "title": "school uniforms", "pid": "cf842d6a-2019-04-18T17:28:15Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.53421020507812}, {"text": "I will be arguing that students should have to wear uniforms at schools. My opponent will be arguing against this. This is a tournament debate: http://www.debate.org...6,000 characters per round.4 rounds.2 weeks voting time.First round is for acceptance. Good luck to my opponent.", "title": "Uniforms at School!", "pid": "debd317e-2019-04-18T16:46:28Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.5295867919922}, {"text": "Since a private school is not controlled specifically by the government, they are free from a lot of standards and tests. Schools should choose what kind of environment t they want to create for their students. Not all private schools should have a uniform. Some can, but that's not my point. When wearing a uniform, it not only takes away a lot of creativity, but bullies can't tell you your clothes look stupid, so they'll focus on things you can't change, like your face. Dint get me wrong, uniforms can do good to prevent students from breaking the dress code, but they can cause a lot of stress as well.", "title": "Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms", "pid": "c901992b-2019-04-18T16:23:35Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.5294647216797}, {"text": "School Uniforms promote school staffs control over the students. Students are no longer given the tools need to succeed and are instead forced to conform in order to succeed. Wearing school uniforms can cause stress on a student to dress and act like everyone else in order to abide by the rules. Public Schools should not be able to enforce uniform dress codes because they are free institutions open to all. Uniforms cannot be totally enforced in public schools because it can then violate the open policy of accepting students. Students who cannot economically afford a student uniform can become discouraged from attending school and feel unwelcome. Student Uniforms do little to improve a students education. If students aren't distracted by their clothing choices they will find something else to get side tracked with. Student mandated uniforms will take away from student expressive individuality. Some students express themselves through their clothing choices and find common interests with others based on shared fashion choices. If a student can\"t express themselves through their outfit choices their personal identity and individuality is compromised. Thought school uniforms would aim at increasing students success, the solution is too controlling and the benefits wont out weight the means. If all students are forced to wear uniforms what would be next? Administrative approved backpacks?", "title": "Whether students should wear uniforms", "pid": "466a544c-2019-04-18T15:32:32Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.5263214111328}, {"text": "No, my response was indeed relevant. My very first acceptance post stated that I will take the side of schools deciding for themselves (via the free market). I'm sorry that your copy/paste response was not tailored for my counter-argument. Also, you don't seem to understand the fundamentals behind a free-market education system, which is what private schools are. If parents think a school and its rules are terrible, they don't send their kids there. The school administration can write the guidebook, but if the parents don't approve, the school will not get any students. The topic of this debate was not whether or not school uniforms have benefits for the students or not. It was if private schools should have their students wear uniforms. It's a question of what is good for the school. A school without any students isn't not a good school. The free market is the only deciding factor in this question. Many private schools do implement uniforms, and many do not.", "title": "Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms", "pid": "c9019969-2019-04-18T16:25:29Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.50930786132812}, {"text": "Hi, thank you for debate with me. First our topic is \"Wearing school uniform at school\". My position is pro. Your position is con. We choose this topic because, nowadays this is burning issue in the society. Some people think that student doesn't need to wear school uniform at school. Because every people have to respect their own talent and personality. However, the others think that we have to wear school uniform at school. So teachers can control them easily. To my mind, students need to wear school uniform at school. What is your opinion about this hot burning issue?", "title": "wearing a school uniform at school", "pid": "4430de8b-2019-04-18T15:28:56Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.50088500976562}, {"text": "As you mentioned their creativity and burning ambition of being modern can be shown in other directions, however school is an educational institution. There must be some frames and rules in order to control children in some degree. Also uniform is a saving of time. One more time, their freedom is not limited with school uniform.", "title": "High school students should wear uniforms.", "pid": "109aecea-2019-04-18T17:09:12Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.49154663085938}, {"text": "I also believe that students at other schools and members of the public may judge students by their uniforms. When I was a kid in elementary school we had to wear uniforms. When I got to Middle School and did not have to wear a uniform all the kids their judged me and bullied me because they thought kids that wore uniforms were snobs. I don't know why they thought this, I guess it was just implanted into their brains by society. Therefore, not wearing uniforms will help prevent students from being stereotyped. Also, uniforms are often dry clean only and that can be expensive for the families.", "title": "Should schools require uniforms", "pid": "c617f5ab-2019-04-18T14:18:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.485107421875}, {"text": "Students of any school in the country should not have to wear because it's taking freedom of expression. Yes, expressing your style can be made in different ways such as the hair. If you're expressing yourself through your hair then that's not really ALL of what you want to express. Most schools that do have uniforms deny to let the average student wear a different color from the uniform such as a hat,scarf's,bows, ect. Most students don't like the way they look in the uniform and most parents accept the idea because it saves money on school clothes and cost less during school supplies shopping. Most students have said, \"The uniforms take the expression from students.\" , \"Uniforms should be worn because no one would judge on what each other wear because everyone would be wearing the same thing.\" Students have spoken for themselves. And it is true that many students will judge each other on what they wear, but it doesn't matter. Uniforms are a way of saying, \"I'm a dull student that isn't allowed to wear what I want, however I want it.\" Uniforms take away that expression of your own personality, who you are, if you take that from a student then most won't be who they really are because they're afraid to either be made fun of for sticking out of the crowd, or breaking the rules but most don't' care about the rules. Uniforms take away who your are and should not be worn to schools.", "title": "Students should not have to wear uniforms.", "pid": "28f316b1-2019-04-18T18:27:06Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.4841766357422}, {"text": "I am strongly against school uniforms. The first reason is that they strongly violate students personal freedom. School often push that students should always be themselves, but is that really possible when they all have to wear the same thing. The next reason is that uniforms are expensive and few stores carry them. I will explain my other reasons in the next round", "title": "Should schools require uniforms", "pid": "c617f5ab-2019-04-18T14:18:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.4833221435547}, {"text": "Let me start of by saying that children should wear uniform to school . My reasons are listed in nice order and hope my opponent gives me a great debate . My links will be put in the bottom of my argument . Reasons why students should wear uniforms. 1 . Not all students will be able to afford nice cloths so there would be a lot of bullying for those who can't afford it . 2 . Bullying has been found responsible many student suicide and making it a law will increase suicide rates . 3 . There would be an increase in rasisiam in my opinion meaning I don't have much evidence to prove it but its based in the taught that if you say something an giants one person of a race then evreyone will think that that's true about the entire culture . I hope my opponent sees these as plausible reasons to why students should wear uniforms good luck. http://www.nl.idebate.org...", "title": "Students should not wear uniform", "pid": "40c16f39-2019-04-18T16:15:15Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.48324584960938}, {"text": "What do u think should students wear school uniforms", "title": "should students have to wear school uniforms", "pid": "caa63d4b-2019-04-18T12:31:31Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.46401977539062}, {"text": "Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing not in favor of requiring students to wear uniforms in schools.", "title": "Students should be required to wear uniforms in all schools", "pid": "a54d8ac8-2019-04-18T14:32:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.4595947265625}, {"text": "School uniforms should be compulsory for all students at all grade levels. There are many reasons,which justify this including discipline,discrimination and to give the students a sense of identity. If all students at a particular school didn't wear school uniforms,there would be discrimination between the financially advantaged people and the disadvantaged people.", "title": "should school uniforms be made compulsory in schools", "pid": "f0896680-2019-04-18T18:00:05Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.4588165283203}, {"text": "I think high school students should not wear uniforms, because it restricts their rights. They can make a decision by themselves, also they do not like when somebody requires it.", "title": "High school students should wear uniforms", "pid": "f8471401-2019-04-18T17:54:46Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.45233154296875}, {"text": "students should be required to wear uniform. it makes the school seem more in unison. you may disagree with me and say students need to express themselves but there are other ways you can express yourself. Furthermore, my school which doesn't use uniform encounters bullying and students break the dress code. we gave them an opportunity to express themselves and they took that for granted. wearing uniform also saves families money. Also, the amount of bullying based on outfits will decrease because everyone will be wearing the same thing.", "title": "should students wear uniform to school", "pid": "96158d24-2019-04-18T11:23:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.4462890625}, {"text": "It is obvious that students should wear uniforms in schools.", "title": "High school students should wear uniforms", "pid": "f84713e2-2019-04-18T18:06:56Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.44203186035156}, {"text": "So to recap, students should wear uniforms because they help behavior, because they are more professional and because the students would be bullied less. Thank you for debating with me, I appreciated it. And with that, I am done.", "title": "Students should wear uniforms.", "pid": "ddb0b6b8-2019-04-18T14:08:45Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.43511962890625}, {"text": "Those rules seem fair enough. While uniforms do give off a professional atmosphere for the children, I do not see how normal clothes can be distracting. Does that mean teachers should wear uniforms too? While I understand that we certainly don't want students coming to school in a bikini or a banana costume, a respectable dress code with no uniform should be reasonable for all schools. Also, parents shouldn't be forced to pay loads of money for uniforms which cost much more than regular clothes. Uniforms are simply not needed and do not affect the school at all.", "title": "All schools shouldn't have uniforms", "pid": "55bb92f4-2019-04-18T13:47:20Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.42926025390625}, {"text": "I assume I'm start with acceptance of the topic. Good luck, I look forward to reading your argument. The floor is yours.", "title": "Private Schools Should Have Students Wear Uniforms", "pid": "9084bde3-2019-04-18T17:31:55Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.42034912109375}, {"text": "To my mind, nowadays this is burning issue in the society. Some people think that student doesn't need to wear school uniform at school. Because every people have to respect their own talent and personality. However, the others think that we have to wear school uniform at school. So teachers can control them easily. To my mind, students don't need to wear school uniform at school.", "title": "wearing a school uniform at school", "pid": "4430de8b-2019-04-18T15:28:56Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.41943359375}, {"text": "School Uniforms promote school staffs control over the students. Students are no longer given the tools need to succeed and are instead forced to conform in order to succeed. Wearing school uniforms can cause stress on a student to dress and act like everyone else in order to abide by the rules. Public Schools should not be able to enforce uniform dress codes because they are free institutions open to all. Uniforms cannot be totally enforced in public schools because it can then violate the open policy of accepting students. Students who cannot economically afford a student uniform can become discouraged from attending school and feel unwelcome. Student Uniforms do little to improve a students education. If students aren't distracted by their clothing choices they will find something else to get side tracked with. Student mandated uniforms will take away from student expressive individuality. Some students express themselves through their clothing choices and find common interests with others based on shared fashion choices. If a student can't express themselves through their outfit choices their personal identity and individuality is compromised. Thought school uniforms would aim at increasing students success, the solution is too controlling and the benefits wont out weight the means. If all students are forced to wear uniforms what would be next? Administrative approved backpacks?", "title": "Whether students should wear uniforms Part 2", "pid": "f4a3ee69-2019-04-18T15:32:25Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.4140625}, {"text": "I agree with you, bullying does occur in various places under certain circumstances. People do get made fun of for things other than their style or expressing what they like, but a lot of the bullying is from making fun of clothes. Uniforms would create equality throughout schools. More students would feel equal to others, not below. I believe with a uniform you can still express yourself, you could easily add accessories such as jewelry, the color socks or tights of your choice, you still are allowed to wear your hair in the fashion you enjoy. Creating different uniforms would not create rivalry at all.. Different schools support different school colors. No unfriendly actions would occur. They do not separate us from the world, we are not locked up. The uniforms usually are expensive, but if you think about it the cost of a few pairs of pants, skirt and a shirt is nothing compared to the amount of clothing public school kids need/wear. Think of the amount of money they spend on clothes. So in the long run, uniforms may seem expensive, but compared to wearing regular clothes everyday it really isn't.", "title": "Students should be required to wear dress code", "pid": "89208796-2019-04-18T17:01:01Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.4068145751953}, {"text": "Clothing is one of the best ways for kids to express themselves, and with guidlines and rules, students are able to be themselves without being distracting. It's not fair limiting kid's closet because of uncomfortable uniforms, which could actually hurt one's education, because it may not be comfortable enough for the student to be able to pay attention. Uniforms are too strict.", "title": "School uniforms should be required", "pid": "38c67339-2019-04-18T17:31:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.40414428710938}, {"text": "The dress code does apply for most schools,but if kids were to wear school uniforms without being able to wear say\"a pin\" or have a sticker on kids are actually start rebelling if they show their own sense of fashion,plus the cost of school uniforms is very expensive so in conclusion school uniforms are not my type of way to go for schools.", "title": "Should uniforms be at schools", "pid": "f4e9fcc1-2019-04-18T14:49:34Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.40359497070312}, {"text": "Hi there BayBayShri. I am happy to take up your challenge and argue for having uniforms in public schools. The first point I want to make is that school uniforms promote equity throughout the school itself. If you are poor, and you have to wear your normal clothes, then people can ridicule you because of it. if you are rich, and you wear your normal clothes, people will try to be like you and then they struggle. They become lost because there is someone who is so much better than them. When there is a school uniform, everyone will look the same, so that no one is discriminated because of what they wear. That's why most schools (including mine) have uniform: it promotes equity. I look forward to your next point arguing against this topic. MasterPhoenix", "title": "Public school students should wear uniforms", "pid": "fe10ede9-2019-04-18T11:30:33Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.39837646484375}, {"text": "I accept, why not.", "title": "Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms", "pid": "c901994a-2019-04-18T16:23:59Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.38494873046875}, {"text": "Being forced to wear school uniforms will do little to prevent bullying from happening. If a student isn't being bullied about their clothing they could get picked on for what shoes they wear or what accessories or backpack they have. School Uniforms don't create a safer environment but instead enforce a more hostile one. Students who violate the uniform dress code can be taken out of instructional time based on their outfit. Some students might also stress over having enough uniforms or how much money they spent on their uniform, these feelings exist with both regular clothing and uniform apparel. While uniform policies try to even the playing field among students, students find ways to break the dress code or modify their uniform to outshine each other. Uniforms don't even the playing field instead they create a whole other playing field that students still compete on. School uniforms enforce unrealistic expectations of unity amongst a large number of people. In the real world you don\"t dress exactly the same as the person next to you. Everyone strives to be their own person in society and one way of showcasing your individuality is through uniforms. Students can begin to lose a sense of individuality by continuously looking like everyone else. Students should have the right to express themselves through their choice of dress as long as it abides by the safety dress code regulations. Uniforms can\"t fix the bigger picture of creating a safer environment for students to attend.", "title": "Whether students should wear uniforms", "pid": "466a544c-2019-04-18T15:32:32Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.38404846191406}, {"text": "School Uniforms Should Not be RequiredYou pro, I con (I will try to prove that school uniforms SHOULD be required)I'll just start off light here:School uniforms increase unity, prevent crime (more easily identify those that don't belong) and students who wear uniforms have better grades.source: http://www.psmag.com...Your turn", "title": "Challenger's choice", "pid": "e6f906f4-2019-04-18T15:32:03Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.37954711914062}, {"text": "Good luck con and have fun.", "title": "should schools make it mandatory for students to wear uniforms during school time.", "pid": "8ae1260a-2019-04-18T15:33:35Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.37747192382812}, {"text": "Thank you for the debate. I will present my main arguments on why I think that school uniforms should be in schools and are overall beneficial. 1) School uniforms in fact save time and money. So much time is wasted with students sorting out what clothes to wear on what day. The demand for a variety of clothing pieces is reduced to just the ones that meet school policy. Yes initially uniforms do cost some money but parents save in the long-run. Students don't need a constant closet of clothing combinations to wear to school. The uniform does it all. Uniforms therefore save both time and money. 2) School Uniforms equal the inevitable variety of social class If there is no uniform then students who come from families of lower economic status may be embarrassed about their cheap clothes they have to wear to school. The uniform fixes this problem. Students don't have to be embarrassed if they can't afford the latest clothing trends. If every student wears identical clothing i.e a uniform then the social status division is much less of an issue and therefore more beneficial to the student. This also potentially reduces bullying. 3) School uniforms improve student safety. When students are required to wear uniforms, the wearing of gang symbols or colors becomes harder, and therefore, reduces student risk and danger. Also a uniform means that baggy clothing is not allowed, so there is less opportunity to hide weapons or drugs in clothing. Therefore school violence is reduced. School theft is also less of a threat, because there is no ability to steal sneakers, expensive jackets etc. To back this up, schools where uniforms are required have seen a 95 percent decrease in crime, 90 percent decrease in suspensions, and vandalism on school property decreased by 69 percent. Source: (www.educationbug.org) I feel that uniforms are very beneficial to students. They protect them, make them feel equal and are very convenient even if the students don't realize it.", "title": "School uniforms should not be allowed in schools", "pid": "94533937-2019-04-18T17:03:17Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.37359619140625}, {"text": "As per your statement about students being more intelligent and efficient if they have uniforms, that is a common misconception. I point to Memphis City Schools as my evidence. Cordova High School has a very strict uniform policy, yet a very high fail rate. I know because I attended that school for two years. Out of the 500 people in my class, only half were passing. At my new school, we have no uniform policy, yet, it is praised as one of the top 5 schools in the State of Kentucky. You are also wrong when you say, \"When schools have uniforms kids focus more on they're studies not on they're clothes or how they look.\" Once again, I use MCS as my evidence. Every single day, girls would come into class and put on their makeup and guys would comb their hair with their hair picks, in total disregard for what the policy states. At my new school, everyone does their work and they don't really care about what other people are wearing. Kids are not friendlier when there is a uniform policy in place. In fact, students are more hostile. In the minds of students, they are being forced wear something that they do not want to. Because they feel like they are being forced to do something, tensions can escalate quickly. At Cordova High, fights were almost an everyday thing.", "title": "Students should have to wear school uniforms", "pid": "5f1c7022-2019-04-18T15:36:48Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.34573364257812}, {"text": "No, I do not think schools should have uniforms. I think that wearing whatever clothes you like help you express yourself. Also, some people say that school uniforms will help you pay attention in class, honestly I can say from experience, I learn better in sweat pants and sweatshirts. And honestly we are at school to learn and be educated not to be uniform.", "title": "Should Schools Have Uniforms", "pid": "480a719a-2019-04-18T14:11:26Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.32749938964844}, {"text": "School uniforms CAN, in a way, stop bullying. For example, kid goes to school (he comes from the average middle class family) wearing his favorite mickey mouse T-shirt and red sweatpants. A bully walks by wearing HIS favorite Microsoft sweater and blue shorts. The bully looks at the kid, and starts making fun at him for his sense of fashion and what he wears. If the two kids were wearing the same thing, though, the bully would be unable to make fun of the kid without making fun of himself.Thanks for the debate.", "title": "Should Students Have To Wear Uniforms", "pid": "3c8a9414-2019-04-18T11:42:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.3247528076172}, {"text": "The wealthier people would tend to look down and shun the poorer people as it gives them a chance to flaunt their wealth. When students wear school uniforms, it shows the similarities between them, and not the differences. Each school has their own rule of law and based on that, students need to obey on that law and respect. When a student wears a uniform, it shows a sign of dignity and it means that student has confirmed the school expectations and that student feels that he/she belongs to that school.", "title": "should school uniforms be made compulsory in schools", "pid": "f0896680-2019-04-18T18:00:05Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.320556640625}, {"text": "For me, we have to respect each of students personality and fashion for style. Due to the fact, contemporary people are open-minded. So they have duty for show their fashion. Therefore, i think students don't need to wear school uniform at school.", "title": "wearing a school uniform at school", "pid": "4430de8b-2019-04-18T15:28:56Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.31373596191406}, {"text": "Hello Con, I'm glad that you have accepted my debate,I believe that kids should wear school uniforms for several reasons.Firstly, school is an institution for educating children(dictionary.com). School is not a place for children to wear what they want to, it's place where they are educated for their future lives. As you have mentioned:\"It teaches them from a young age that everyone should act the same, and dress the same.\" I am yet to find how wearing school uniforms can affect the children to act the same. Wearing school uniform makes the school look more organised and shows pride for each schools. Wearing school uniform also allows other students/parents to easily notice where a child is from. For example, this is probably a really bad one, a child is seen getting into an accident where his/her parents are nowhere to be found. If the child is wearing a school uniform, one can notify the school immediately. Of course there are variables to this, but what I am trying to prove is that wearing school uniform can reduce these from happening.Talking about your harsh reality, I think that judgements made by what a child wears is harsher than wearing the same clothes like everyone else. As children are not forced to wear school uniforms, they will, of course, wear different clothes than everybody. Some will wear fancier than others. This can lead to judgements made by other kids, and this leads to bullying. Sources: http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...I look forward to your next argument to be made.", "title": "Kids should wear uniforms", "pid": "f6f33da9-2019-04-18T17:06:27Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.310791015625}, {"text": "Thank you for this argument, which I hope that you are enjoying it as I am. I applaud your well thought out argument, but to respond firstly, to your initial point that students should focus on their education rather than their clothes. This is true, but students aren't going to be any more productive in the morning than thinking of what the wear in front of the wardrobe. Like I said again, we can't expect students to easily adapt to adult life where they will need to pick their own attire, as well as make many other decisions, when months before, they had to have many things picked out for them. A survey on whether students would rather uniforms or not by Kids USA (Scholastic) has also resulted in most students choosing no. http://teacher.scholastic.com... I simply can't agree with my opponents point about school uniforms being more \"cost-effective\" than regular apparel, as whether or not there is a school uniform, students will always have their everyday clothes, and many students would prefer them, in a matter of whether they feel more comfortable or more like themselves. School uniform is just adding more items of clothing to a parent's shopping list and financial burden. Encouraging a student to take on the responsibility of choosing his/her own clothes should be a good thing, to encourage and teach organization, so that clothes are set out for the next day for example, so that students may still be punctual and reach school on time. I return the debate to my opponent.", "title": "Every school must have a uniform", "pid": "7ba06a9e-2019-04-18T13:30:49Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.30783081054688}, {"text": "I agree with you that allowing students to wear whatever they want helps them in their creativity and teaches them how to make their own decisions. But doing learning journeys, whenever a student gets lost, what if a teacher that the student does not know happens to walk past him? And if the teacher also does not know the student is from the same school? If the student is wearing school uniform, then the teacher would know that he is a student and help to bring back to his class. But if the student is not wearing school uniform, then the teacher would not know he is a student. Bullying does happen in schools if the students wear school uniforms or not, but at least for schools with uniforms, the victims of bullying will not have to worry about the clothes they wear which is one less thing to worry about as long as they keep their uniforms neat.", "title": "Students should wear school uniform.", "pid": "a7f5e454-2019-04-18T13:43:30Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.30397033691406}, {"text": "\"Nike is the uniform for kids all over the world. . . \"\"~ M. I. A. Nike is the everyday attire for kids all around the globe. People think that middle schools shouldn't have students wear school uniforms. There are many reasons why people think that middle schools shouldn't have uniforms such as everyday attire is more comfortable, It restricts students from expressing themselves, And it takes a shorter amount of time to get ready. Students want to be the most focused in school, So middle-schoolers would rather wear everyday attire because it is more comfortable. Many middle school students will agree with a writer who said: \". . . The uniforms can be very uncomfortable too tight or too loose. \" (debate. Org) School uniforms can be so tight around the waist that students get a stomach ache. If middle-schoolers end up getting a stomach ache students will need to go to the office. This might cause students to miss school for the rest of the day which will put students behind in some classes. Missing class is a bad thing for students, So allowing middle school students to wear comfortable or everyday attire such as Nike is helpful.", "title": "No school uniforms", "pid": "f4ca2630-2019-04-18T11:15:38Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.29859924316406}, {"text": "Public schools should require their students to wear uniforms. They would end up saving money for parents, could help stop bullying, and help focus students attention to the lessons that matter. Personal outfits can often be too distracting, revealing, and results in sutdents being bullied for dressing their own way or not being able to fford certain brands of clothing. The debate will consists of 5 rounds 1. Acceptance 2. Argument/Rebuttal 3. Argument/Rebuttal 4. Argument/Rebuttal 5. Conclusions There will be an 8,000 character limit and 72 hours to complete each round.", "title": "Puclic Schools Should Require Uniforms", "pid": "2f076d70-2019-04-18T18:22:08Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 218.29713439941406}, {"text": "we should not have to wear uniforms to school. Somebody please change my mind about this", "title": "Uniforms- should we have to wear them? CHANGE MY MIND PLEASE!", "pid": "5c0d9fa0-2019-04-18T11:11:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.293212890625}, {"text": "I accept my opponent's aforementioned propositions and will debate them willingly.As per the rules of debating, I shall create a set of axioms that should be followed.However, I would like to mention that it is direly unfortunate that my opponent has restricted the character count to something so small.Rules:1. No plagiarism2. No trolling3. Stay on topic4. Try to stay away from Anecdotal evidenceThe rest of the rules are implicitly stated, as it's self-evident that some things will not stand in a debate. Due to it being a 3 round debate, I will give some of my propositions here. Assertion 1:I would find that school uniforms facilitate unity in composition and also faciliate learning, as it's quite evident that certain styles of dressing can show signs of a lack of intelligence, manners, and will distract other students from learning as well.Additionally, I would propose that uniforms can be chosen by each school's administration as to if the dress code will be relaxed or not.", "title": "All schools shouldn't have uniforms", "pid": "55bb92f4-2019-04-18T13:47:20Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.2721405029297}, {"text": "Before I begin I would like to clarify your position. When you assert that schools shouldn't have official uniforms with labels are you suggesting that they instead have guidelines that allow students to wear non branded uniforms with no logos or have students wearing casual personal attire? With the latter cost can still be significant as students are generally vying for attention or social standing. Therefore they would desire well known labels to conform to their defined social groups or convey a specific aspect of their identity. If certain students couldn't fulfill the expectations of their peers or are only able to afford undefined, nondescript brands there would be an increase in disparity which can be a platform for ridicule. Currently school uniforms can be altered, recycled or purchased second hand which can limit costs. Regardless of where the branded uniform is purchased (either first or second hand) there is often little difference indicating its origin and a student's financial status isn't revealed. In addition logos and specific colors can identify a school. When worn correctly school uniforms can present to wider society an image for the school which can encourage enrollment while increasing the institution's reputation. This uniformity can be useful on excursions as students are easily identifiable, this can be specifically useful with primary school children as they may become lost. Uniforms can also provide increased safety in school zones by serving as a reminder to drivers and crossing guards while increasing visibility. It is often cited that schools stifle creativity and while I must concede to this aspect of the argument. Self expression on the basis of clothes can be shallow and establishing general school guidelines while cheaper won't remedy the loss of creativity. Self-expression and creativity can be expressed through a variety of activities or outlets and ultimately the conformity encouraged in school is simple preparation for professional environments.", "title": "All schools should have uniforms", "pid": "bd58bcfa-2019-04-18T12:49:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.26596069335938}, {"text": "Schools uniforms don't allow students to express themselves in a way they are comfortable with. They don't stop bullying. Bully's will have the advantage to talk about the name brand uniforms and the non name brand uniforms. Uniforms can cause families to not have that much money because they are high. They are considered the most expensive pieces of clothing because most are name brand. At the time when Ed White had to wear uniforms many people didn't have money, the uniforms didn't have the right school colors, they didn't come in the right sizes and etc... The Khakis pants are high then Jupiter's moon.", "title": "Should Students Have To Wear Uniforms", "pid": "3c8a9414-2019-04-18T11:42:17Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.2657928466797}, {"text": "Contention 1:\"While ... Does that mean teachers should wear uniforms too? \" My opponent makes a non sequitur. Firstly, a dress code, a strict one might I add, is present in all formal establishments for the people that work there. Additionally, the repercussions for dressing in an immature or unprofessional way for a teacher can be very detrimental to their financial life. To state that a student's role in the school is equatable to the teacher's role, and that both have the same responsibilities and expectations is an absurd statement indeed.Contention 2:\"Also... and do not affect the school at all.\" If parents are not able to procure a uniform for their students, than the state can pay for it at the taxpayer's expense. Additionally, it's much cheaper to buy 1 full set of a uniform that the student wears for the remainder of the year than to buy multiple sets of clothes that are switched out. Note that I have shortened the statements in the quotations due to the lack of room to write.", "title": "All schools shouldn't have uniforms", "pid": "55bb92f4-2019-04-18T13:47:20Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.25994873046875}, {"text": "I don't know of any student who would want to wear skirts in -12* weather or the hot weather...", "title": "Should students be forced to wear a school uniform", "pid": "db524bb6-2019-04-18T15:31:00Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.25030517578125}, {"text": "School uniforms should be required because of the following reasons: (1) It can prevent bullying as people will not be judged based on what they wear (2) Students will be tardy less as they won't need to spend as much time in the mornings preparing clothes. (3) It will make school more of a professional environment.", "title": "School Uniforms", "pid": "2403606c-2019-04-18T11:14:56Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.24989318847656}, {"text": "Every where there is definite dress code, which we have to support. the uniform at schools are not an exception. There are several reasons why i take this point of view. Firstly, uniform do not take your attention to other things which are not connecting with lessons. Secondly it is a discipline, which will prepare pupils to the future career. In serious and pupular companies there is an uniform also. Thirdly the uniform is not so expensive and everyone could buy it independently on their financial status. And the last argument is that with help of uniform there will no descremination, and every children will stay in the equal position.", "title": "High school students should wear uniforms", "pid": "f84713e2-2019-04-18T18:06:56Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.2496337890625}, {"text": "I totally agree that Schools should have uniforms, also i don't agree with the statement that whatever we wear expresses our-self. Outward Manifestations are not always true i.e. whatever we wear does not always the true person. In simpler words- 'Visuals/appearances can be Deceiving'. And in the case of comfort, the comfort level of a person depends on himself/herself.", "title": "Should Schools Have Uniforms", "pid": "480a719a-2019-04-18T14:11:26Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.2489013671875}, {"text": "Uniforms in school are unnecessary. Uniforms are needed in the army where soldiers need to know who is on their side. In school, Uniforms won't help students learn more, But learning more is the purpose of school. Uniforms are too much trouble for very little benefit: schools would have to design special dress codes, Lots of students would get in trouble for not wearing uniforms, The schools would have to spend money on making uniforms, Etc. Uniforms in school violate freedom of expression. Students should be allowed to wear what they want as long as it doesn't distract other students. Coming to school in a bikini distracts other students, But not wearing a uniform doesn't. Students should be able to choose what they wear and be fashionable! School would be a very boring place if everybody had the same clothes. Wearing one uniform would be very problematic. If a student spills something on their uniform, They won't be able to come to school until it's washed. If a student rips their uniform, They won't be able to come to school until they get a new one. This is so much trouble that could have been avoided if there were no uniforms in school. Always wearing a uniform will make it dirty, And it will have to be washed all the time. It's better to wear different clothes. Making a uniform mandatory won't help students choose clothes. Nobody is forcing you to choose what to wear, You can wear one tracksuit for the whole year (very similar to a uniform, Heh). Nobody spends hours on putting together outfits, That's nonsense. Forcing others to wear uniforms because you can't choose what to wear to school isn't right. Other students aren't responsible for your issues.", "title": "Uniforms", "pid": "df002939-2019-04-18T11:10:56Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.245849609375}, {"text": "Well, it doesn't matter if they wear uniforms or not. Students will still change the uniforms into a clothing style that they want. There will be no difference in how they do in school with or without uniforms. Uniforms is just a type of school spirit dress code. As my opponent said about being sexy, girls will do the same thing with uniforms. Its just like when you play soccer. You use pennies to differentiate teams. Players dont wear their pennies the right way. They wear it just like they wear their regular shirts. My opponent makes no point with this argument. Therefore I shall make a superior statement in the final round", "title": "should public school students wear uniforms", "pid": "7bf53995-2019-04-18T19:33:59Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.24420166015625}, {"text": "When the subject of mandatory school uniforms comes into question, the first words on opposing parents\" lips is in regards to kids\" lost sense of individuality and freedom of expression. Kids need to mark themselves as part of the herd but still be wholly individual from their peer groups, which is why uniforms can sometimes be seen as problematic. Some parents also worry that when the freedom to express themselves through their wardrobe is removed, kids will resort to more extreme forms of expression like piercings and tattoos. School should be a breeding ground for acceptance and tolerance, as it\"s a smaller-scale version of the world at large in many cases. Kids need to learn to accept and celebrate each other\"s differences, up to and including the way that different cultures dress. Some religions have strict rules about what is and is not considered acceptable dress, and school uniforms may not always fall in line with those religious requirements. Allowing some kids dispensation on religious grounds will only make them stand out more in a sea of uniforms, potentially leading to bullying and harassment. For some parents, being able to purchase clothing at the beginning of the school year that adheres to the uniform code is a financial relief. After all, most uniforms are comprised of staple garments easily purchased at discount stores. For others, however, being forced to purchase specific clothing infringes upon their kids\" right to a free education.", "title": "Private Schools Should Have Students Wear Uniforms", "pid": "9084be02-2019-04-18T16:40:02Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.23770141601562}, {"text": "My first argument is this: My school is a title school. This means that a lot of the kids that go to school come from lower income families. Because students have the right to a free education, if the school wanted the kids to wear uniforms then they must pay for it. Now lets look at a school system like mine with about 10,000 students. According to learningin21 \"Uniform tops cost $26.99, uniforms bottoms cost $34.99 or $44.99, pullovers cost $39.99 and vest cost $35.99.\" Now each child will need about 3 outfits. This will cost a public school system greatly. Like I said, because you cannot deny children access to public education, the school system must pay for students who cannot afford these uniforms. Please keep in mind that I am only talking about public schools here. Private schools wearing uniforms is a totally different issue. :)", "title": "Public school students should wear uniforms", "pid": "fe10ede9-2019-04-18T11:30:33Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.23715209960938}, {"text": "Contention 1 - EqualityOne of the most obvious argument for school uniforms is that by having all children dressed the same, there is a decrease in bullying and teasing. In this era of status brands and high-fashion trends, clothing has become the definitive status symbol for children and teens. By evening the playing field with uniforms, there is less opportunity for children to be picked on or shunned for their clothes.Contention 2 - School Spirit and Identity Many experts believe that when the entire student body is dressed in uniforms, they develop a stronger team mentality. When they are all dressed alike, their all-for-one-and-one-for-all comradery is boosted.Contention 3 - Simple Economics Buying a few school uniforms instead of a new school wardrobe every fall is much more economical. School uniforms are designed to stand up to everyday wear and repeated washing so most parents find that they can get away with buying a few sets.Contention 4 - Unity Educators and experts who are pro school uniforms believe that uniforms contribute positively to students' behavior. They believe that when students wear uniforms, they feel more professional and behave accordingly. Many educators believe that students can become distracted by fashion trends and status symbol clothing. Therefore, when all students are dressed in regulation uniforms, there is less focus on fashion in the classroom and more focus on learning.", "title": "Schools should have uniforms", "pid": "5177bde4-2019-04-18T13:40:21Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.2301788330078}, {"text": "Yes, they should. Schools that include school uniforms had a 51% less fighting rate, possibly because they didnt have anything to steal. School uniforms also keep kids focused on their education not their clothes. They also level a playing field so people dont think one person is cooler than another just because of what clothes they are wearing, they will think ones cooler than another because of their personality which is how it should be in the first place. They also prevent people from having gang sings on clothing. Also uniforms increase school unity and school spirit,", "title": "School Uniforms", "pid": "24035fd1-2019-04-18T12:22:39Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.22906494140625}, {"text": "Please do NOT use any other sources to help your debate, and please do NOT use any offensive words or statements. Thanks", "title": "Schools should have uniforms for students.", "pid": "41506d41-2019-04-18T15:34:52Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.2261505126953}, {"text": "I accepted bossnegotiator's challenge. I will be arguing that students should not be forced to wear a school uniform.", "title": "Should students be forced to wear a school uniform", "pid": "db524bb6-2019-04-18T15:31:00Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.22447204589844}, {"text": "A students clothing, depending on the individual,can mean a way to express themselves, show who they are, essentially speaking without words. Most people would agree that you can tell a lot about someone by how they present themselves. this would make the choices that we make with our clothing an extension of free speech.The supreme court case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District stated that the school did not have the right to limit the freedom of speech so long as the medium that the students are using is non violent and not distracting from the learning environment. Now even though the case was specifically about armbands that students were wearing to protest the vietnam war I believe the Idea carries over the the dress code; That so long as the student isnt wearing anything that compleatly distracts from the learning environment then they should be free to express themselves in any way they choose. The only stipulations to the freedom to wear whatever they choose the indivdual administrations of the schools are free to decide within in reason what would be considered a distraction in the classroom.", "title": "Students should wear uniforms.", "pid": "ddb0b6b8-2019-04-18T14:08:45Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.22190856933594}, {"text": "If students are allowed to wear anything appropriate. They can express their feeling on how they should wear, and people can identify each other easily.", "title": "All Schools Need Uniforms", "pid": "bf8e7620-2019-04-18T14:20:59Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.22177124023438}, {"text": "I believe there should be school uniforms in schools. For one, think about how much time you would have to sleep in! All you have to do the night before is pick out your uniform and you're good. You dont have to worry about picking out specific clothing or worrying about what people will think; everyone is wearing the same thing anyway! Also, you dont have to run around buying new clothes for the school year. You only have to buy one set of uniforms. This can help you save a lot of money. Sure, the uniform may be bland and color oriented, but you are at school to get an education, NOT to make a fashion statement to your fellow peers.", "title": "School Uniforms", "pid": "24035c6d-2019-04-18T12:30:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.21389770507812}, {"text": "Private Schools should have the right to decide their own dress code, whether that involves a uniform or not.", "title": "Private Schools Should Have Their Students Wear Uniforms", "pid": "c9019969-2019-04-18T16:25:29Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.2131805419922}, {"text": "First I will go over the meaning of the resolution Observation 1 meaning of the resolution: Since the resolution says should, it means I must prove should uniforms be considered due to some benifits. Now since the resolution says \"schools should have uniforms for students\" and not \"it should be required for schools to have uniforms for students\" it means this is an option, kind of like school lettermen's it could just be something to show off. Observation 2: opponents rules Since my opponent says no sources can be used in this debate then overall vote for sources should just be tie. So yeah I will be backing up the following points next round. 1. School uniforms would be optional 2. School uniforms would keep boys from looking at girls in a rather naughty way and help schools enforce clothing requirements 3. Since school uniforms have some benefits no reason not to have them available to those who want them.", "title": "Schools should have uniforms for students.", "pid": "41506d41-2019-04-18T15:34:52Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.21192932128906}, {"text": "You need to cite your evidence because I feel as if you are making these statistics up - please provide links and citations. What someone wears will not change if they are going to kill themselves or not - that is an obsurd reasoning. It may help to not wear a spacific outfit to block out the bullies - but bullying is a more complex issue, as I stated before, then just someone's wardrobe. And bullying does not really have to do with uniforms at all - if a student is being bullied because of their clothing in a public school, then they can just move to a private school with uniforms as a requirement. More uniforms = more money needed to buy them? Where is the board of education going to find the money to pay for these uniforms? Who will manufacture and make them? There are much more problems associated with your claim then you think.", "title": "Students should wear school uniforms.", "pid": "5a92807d-2019-04-18T14:35:20Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.20912170410156}, {"text": "Thanks to Pro for the challenge. I will be arguing that school uniforms should not be required for two main reasons. 1. How we dress is an expression of our personalities. Requiring uniforms stifles a child's creativity, and ability to express himself through his/her wardrobe. 2. Dress codes can be enforced that stop kids from wearing clothing that can be a distraction, in the learning environment, thus there is no need to exert authority over what kids wear to school so long as it meets standards of decency. I look forward to Pro's arguments.", "title": "sholud school uniform be given or not", "pid": "14dd18ff-2019-04-18T16:54:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.2070770263672}, {"text": "The military and other formal institutions use uniform to show discipline. It is also one of the reasons uniforms are worn in some schools. These schools have been shown to have a more disciplined and learner friendly environment. A uniform also as the effect of camaraderie on the group of people wearing the same uniform. People work together better if visually, it looks like their on the same side. In schools it also has the added benefit there of reducing bullying due to different socio-economic standards not being as visible. People cant be picked on because their clothing is not fashionable as they all wear pretty much the same thing. Therefore I think that school uniforms croat an environment in which learners can better do what their supposed to be doing, and that is to learn", "title": "Should students be forced to wear a school uniform", "pid": "db524bb6-2019-04-18T15:31:00Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.1927490234375}, {"text": "In almost all government schools in the USA, uniform is not required, whereas there are few schools in the UK, private or government, that allow students to wear anything they like (usually a loose dress code applies). I will be arguing in favour of all high schools and secondary schools to make uniform compulsory. There are my main arguments. Having a uniform creates a sense of community Especially in larger schools, (800+ students) many teens feel left out, or that they don't belong. Having a uniform unites all the students, and shows that even though the school's population may be high, all the students are equal, which brings me on to my next point. Especially in government schools where there is a wide range of financial status between students, many may feel unhappy or left out if they can't afford more expensive clothes. Imagine how low a teenager's self esteem can be if most the girls or boys in their class show up to school in expensive or branded clothes, and they can maybe only afford clothes from supermarkets? This can cause many problems for the student. As I mentioned, feeling as though they are \"poorer\" than other students can really lower a student's self esteem, which isn't healthy for a teenager, or anyone for that matter. Secondly, if the student feels under pressure to wear certain brands to school, they may spend all their pocket money (if applicable) and wages (if they have a part time job) on expensive clothes rather than things they need such as stationary or study guides. Thirdly, as I mentioned; students can be subjected to bullying if they are not wearing \"cool clothes\" and this can cause psychological problems for the student later in life. Thirdly and finally, I believe that the media (movies, TV shows etc) really expresses how a student's clothing matches their personality. For example, \"goth kids\" wear dark clothes and lots of black eyeliner, and \"theatrical kids\" wear colourful retro clothes, or whatever. Some kids may feel like they don't belong in a certain friendship group or clique, because they can't afford or don't want to wear the kind of clothes the other people in the group wear. I believe that students should join friendship groups based on their personality, and not whether they have the right clothes to join. Thank you for reading my argument.", "title": "High School / Secondary school Students should be required to wear a uniform", "pid": "375bf80d-2019-04-18T18:30:46Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.18472290039062}]}
{"idx": 9, "qid": "10", "q_text": "Should any vaccines be required for children?", "qrels": {"e890bfaf-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00002-000": 2, "5a57225c-2019-04-18T11:55:06Z-00000-000": 1, "5c5c5647-2019-04-18T14:15:34Z-00005-000": 1, "62a235a3-2019-04-15T20:24:21Z-00017-000": 0, "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00007-000": 2, "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00004-000": 2, "954be27-2019-04-18T15:19:53Z-00002-000": 2, "7e60a5d4-2019-04-18T15:49:08Z-00002-000": 2, "81901837-2019-04-18T17:55:43Z-00003-000": 2, "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00003-000": 0, "9854dc30-2019-04-18T16:23:28Z-00005-000": 2, "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00004-000": 2, "79f05a51-2019-04-18T14:20:37Z-00002-000": 2, "3e260ff0-2019-04-18T12:07:36Z-00001-000": 0, "10cdf65f-2019-04-18T12:30:37Z-00000-000": 2, "26504de6-2019-04-18T15:39:10Z-00005-000": 0, "173e9f20-2019-04-18T13:26:12Z-00003-000": 2, "119666c7-2019-04-18T15:09:01Z-00001-000": 1, "e057cec7-2019-04-18T15:04:52Z-00003-000": 0, "f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00052-000": 0, "f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00048-000": 2, "f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00050-000": 2, "f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00021-000": 2, "f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00051-000": 1, "fbd03c26-2019-04-18T12:54:18Z-00001-000": 1, "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00189-000": 0, "feda66aa-2019-04-18T16:44:09Z-00004-000": 0, "feda66c9-2019-04-18T14:53:20Z-00004-000": 0, "3a1faa39-2019-04-18T12:17:34Z-00001-000": 1, "3575d3d7-2019-04-18T15:45:28Z-00001-000": 2, "dc71f322-2019-04-18T19:06:18Z-00000-000": 2, "7d2f63b6-2019-04-18T14:52:21Z-00004-000": 2, "b2d8d220-2019-04-18T16:19:58Z-00001-000": 0, "ce51e380-2019-04-18T16:30:34Z-00002-000": 1, "ce51e361-2019-04-18T16:31:42Z-00000-000": 0, "ce51e361-2019-04-18T16:31:42Z-00002-000": 0, "c7f51eb0-2019-04-18T16:19:34Z-00006-000": 0, "d0c78d5a-2019-04-18T11:47:44Z-00001-000": 0, "b2d8d220-2019-04-18T16:19:58Z-00002-000": 0, "aea72628-2019-04-18T11:40:42Z-00003-000": 1, "c4e8d546-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00056-000": 0, "ac76a191-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00010-000": 2}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Childhood vaccines have been a hot topic and I wish to argue for them. These arguments should suffice- 1. Disease eradication 2. Milder symptoms of a disease 3. Lives saved 4. And herd immunity I will also put down arguments like abridging freedoms, etc.", "title": "Mandatory Childhood Vaccines", "pid": "81901837-2019-04-18T17:55:43Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.70358276367188}, {"text": "Children should receive vaccinations? Well, some vaccines are untrustworthy, and may even be harmful to children.", "title": "Children should receive vaccinations.", "pid": "79f05a51-2019-04-18T14:20:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.59043884277344}, {"text": "There are laws about what vaccines are required for a VISA both to certain countries and from them. Unless the African family hid in a suitcase while going to a country without the disease, taking a vaccine would be mandatory and the proof of vaccination (usually a yellow sheet of medically verified paper) would be required to get the visa. If they ALREADY had the disease they would have failed the blood tests required to get the VISA and/or vaccination in the first place. You seem to not understand that although some vaccinations should be mandatory to make all vaccinations mandatory for children would be most ridiculous and be wasting precious biological resources which could save adults and/or be used to better understand the virus as opposed to worrying about wasting it on vaccinating children in a nation where that microorganism isn't even present.", "title": "Mandatory Childhood Vaccines", "pid": "81901837-2019-04-18T17:55:43Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.5167236328125}, {"text": "Vaccinations should be mandatory to eligible children before reaching adolescence not just to protect them, but to protect the health within the community. Vaccines are safe and effective. They are cost-effective compared to medical treatment. Severe reaction from vaccines occurs rarely. Deaths due to vaccine-preventable diseases are undeniably high. Preventing this deaths through vaccinations does not only save lives, but it is also beneficial for the growth of the community. Stories that lacks scientific evidence continues to spread and if this continues to happen, future generations will be unvaccinated and can lead to a big outbreak. Take an action. Parents will do everything to keep their children safe. Protect them. Vaccinate them.", "title": "Mandatory childhood vaccination", "pid": "173e9f20-2019-04-18T13:26:12Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.4839324951172}, {"text": "I believe vaccines are a useful tool at preventing illness and saving lives. The smallpox vaccine was able to eradicate smallpox from the earth, which has saved countless lives. The rabies vaccine is the only way you can survive rabies, otherwise it would be 100% lethal. And there is work on an ebola vaccine which would stop ebola outbreaks in the future. Yet despite my support of vaccines, I do not think they should be mandatory. Making vaccines mandatory is a bad idea for two reasons. Reason one, some people have dangerous or even fatal reactions to vaccines. Reason two, the government should not force substances into people's bodies. I will expand on these point in the next round.", "title": "should kids be vaccinated", "pid": "7d2f63b6-2019-04-18T14:52:21Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.47216796875}, {"text": "It is true that some people can't be vaccinated due to allergies, BUT all other children should have to be vaccinated as it prevents awful diseases such as influenza and whooping cough which if a baby gets she/he will most likely die.", "title": "vaccinating children must be a law", "pid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.4502410888672}, {"text": "you shouldn't vaccinate children since it gives autism and it contains the virus if you get the choice of contracting non-deadly diseases that you are likely not to contract vs getting autism what would you rather have.", "title": "On balance, children should be vaccinated.", "pid": "f36f640f-2019-04-18T12:25:26Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.34837341308594}, {"text": "Vaccination is a relatively new process. For this reason, there are risks to using any vaccine. However, these vaccines are not limited to the HPV vaccine. Because of the nature of our health system, these risks should be taken into account, and the risks that a parent wants expose their children to should be their own decision. Second of all, all public school systems and most private school systems already require the immunization of children. The fact that most parents send their children to school is clear sign that most children are already being vaccinated for the biggest diseases(such as hepatitis.) The few parents without children attending school would not have much risk of having their child exposed to such a diesease, as the vast majority of the population (attending public or private schools) are immunized. Therefore, it can be seen that an official mandate to REQUIRE all parents to immunize their children is unnessesary because the vast majority of our population, that attend public and private schools have already been vaccinized, and with a majority of the population immune, a spread of diesease is unlikely.", "title": "Not getting children vaccinated", "pid": "6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.27352905273438}, {"text": "I think that all children who CAN be vaccinated, many children and adults are immunocompromised, or undergoeing chemotherapy, etc., etc. But other than that, hear hear sir.", "title": "vaccinating children must be a law", "pid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.25228881835938}, {"text": "Not only are vaccines possible to cause fatal (life-taking) results in certain children http://www.uptodate.com... it's also an issue of wasting vaccine biogenetic material for the mere purpose of vaccinating children.For example no typhoid is found in USA, Canada, Australia and most of Europe and Russia (including its Asian half) http://tinyurl.com..., so why waste resources causing this to be a mandatory vaccination if the family aren't taking the child on holiday to africa/asia Additionally hepititis B is very rarely found in USA http://tinyurl.com....It should be up to parents for the issues their child will face, not mandatory for all children.", "title": "Mandatory Childhood Vaccines", "pid": "81901837-2019-04-18T17:55:43Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.22010803222656}, {"text": "Vaccinations are a scam, cause Autism, and all sorts of other negative consequences. It is mean to do this to a child who has no say in the matter and he/she could die from it. It's a eugenics program, aimed at killing people slowly.", "title": "There should not be Mandatory Vaccinations", "pid": "5a57223d-2019-04-18T11:54:56Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.1868438720703}, {"text": "u say that vaccines can cause autism but this has been proved to be false and here's a point for you witch parent do you think would be the happier the parent that doesn't believe in the propaganda of jabs causing health problems of the parent who's child is blinded by measles or worse because they did believe it ?", "title": "State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.", "pid": "f7360098-2019-04-18T18:14:27Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.08787536621094}, {"text": "Mothers need to vaccinate their children in order for them to avoid getting fatal diseases. Most diseases are prevented by getting vaccinations. Due to vaccinations diseases like smallpox have been eradicated. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) on their website wrote an Article title Smallpox writing \"Thanks to the success of vaccination, the last natural outbreak of smallpox in the United States occurred in 1949.\" Vaccines have allowed and continue to allow protection to children from diseases that were once deadly.", "title": "Children should be vaccinated", "pid": "ea0ed4bb-2019-04-18T11:37:52Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.0838623046875}, {"text": "See above.", "title": "Children should receive vaccinations.", "pid": "79f05a51-2019-04-18T14:20:37Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.06118774414062}, {"text": "Good LuckFirst off, I would like to remind my opponent of the topic- State Mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified. We are argueing on the fact whether or not childhood vaccinations should be mandated or not. Not whether vaccines are good or bad. We want the parent to have a choice instead of it being mandated. This could go against religion, and beliefs. If parents want to believe that the vaccine causees autism, let them, as they must have a choice. Your first argument is the autism claim is false. My response is that since I have evidence that vaccines cause autism while you have no evidence proving me wrong. Thus that stands. Your second argument is that people will be blinded by measles because they didn't get the vaccine. Again, look at the topic and again I will state that the parents will have choices. Second, If almost everyone in the US takes the vaccine, and if one person doesn't because of beliefs/religion, then he/she will not get the disease since every one around he/she will be sterile.", "title": "State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.", "pid": "f7360098-2019-04-18T18:14:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.03863525390625}, {"text": "I think that if kids are required to get vaccines that there shouldn't be religious exemptions. The parents risk getting their kids seriously sick for there personal beliefs.", "title": "Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines.", "pid": "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.9081573486328}, {"text": "Some vaccines include toxic materials such as chemicals including mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium, and a variety of other known toxic materials. Vaccines might be capable of causing recurrent infections in children because they weaken the immune system. Parents should have the right to choose on behalf of their children whether they should be vaccinated at all, or to choose vaccination against some diseases but not others.", "title": "Vaccination is a natural way to stimulate our immune system to fight a disease. Through vaccination...", "pid": "7c2f6af5-2019-04-19T12:44:28Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 214.8841094970703}, {"text": "Well it is time for me to expand on my previous two points. My first point is that people do have dangerous reactions to vaccines. The probability of these dangerous reactions are different depending on the vaccine. Each vaccine has a different probability of a bad reactions and different types of bad reactions (1). By forcing everyone to take a vaccine forces some to take something harmful, and in rare situations even lethal. Currently working at a bio-lab with a safety level of 3 requires mandatory vaccines, but its reasons for being mandatory are far more justifiable since it deals with working with harmful pathogens as part of the job. But the requirement points out crucial effects of making vaccines mandatory, it prevents people with harmful reactions to vaccines from being able to be in the job. For example, Nancy Jaax couldn't get vaccinated without negative reactions so she had no chance of working in biosafety level 3. Instead she had to try to get into biosafety level 4 since the diseases there had no vaccines or cures. If vaccines were to be mandatory, it would force people with bad reactions to either do something that makes them sick or even worse kill them, or be force to go through any punishments for not following the mandate. My second point is that the government should not be able to force people to have a substance injected into their body. There are certain things that should not be in the governments power do to the possibility of abuse. While it may currently seem that the government cannot do anything wrong, that doesn't mean that it can't go down hill in the future. The last thing you need in the future is a corrupt government that can inject the citizens with what it deems fit. In addition mandating vaccines encroaches on our rights. People should have a right to decide what doesn't go into our body. Sources 1 http://www.cdc.gov...", "title": "should kids be vaccinated", "pid": "7d2f63b6-2019-04-18T14:52:21Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.86248779296875}, {"text": "There is no need for vaccines. Our immune systems can fight most ailments. Not only that, but vaccines result in almost 30,000 adverse events each year, including death, according to the department of Health and Human Services. [1] Sources: 1. www.vaers.hhs.gov", "title": "Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids", "pid": "3dd052cc-2019-04-18T13:46:56Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.80459594726562}, {"text": "Not a full case yet.. Just some little points I put together... Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion. Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory. Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barr� Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can lead to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimerosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flu vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. Children should not be required to receive the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccine. Some studies have shown that children who receive the DPT vaccine exhibit shallow breathing which has been associated with sleep apnea and may be a causal factor in sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Studies of infants whose deaths were recorded as SIDS show a temporal relationship with DPT vaccination (these infants tended to die at similar time intervals in relation to when they were vaccinated). Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis. Young girls should not receive mandatory vaccination for HPV (human papilloma virus). The vaccine was approved in 2006 and the long-term effects are unknown. Since approval, adverse side effects such as severe allergic reactions, Guillain-Barr� syndrome, spinal cord inflammation and pancreatitis have been reported to the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. Although these adverse reactions may be rare, they are not worth the risk since the vaccine only protects against two of the 15 strains of HPV that may cause cancer of the cervix (20-40 years after an individual is infected). Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies.", "title": "Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.", "pid": "e890bfaf-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.79769897460938}, {"text": "Extend. Also freedom of religion is expressed in the first amendment. Making it mandatory would be a violation of this. But justified by the risk of spreading disease? Vaccines don't actually help that much. It is healthy practices such as hand washing that get the job done.", "title": "Mandatory childhood vaccination", "pid": "173e9f20-2019-04-18T13:26:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.77650451660156}, {"text": "1. Why are Christians, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses opposed to vaccination? (by the way, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian.) Are there other types of Christians that oppose vaccines? (Christian in a broad term) How many parents of these said religions oppose childhood vaccinations? 2. How many children actually get these rare yet serious side effects? 3. Do people continue to get vaccinations made before 1999? 4. What scientific studies prove your second contention, subpoint B? 5. Are you advocating that instead of vaccinating, children should choose to strengthen their immune systems naturally? 6. Aren't very young children (under 1 year old) especially susceptible to disease, especially without vaccinations? 7. Do you believe that if a large percentage of the population favors/opposes something, the government should do as the population says? 8. Is one of the duties of the government to protect its citizens? 9. You state \"Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children\". So, it is completely alright if a parent has a child with a life-threatening (but curable with proper medical care) condition but refuses medical care for that child, correct? Should the government intervene when parents deprive their children of food?", "title": "State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified", "pid": "3143d274-2019-04-18T18:19:27Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.72589111328125}, {"text": "Thank you, Strike, for responding I would like to set a road map: First, I would like to refute my opponents points Second, I would like to bring up my own points I do realize that the road map is quite useless, however it is a nice addition to organization, and I hope you grade accordingly. [1]My opponent has consistently stated that \"without vaccinations diseases will spread. \" However, only the parents who do choose to not vaccinate their children will find that their child has the sickness. According to my opponent himself, the children who are vaccinated should be okay. Therefore, the parents' decisions will not impact other children, if vaccinations are as useful as my opponent suggested. [2]Thank you for giving us a lecture on the usefulness of the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, judged by your [#] symbols that is not normal for you, I believe that you have copied and pasted this from a website. If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source; Readers, please grade accordingly [3]To defend myself, the fact that vaccines frequently cause unintentional deaths is a well known fact that has been proven by many scientists. However, to support this, over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have en filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. Also, The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. To top it off, about 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as \"associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death. I would like to bring some of my points into this debate. [1]Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children.31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan. [2]Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to free exercise of their religion. [3]Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition. [4]Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening. [5]Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders. [6]Vaccines can cause brain inflammation (encephalopathy) which can le to death or permanent brain damage and disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, and other developmental problems. In addition, the vaccine additive thimrosal (found in most pre-1999 vaccines) has been associated specifically with the development of autism and is still found in certain meningococcal, tetanus, and flue vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine. [7]Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma. [8]All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections. I would like to top this off by giving some facts and statements to support my points. [1]All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist. All 50 states issue medical exemptions, 48 states (excluding Mississippi and West Virginia) permit religious exemptions, and 20 states allow an exemption for philosophical reasons. [2]over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009. [3]The US Court Federal Claims Office of Special Masters, between 1988 and 2009, has awarded compensation to 1,322 families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. [4]About 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, defining serious as \"associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, lifetaking illness, or death.", "title": "Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory.", "pid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.6973876953125}, {"text": "A very good point you have made but if you realize these mandatory vaccines include a wide variety of vaccines include a wide variety of \"disease preventers\" so yes although some of the diseases are uncommon safety must always be considered. I hate using what it's but what if a family from Africa moved next door and they carried a rare disease you are not vaccinated against, then you have a high chance of contacting that disease. My opponent also mentions that vaccines pose dangerous threats against human life (and I want to mention the theory that vaccines cause autism has been disproven), the chance of getting a life threatening condition is much slimmer than getting the affects of an actual disease such as polio or smallpox which are highly life threatening and painful. A few arguments I shall pose are milder affects because I know a large portion of people feel like vaccinations don't 100% protect people from the disease they create milder affects so the difference between a fever and death.", "title": "Mandatory Childhood Vaccines", "pid": "81901837-2019-04-18T17:55:43Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.65298461914062}, {"text": "I know I lost already... I just felt so bad that no one accepted, so I will try my best. Despite causation and correlation, I believe that vaccines shouldn't be given. The amount of autistic kids have increased, while the amount of vaccinations have also increased. Please read my comment (first one) which follows this argument.", "title": "Children should receive vaccinations.", "pid": "79f05a51-2019-04-18T14:20:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.64346313476562}, {"text": "I do not believe that vaccines should be banned. I do believe that they should not be mandatory and that each parent should choose wether they have their kid vaccinated or not. Most of the time vaccines do not cause harm to people. But sometimes they do. Everyone has different body types. Every body will react differently to vaccines. Most people will not be harmed by them but because some people will be hurt or even killed by them, vaccines shouldn't be mandatory.", "title": "Vaccines can cause autism and other problems", "pid": "e0e14c7d-2019-04-18T14:48:21Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.55909729003906}, {"text": "I do agree that is a public health issue, and that everyone should get themselves vaccinated. However, I do not believe in the use of force to achieve this. Though, I believe all private businesses should refuse service to any un-vaccinated individuals, especially in the case of hiring workers, and children in schools. Forced vaccination violates the non-aggression principle, and thereby cannot be justified. You need to find a flaw in the logic of the NAP, (back in round 1) OR make a case for why forced vaccination is not subject to this moral principle.", "title": "Mandatory vaccines.", "pid": "a662a740-2019-04-18T11:50:22Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.55609130859375}, {"text": "Just so you know, That has already passed in California. If you have no medical reasons, You must be vaccinated to go to school. It works perfectly. It is a very good reason to not allow kids to go to school. If parents will put a risk on their kids and other kids, Why do we have to give them the same treatment as other kids? They are anti-vaxxers. They spread lies and don't want to listen to evidence. It isn't millions of kids. Lots of states are making a push to have mandatory vaccination.", "title": "Mandatory vaccinations (for government services)", "pid": "f5670653-2019-04-18T11:06:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.5483856201172}, {"text": "Yes, but that is only if they want to, what if children don't want to be vaccinated, if compulsory immunizations are carried out, there could be major strikes by kids and teens, also, what if the child becomes autistic due to this? As of now, people are allowed to decide whether or not they get vaccinated. If your value is Justice, this is a major question. If this law is carried out, who knows what terrible things could happen? Also, the resolution is not asking about whether or not vaccination is a bad thing, but if the government should have to FORCE the child to be immunized. Parents should be the primary decision-makers of their child's life, as they know whether or not the child will actually be exposed to the virus. Vaccines usually are not free, they cost money, and may actually risk the baby's life by exposing the virus. Thus, parents must make the child's critical decisions. If they are inadequate at doing this, we do have a thing called child custody requirements.", "title": "A child has a human right to be protected from preventable diseases from birth", "pid": "f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00025-000", "bm25_score": 214.5301971435547}, {"text": "Vaccinations should not be mandatory, because of peoples religious beliefs. Many people hold religious beliefs against vaccination, forcing parents to vaccine their children would violate the first amendment, which is the freedom to exercise their religion. Vaccines interfere with the natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is natural and humans should not interfere with it. The ethical dilemmas associated with using human tissue cells to create vaccines. Also people believe that the body is sacred, it should not receive certain chemicals or blood of tissues from animals, and should be healed by God or natural means. www.vaccines.procon.orgwww.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/cultural-perspectives-vaccinations-cultural", "title": "Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet)", "pid": "8906c1ae-2019-04-18T16:24:58Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 214.5214080810547}, {"text": "I am in awe and opposed to people not getting their children vaccinated. Not getting children vaccinated is why we are suddenly having outbreaks of diseases we haven't seen in years. Since vaccines have been found, we are living longer than we ever lived in the past. There is a reason for them. To not get your children vaccinated is irresponsible. I think it should be mandated that everyone get their children vaccinated. The only vaccination that I believe should still be up to a parent is the new HPV vaccine because it is new, cost money and is not neccessary until your child starts to have sex.", "title": "Not getting children vaccinated", "pid": "6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.51499938964844}, {"text": "First off i am throwing a link at you. https://magic.piktochart.com... It isn't the vaccines that are eradicating diseases, it is quarantine conditions. What did they do when someone infected with E-bola? They immediately closed the person off to society. Vaccines are not necessary. Now for ethics... You know abortion? Killing fetuses? Yeah, they inject you with them. http://www.vaccines.gov... If that isn't enough for the ethics then what is? Is it by chance they put that part at the very bottom? I think not. Then there is freedom of religion. I am not vaccinated because of my faith (religion).", "title": "Mandatory childhood vaccination", "pid": "173e9f20-2019-04-18T13:26:12Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.5117950439453}, {"text": "\"That night she became agitated and feisty, then she fell asleep and never woke up.\" This quote is from a man whose daughter suffered devastating side-effects from the mandatory Hepatitis B vaccination on his 5-week-old little girl. Hello. I am on the CON side for the debate that Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. Definitions: mandatory-an action that you must perform without question vaccination-an injection into your body consisting of weak or dead bacteria which is or is similar to a disease. Because I am CON, I will allow my opponent to go first.", "title": "Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory.", "pid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.49441528320312}, {"text": "Our society needs to be healthy, we want it to be healthy.But does that mean that we start giving vaccinations to every person would help in being disease free. In olden days there were no vaccines but still the rate of getting ill was very less. there are natural ways for protecting ourselves from the diseases. Moreover the chances of getting ill have increased from the past when there were no vaccinations. Pharmaceutical Companies Can\"t Be Trusted. ALL Vaccines are Loaded with Chemicals and other Poisons which make the immune system of a lad weaker and if confronted by a disease takes a longer time to heal. Fully Vaccinated Children are the Unhealthiest, Most Chronically Ill Children I Know.A Number of Vaccines Have Already Had Problems/Been Removed from the Market so you can't trust all vaccines maybe you would take the vaccine now but later you come to know that the vaccine is faulty. You Can Always Get Vaccinated, But You Can Never Undo a Vaccination. Vaccination does not guarantee even immediate immunity, and boosters are necessary for all vaccinations. I think there is no care taken of our body,immune system or our health by ourselves ... we don't want to prevent it by natural methods and take vaccinations which gradually weaken your immune system. There are new diseases which have originated recent days because of our practices. So I conclude on saying that children must not be given so many vaccinations that their body becomes weaker.", "title": "Children should receive vaccinations.", "pid": "79f05a32-2019-04-18T15:09:09Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.4845733642578}, {"text": "should kids at school have to be vaccinated. Yes! if the kids are not safe it could cause them to no be going to school because they are sick. do you want your child to have a good education. vaccination should be mandatory", "title": "should kids be vaccinated", "pid": "7d2f63b6-2019-04-18T14:52:21Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.48391723632812}, {"text": "They are a waste of time and money.", "title": "Vaccines should not be mandatory.", "pid": "d3dbec22-2019-04-18T11:44:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.47799682617188}, {"text": "How childish. If we have mandatory seatbelt laws, why not with vaccines? I don't have the right to threaten the health and safety of others. Toughen up, buttercup, no one is taking your rights away.", "title": "Mandatory vaccines.", "pid": "a662a740-2019-04-18T11:50:22Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.45343017578125}, {"text": "My opponent has no evidence and since I have proved that his arguments are blocked and mine are not. Since my arguments are standing and his are not, the con should win this debate", "title": "State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.", "pid": "f7360098-2019-04-18T18:14:27Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.414306640625}, {"text": "I personally believe that vaccinating children is a normal and highly beneficial procedure, however in recent years the subject of the safety of vaccines has become controversial. I challenge anybody who disagrees with my view to debate with me on the topic.", "title": "Vaccinating your Child", "pid": "d9814b0e-2019-04-18T15:05:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.41285705566406}, {"text": "Vaccination should be mandatory because a vaccination does nothing to harm ones religion or other beliefs. If the human body is so precious then shouldn't we be doing anything to protect it? Advances in medical science can now protect our society, families, and friends from disease that could have wiped away our race. These vaccination have completely eliminated disease like polio and whooping cough. Vaccinations have no serious side effects, they only side effects are redness or soreness. When people say that vaccinations can cause autism or other deadly side effects are just myths.", "title": "Vaccinations (mandatory/ disbursemenet)", "pid": "8906c1ae-2019-04-18T16:24:58Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 214.40980529785156}, {"text": "Do you think childhood vaccinations should become mandatory? >Yes, it protects everyone >No, it's a family decision I>'m undecided Thank you, we have already counted your vote. Yes, it protects everyone 79.08% (707 votes) No, it's a family decision 18.12% (162 votes) I'm undecided 2.8% (25 votes) Total Votes: 894 In this poll, 80% of people, 4x the people have proven that they have low intelligence. All thos people have no idea what's in the vaccines nor read the leaflets. They want 96% of people to be vaccinated where I live!!! They are forcing me to get a vaccination or they're gonna fire me!!! That's against freedom and I totally disagree with it... You think even more diseases can be cured?! Come on! You listed like 10 that we *must get* which is absurd!!!", "title": "Vaccines are a waste of time, money, and cause health problems.", "pid": "d0c78d5a-2019-04-18T11:47:44Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.39138793945312}, {"text": "sure, All that stuff about herd immunity is true. However, That still doesn't tell me why it should be mandatory. where's the imperative justification? Sure I can say \"you ought to do this or that\". But what's the basis for the ought. We certainly can't just go denying kids school for no good reason. The problem here is that once we open this flood gate of mandatory vaccines, Then the government can just tell us what vaccines to get. What if a harmful vaccine comes out? Just because they're all good now doesn't mean they always will be right? So while we can say that people should get vaccines. We can't say they should be mandatory because it violates our civil rights and those are held to a high standard. All you've shown me so far is that vaccines are a good idea. You haven't shown me a good enough reason to deny millions of kids education. That's a tall order to fill.", "title": "Mandatory vaccinations (for government services)", "pid": "f5670653-2019-04-18T11:06:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.38328552246094}, {"text": "I support this and will continue vaccines to avoid getting and making others sick. I don't have the right to spread infections to other people, end of story.", "title": "Mandatory vaccines.", "pid": "a662a740-2019-04-18T11:50:22Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.37704467773438}, {"text": "The fact that vaccines cause autism is a fallacy and should not be treated as fact. I see that you are one of those people that believe that, unfortunately. Vaccines can be helpful for the body. They prevented smallpox, measles, and other dangerous diseases. I wonder what your counter-argument will be.", "title": "There should not be Mandatory Vaccinations", "pid": "5a57225c-2019-04-18T11:55:06Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.37367248535156}, {"text": "I don't really know what to say now...", "title": "vaccinating children must be a law", "pid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.3547821044922}, {"text": "I would like to address two things before I really get into the argument. 1. Yes I was using necessary to mean \"required by public schools\" 2. I don't think I have 100% BOP because I'm arguing against the current accepted policies. However I would agree I have more BOP then pro does. Most likely 60-40 I will now debunk all of you're contentions. -Contention 1 There isn't really much to debunk here you basically just pointed out that most places allow religious exemptions. Just because most places allow it doesn't make it correct. -Contention 2 Yes it's true that there are ingredients that can violate the parents religious convictions. However when you are talking about getting first graders vaccinated, it's irrelevant. Because first grader don't have a religion. They have whatever there parents tell them they have. A first grader hasn't but any thought into it. He's whatever his parents tell him to be. However my bigger issue with it, is that I don't think the religion of the parents of one kid should be allowed to endanger the health of all the other kids in that school. You address this later in your argument saying something along the lines of \" If my kid doesn't get vaccinated it doesn't matter if your kid is. The issue with this is that vaccines are not 100% effective. They work very well and everyone should get them, but sometimes they fail. So if one kid doesn't get vaccinated because his parents don't want him to and he gets say chicken pox, well he is a danger to other kids even if they have there vaccination because if the vaccination they got didn't work, well now that kid has gotten someone else sick because his parents don't personally like that vaccination. However even that isn't my biggest issue with religious exemption. My biggest issue is that parents are legally allowed to put there kid's health in danger because they personally don't like what's in the vaccine. If the parents don't want to get there kids the measles vaccine because they're religion doesn't like it and the kid gets measles then the parents religion put the child in danger. ColeTrain would you honest say that parents should be allow to risk getting there five and six year old children getting sick and even possibly dying all because the parents don't like it. It's the same reason i don't think faith healing should be allowed. Because the parents religion can't be used as a justification to put a child in danger. -Contention 3 You say religious exemption is protected under the first amendment. Well I disagree. Here is why. The first amendment protection is only when religion doesn't conflict with other peoples freedom or harm others. As I showed above not vaccinating your kid puts that kid and others around him in danger. So your religion is harming others and so is not protected under the first amendment. - Contention 4 Yes it's true vaccines can cause side effects. For most people it doesn't but it can. I am in favor of medical exemptions. If getting a vaccine poses a significant risk to a kids health and safety then yes they can be exempted. However that is rare and for everyone else they should get vaccinated. Also you bring up the vaccine and autism link. This has been disproved many times and in fact the author of that study lost his medical license and got thrown in jail because the study was so bad. So that's invalid. -Contention 5 I have addressed everything in this argument. But I will address one thing. You say that if people accept the risks then let them take them. However this doesn't work because we are talking about kids. So the parents are not the one who are taking the risk. They are forcing there kids sometimes as young as six to accept life threatening risks. If a adult doesn't want to get vaccinated I don't care. However parent forcing little kids to take life threatening risks is unacceptable and should not be allowed. So I think I have debunked all of your points I would like you respond to my points I made.", "title": "Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines.", "pid": "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.35006713867188}, {"text": "In an ideal society, everyone would be healthy. Vaccines prevent sickness, and therefore work at this goal. In addition, childhood is the most important time to get vaccinated to build strong antibodies and be able to fight off disease in their adulthood. Parents shouldn't be able to stand in the way of their children's good health because of radical and incorrect suppositions. Another reason would be herd immunity. Everyone has the right to protect everyone else by being vaccinated. That way, if someone who physically cannot get the vaccine (such as someone with an allergy, an elderly person or a baby) is almost as immune as everyone else because nobody else has the sickness. This only works if everyone around them is vaccinated, so in order to protect this, we need to keep people vaccinated. Vaccinations work well. A couple of diseases that are no longer majorly present in first-world countries because of vaccinations are smallpox, polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and so on. There is proof that vaccines are the reason: Recently, in California, there was an outbreak of measles because so many people there are not vaccinated and in a crowd. The measles disease rapidly spread and now many people are infected. This is another example of why herd immunity is so important. In conclusion, children indisputably need to get vaccines. They promote health well, and provide herd immunity.", "title": "Children should receive vaccinations.", "pid": "79f05a32-2019-04-18T15:09:09Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.34317016601562}, {"text": "It is also in the constitution that we have a right to bear arms, but there are laws placed on who and at what age a person is allowed to carry one. Making vaccinations mandatory for those children in school would just be like placing a law on gun carry. Heath.harvard.edu stated that an individual that is vaccinated is less contagious to others, if they were to get sick. So by definition if the majority was to get vaccinated then there would be no worry about getting infected. This is also called community immunity. By not having a child get vaccinated they are now risking the heath of not only those near them, but also the rest of the community.", "title": "Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement)", "pid": "47161a6-2019-04-18T16:19:35Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.34107971191406}, {"text": "Not true , there are ways to get around vaccinating your children before attending school. You can state that it goes against what you believe in and you can be excused. Many parents don't have their children vaccinated. There is a sudden rise we are seeing in diseases such as measles. This occurs because children are not all being vaccinated. There are also many immigrants coming to this country with their children not getting vaccinated. It is also not fair to risk your child's health by not getting them vaccinated. Many parents that don't get their children vaccinated were vaccinated themselves. Would you rather the small chance of your child being vaccinated or risk them contracting diseases such as small pox, polio, hepatitis A , measles , mumps , rubella, hepatitis B , meningitis, some ear infections. It is more harmful for your child to contract these diseases than to actually have the vaccine. It is very rare for side effects and for the most part they are small. There is no actual evidence to link the MMR vaccine to autism.", "title": "Not getting children vaccinated", "pid": "6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.34097290039062}, {"text": "Forfeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit!", "title": "Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.", "pid": "e890bfaf-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.3367156982422}, {"text": "Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk. Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard. This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases.", "title": "Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled", "pid": "1f658c7-2019-04-18T15:06:29Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.334228515625}, {"text": "Vaccinations are not the reason that whooping cough went down. The mortality rate for childhood diseases such as measles whooping cough and scarlet fever fell before any vaccinations came out because of more sanitary living conditions, and more healthy ways of living and eating. (vaccines.procon.org) Most influenza A (H1N1) virus strains tested from the U.S. and other countries are now resistant to Tami flu. It has become a nearly worthless vaccination against the disease yet it is still used and it is a waste of money. (mercola.com) Many children who receive the hepatitis B vaccine find that it is completely unnecessary because it is a blood related disease and vaccines cannot do anything to prevent it. The only results found from it are that the only children that contract the disease are those who previously received the vaccination. (Vaccines.procon.org)", "title": "Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement)", "pid": "4716187-2019-04-18T16:23:45Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 214.26905822753906}, {"text": "My opponent has violated good conduct by forfeiting, extend all arguments.", "title": "Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines.", "pid": "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.26358032226562}, {"text": "Some people don't want their kids to get autism or become paralyzed. Read about 10 year old Marysue grivna from Florida who got Adem, a brain infection after a flu shot and is now completely paralyzed.", "title": "should kids in public school be allowed to not get vaccines for religious reasons", "pid": "119666c7-2019-04-18T15:09:01Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.25128173828125}, {"text": "Con states, baselessly, that parents shouldn't be allowed to vaccinate their children because \"they lead to autism.\" He provides zero evidence for this assertion. Note that he has the burden of proof. Moreover, he has dropped every single point I raised in the past round. Extend all of those points.", "title": "Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines", "pid": "3575d3d7-2019-04-18T15:45:28Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.2481231689453}, {"text": "I accept. Roll up your sleeve kiddo's-we got a surprise for you!", "title": "Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.", "pid": "e890bfaf-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.24810791015625}, {"text": "You say that we should not be allowed to risk the health of others according to religious views. But, many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion", "title": "Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement)", "pid": "47161a6-2019-04-18T16:19:35Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.24534606933594}, {"text": "I would just like to note, for absolutely no relevant reason, that he is my classmate and that I was very excited to take this, due to the previous fact. I am on the Proposition, arguing that, \"Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory. \" Many thanks for allowing me to go first. I will begin with a refutation of the first, small quote my opponent has stated, which, to my disappointment, does not have a source. Refutation \"This quote is from a man whose daughter suffered devastating side-effects from the mandatory Hepatitis B vaccination on his 5-week-old little girl. \" This Hepatitis B vaccine is still good, no matter how many deaths (very small amount) occur. Would you rather like to possess this horrible disease. If so, the very small bacteria of this disease will cause liver inflammation, vomiting, jaundice, and, sometimes, death. Chronic Hepatitis B will result in liver cirrhosis and liver cancer, which means the chances of death are greatly increased [1]. A third of the world's population, more than two billion people, is infected with this disease. The most infection occurs within areas in Asia, mostly China, and Africa. There are also 350 million carriers of chronic Hepatitis B [2]. Chinese vaccinations are not mandatory. They are voluntary or optional. If more of the Chinese were treated with a Hepatitis B vaccine, then most would not have this disease. Africa is a very poor country. Many families can't afford vaccinations for their children and thus, get sick. Arguments 1. Vaccinations help children. Vaccinations help children. There can't be any doubt about it. Without vaccinations in America, many children would be sick and subject to violent diseases. Diseases will simply make children suffer more compared to a small dose of that disease. Diphtheria is an small respiratory sickness where a membrane forms that covers the throat and then makes it very hard to breathe. Whooping cough is named after the whooping sound that is made by its victims during one of their coughing periods. Mumps is another disease that can cause swollen glands on the face, but can be prevented with a vaccine. Tetanus is a horrible disease due to the fact that if obtained, you can die. You have a 50% chance of survival if you contract this sickness. There is also Rubella, Polio, Chickenpox, Measles, and Meningitis. All of these diseases are life-threatening and can only be stopped with a vaccination. There will be dangers when parents don't get their child vaccinated. In Boulder, Colorado, half of the 292 students attending Shining Mountain Waldorf School did not receive all vaccinations, with some not receiving any. The result of this has been a case of spreading whooping cough. In Colorado, all a parent needs to do have a child exempt from vaccinations is to sign a sheet of paper. 2. Vaccinations should be mandatory because diseases can spread. Children can get diseases that they could have prevented with a vaccination, and spread it to others who think they are safe without a vaccine. Children touch many things, such as park structures, and then others will get sick. There are some diseases that seem very small at first, but then develop to be potentially dangerous. The only ones that can be free of this disease are the vaccinated children. Just look at countries in Africa. They have numerous children with diseases, not because bacteria separately went and touched them all, but because they spread it among each other by playing, working, and using the same supplies. An African child dies every minute due to Measles [3]. This could be stopped with vaccinations. I eagerly await for the response. Sources: 1. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. . http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com... 3. Cuttino, Phyliss A. \"Where a Child Dies Each Minute. \" UN Chronicle. June/August 2002:26.", "title": "Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory.", "pid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.23904418945312}, {"text": "I accept. I think some of the definitions are curiously worried, but if the \"no semantics\" rule is followed I am sure we will have no trouble working this out.By the way, vmpire321, if you are actually 14 years old then I am very impressed by your debate record. Otherwise, stop pretending to be 14 on the internet, that's just creepy.", "title": "State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified.", "pid": "ccdef108-2019-04-18T18:19:43Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.23104858398438}, {"text": "Voters, please don't vote solely for forfeiture. This debate is on whether or not children should receive vaccinations, and I am saying yes.", "title": "Children should receive vaccinations.", "pid": "79f05a32-2019-04-18T15:09:09Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.2188720703125}, {"text": "April PF Topic.... Waiting for opponent!", "title": "Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.", "pid": "e890bfaf-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.21617126464844}, {"text": "Ah yes, state health insurance. Yes most states have SOME form of health insurance, however not all citizens are eligible for it. If they were, than we would not have this whole hype about Universal Healthcare Plans among the Democrats! Therefore the reasons that I gave before in 2nd round still stand. Also you stated that all vaccines except for HPV should be made mandatory. This is quite a long list of vaccines, and insurance would not completely cover the entire list without making premiums go through the roof. This would also raise the strain on the state health insurances that you have mentioned, leading to possible raised taxes, cut education funds. If in the event, that a diesease does pop up upon an unvaccinated population, it can be quickly controlled. It is very unlikely that a child with symptoms of measles would be allowed to contact your child at a party. Quarentine of the sick child is likely. Yes, vaccines are meant to prevent dieseases, however vaccines also work in creating \"rings of immunity\" around outbreaks. This is how small pox was eradicated. By immunizing in regions AROUND out breaks, the disease was contained. A similar infrastructure is already in place in the United States with our current usage of immunizations. Now, there are carriers of dieseases with no visible symptoms. However, a person can be a carrier of diesease even with a mandatory immunization. The government does have the right to protect the citizens of a country, however there are limits to how far the government can go. Our federal government does not have the right to completely disregard one's religious beliefs, like I said before. This is one of our base constitutional rights and would be violated if your plan were to be enacted. However, I also find it disagreeable that the government should have a right to dictate what goes into our bodies without personal choice. I do not completely disagree with your statement about parents needing to be responsible-- in fact quite the opposite. Parents should be given their own reins to how to best protect their children, for children are the Parents responsbility, and not the responsibility of politicians in our government. Finally, I would like to thank you for starting this debate. I found it very informative and interesting. Thanks!", "title": "Not getting children vaccinated", "pid": "6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.2059326171875}, {"text": "Extend.", "title": "Mandatory childhood vaccination", "pid": "173e9f20-2019-04-18T13:26:12Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.20118713378906}, {"text": "PrefaceI've talked with several people recently about a trend among parents not to vaccinate their children. Personally, I find this trend to be alarming, and view the decision to not vaccinate a child to be morally reprehensible. I would therefore like to debate this issue, to air my feelings on the subject. There is a 48 hours response time on this debate, so please bear that in mind prior to accepting. Full TopicOn balance, parents have a moral obligation to vaccinate their children. TermsOn balance - means in general and after weighing all the available evidence. Vaccine - a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease. Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. The BOP is shared8. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Constructive CasesR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case and Crystallizes, Con defends Con's Case and CrystallizesThanks.", "title": "Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children", "pid": "f5063168-2019-04-18T15:13:20Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.19725036621094}, {"text": "Sorry I accidentally posted this below ... As for the cost of vaccinations, In my state anyway, any child in my state is eligable for Mass health if they have no insurance. I am almost caertain that all states have some form of state insurance. What if my child is an infant and I go to bring my other child who is vaccinated to a party .. One child is not vaccinated , that child has a disease from not being vaccinated and chances are so does my infant that hasnt become old enough for a vaccine yet. The parent of the child who is not vaccinated is now responsible for both their own child and my child becoming sick. There is a reason we have vaccines and if a parent abuses a child , then they are held accountable , well in my eyes risking a childs health by not getting them vaccinated is a form of abuse, although it may not be as bad as hitting a child .. it is putting your child at risk to contract a disease that is preventable. The Government should have the right to rid our country of potential disease outbreaks and threats . Since I made the mistake of posting this below let me add more There are also elderly that are not vaccinated because a vaccine may not have come out until after they were older, and they can't get the vaccine at their age... why should these parents be allowed to chance their children infecting others. Someone needs to protect these children, they will have to suffer the risk and worry later on in life because their parents didnt get them proper vaccines ..I would want someone to step in and help me if my mom wasnt making sure that I was properly vaccinated as a child.", "title": "Not getting children vaccinated", "pid": "6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.19236755371094}, {"text": "\"Governments should not have the right to intervene in the health decisions parents make for their children. 31% of parents believe they should have the right to refuse mandated school entry vaccinations for their children, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Michigan.\" Appeal to majority and authority, I need reasons why the Gov has no right to intervene in health decisions. \"Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion.\" Frankly I don't care what rules the parents think they are breaking of some book written thousands of years ago, I stand for the well being of the children. If I prove that vaccines have health benifits then this point falls. \"Vaccines are often unnecessary in many cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for the childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically before immunization became available. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification, effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition.\" Yes I agree with you. There is a lot less disease, and the black plagues gone. It's true this isn't entirely due to vaccin ation. But the fact is there are still many infectious diseases rampant in all socieites, and hepititus is a plague. You're closing your eyes to a very important problem-disease still exists and spreads very regularly. \"Vaccines interfere with natural law and God's plan for humanity. Disease is a natural occurrence, and humans should not interfere with its trajectory.\" Yes I agree! Let's all be literal Darwinists and kill the babies who are born with deformations in the hospitals because God obviously wanted them to die! People with leprosy are being punished for sins in a past life! Oh wait this isn't the dark ages any more, if a member of our society is sick we do our best to cure them and prevent sickness. Gods plan for humanity is a future without disease. \"Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening.\" Can I have some sources for this ourageous claim? Just because HPV isn't life threatning we don't protect our children from it? Vaccines aren't supposed to be life savers all the time-their job is to stop the spread of infectious diseases around our society. As for these reactions you talk of, first please source. Secondly, they are proabably one in a million scenerios and the child is surrounded by health proffesionals will make it a minor issue. I agree that they might happen, but we still go to surgery even though their are risks of side effects yes? Vaccines destroy an immediate risk to our health. \"All vaccines cause immune system suppression, and can permanently damage the natural immune system. Unvaccinated children build and strengthen their immune systems through fighting off infection and developing natural immunity to diseases like measles and chickenpox. Artificial immunity, generated through vaccination, weakens the immune system and leaves children more vulnerable to all other diseases and infections.\" You're trying to prove that un-vaccinated children are more resistant then vaccinated children? Do you even know why children get vaccines? It's to protect them from the diseases thier bodies can't cope with on their own. Vaccines don't push out a natural defense-they provide the only defense. Having your child contract hep C won't toughen him up. It will kill him or her. \"Children should not receive the hepatitis B vaccine. Hepatitis B is a blood-born disease and is primarily spread by sexual intercourse and intravenous drug use. Children are not at great risk of contracting the disease. In addition, researchers have found that immunization with the hepatitis B vaccine is associated with an increased risk of developing multiple sclerosis.\" When the subject is children and disease, well to be honest any risk is enough to warrant vaccination. Plus, you need to source the information that shows there's more than a one in a million chance for a child to contract a disease from a vaccine. There's also a chance kids can contract bone cancer from cell phones, but that doesn't mean we outlaw cell phones-the risk simply isn't larg enough. \"Vaccines are promoted primarily to generate profits for manufacturers and financial donations for medical organizations that endorse vaccines. In 2003, a House Committee on Government Reform report revealed that the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had members with significant financial ties to vaccine companies. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a leading pro-vaccination organization, receives millions of dollars from vaccine companies.\" Of course the vaccine companies make tons of money...people buy their products because it makes them immune to diseases..supply and demand...I think there's a large market for people who want to stop the spread of disease.. MY ARGUMENT P1. Vaccines make children immune to certain diseases and illnesses p2. Being Immune to certain diseases and illnesses is good p3. Any Parent who does not want their child to be immune to certain dseases and illnesses is not acting in the childs best interests p4. It is the role of the state to act in the childs best interests C. The state should administer vaccinations", "title": "Resolved: State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified.", "pid": "e890bfaf-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.19052124023438}, {"text": "I'd like to start right away. Refutations \"However, only the parents who do choose to not vaccinate their children will find that their child has the sickness. According to my opponent himself, the children who are vaccinated should be okay. Therefore, the parents' decisions will not impact other children, if vaccinations are as useful as my opponent suggested.\" Exactly. That's the problem. Their child will have the sickness. They think they're safer off without the vaccination, however, that is untrue. They will obtain diseases, spread it onto other children who think they're safe without the vaccination, and then spread it to the kids who were going to get a vaccination. One child can get infected, due to a careless or careless parents, and then spread the danger to all his classmates or friends. The argument is not that the vaccinated kids will be sick, it's that one child can spread it to many others. The only ones who, in a sense, \"benefit,\" are the vaccinated ones. \"Thank you for giving us a lecture on the usefulness of the Hepatitis B vaccine. However, judged by your [#] symbols that is not normal for you, I believe that you have copied and pasted this from a website. If not, you still produced many statistics that require a source; Readers, please grade accordingly\" Who are you to judge me as such? If you did research, you would have found that in many of my recentd debates, I decided to use the brackets and the number. I found it a very useful tool to ensure that you are not lying, and I am not. So please refute my argument that vaccinations actually benefit people, as seen in previous argument. \"Vaccines are often unnecessary in may cases where the threat of death from disease is small. During the early nineteenth century, mortality for childhood diseases whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever fell drastically BEFORE IMMUNIZATION BECAME AVAILABLE. This decreased mortality has been attributed to improved personal hygiene, water purification,effective sewage disposal, and better food hygiene and nutrition.\" Plagarized from here [4]. Vaccines are very necessary, even if percentages of death is small. Vaccine deaths are even smaller. The sicknesses I previously listed out are all very harmful and potentially death-threatening diseases. They cause an extreme amount of suffering. Imagine if you were a child, suffering from a very horrible disease, and you know you could've been saved if you just took one needle in the arm. That's it. Whooping cough (pertussis) was the cause of 5,000 to 10,000 deaths in the United States a year [1]. Tell me that's not small. As my source states, pertussis was a deadly killer BEFORE VACCINES WERE CREATED [1]. The annual amount of deaths are now only 30 [1]. Measles is a much less serious circumstance, however, there are 20 million cases each year when children get them [2]. That could be stopped with one vaccination! Also, this rash is contagious and can be spread among kids. Why would these diseases just suddenly decrease in numbers before vaccines became available? Why would there suddenly be improved hygiene, purification, and other methods? Where is the source for this? \"Common childhood vaccinations may cause rare yet serious reactions including anaphylactic shock, paralysis, and sudden death. This risk is not worth taking, especially considering most diseases vaccinated against are not necessarily life threatening.\" Plagarized. The \"risk\" is most certainly worth taking, as the percentages of problems are very, very, very, very small. Most diseases cause huge amounts of suffering among children, and all that could be ended with a vaccine. \"Vaccines can trigger auto-immune disorders such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), and other disorders.\" Plagarized as well from previous site. However, no vaccines means a child can obtain these numerous diseases: Anthrax Chickenpox Diphtheria Hepatitis A and B Hib HPV Japanese Encephalitis Lyme Disease Measles Meningococcal Mumps Pertussis Pneumococcal Polio Rabies And many, many more [3]! \"Vaccines clog and disrupt the lymphatic system with large foreign protein molecules (the active ingredients contained within vaccines) which may lead to lymphatic cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma.\" Plagarized from the same site, as well. I have to once again weigh down on this one refutation. The good of the vaccination far outweighs the bad of the vaccination. There is a very small chance you will obtain such diseases. \"All 50 states require vaccinations for children entering public schools even though no mandatory Federal vaccination laws exist.\" Plagarized. What's the argument here? \"Over 5,500 cases alleging a causal relationship between vaccinations and autism have been filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the US Court of Federal Claims between 2001 and 2009.\" Plagarized. However, vaccines do not cause autism. Researchers at the John Hopkins University School of Public Help and Centers for Disease Control reject the idea that vaccine and autism are linked. The US Court of Federal Claims has said that, \"theory of vaccine-related causation [of autism] is scientifically unsupportable.\" My opponent has listed several facts to \"support\" his case. They are all plagarized, but nonetheless, they are very strong supporting evidence... until you read the fifth argument from the site he copied from. \"According to a 2003 report by researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society, childhood vaccinations in the US prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year. [4]\" Clearly, this benefit outweights so many of the numbers my opponent has listed. Arguments 1. Because of a few ignorant parents, their children are at risk, putting even more children at risk of being infected with a horrible disease. 2. Most childhood vaccines have a 90-99% success rate in stopping disease [5]. When children who have been vaccinated do get sick, they usually have milder symptoms with less serious complications than an un-vaccinated child that gets the same disease. For example, an un-vaccinated child with mumps can become permanently deaf and spread the disease to more students, but the vaccinated child won't. 3. Children especially need to get vaccinated. Children have weaker immune systems than adults and thus, are more susceptible to various diseases than adults. The Proposition should currently be winning this debate due to the reason that I have refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and he has never completely refuted all of mine and some were left untouched. All of my opponent's arguments are plagarized and they are not his own work. Sources: 1. http://kidshealth.org... 2. http://kidshealth.org... 3. http://www.cdc.gov... 4. http://vaccines.procon.org... 5. http://www.healthychildren.org...", "title": "Vaccination for children under 13 should be mandatory.", "pid": "9f71c585-2019-04-18T19:02:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.18568420410156}, {"text": "parents should immunized for the safety of community such as schools or any sorts of public place. if not it could cause a epidemic", "title": "Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids", "pid": "3dd052cc-2019-04-18T13:46:56Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.18447875976562}, {"text": "No parents shouldn't be allowed to vaccinate their children because they lead to autism", "title": "Should doctors be aloud to give you vaccines", "pid": "3575d3d7-2019-04-18T15:45:28Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.17550659179688}, {"text": "I have refuted all of the con's points with superior evidence and logic, while upholding my own points. Just to sum up the main arguments: 1. Without a mandate, herd immunity will be threatened. A mandate is the only way to make sure that enough people will get vaccinated, and will ultimately remain healthy. Furthermore, it is not right to put someone else in danger if it can be helped. By depriving their children of vaccines, parents are not only putting their own children in danger, but also putting the children of others in danger. Referring back to my Contention 2, subpoint B, when people fail to vaccinate their children, kids with weak immune systems etc. can and will be hurt. 2. Parents don't always make the best choices for their children. Diseases that cannot be be protected through herd immunity, such as tetanus, creates a greater need for everybody to get vaccinated. A child should not be forced to endure diseases such as tetanus because of a bad decision of their parents. 3. Vaccines are expensive. If vaccines were mandated, those with less money would be able to get the vaccines. 4. All of my opponent's \"religious beliefs\" claims have been proven to be incorrect. First and foremost, biblical word isn't taken literally. All of the religions my opponent brought up allow vaccinations. 5. The constitution does not provide absolute rights. Furthermore, because my opponent cannot proven that any religions explicitly prohibit vaccines, this point falls in my favor. 6. Vaccines are safe. If a parent is concerned about certain ingredients, they can get an alternative brand of vaccines. 7. Vaccination is preferable to natural immune systems. (Refer to my Japanese example) 8. It is preferable to give children vaccines: So they're safe throughout their life. It's more effective when given to children. Because of these reasons, I can only urge a Pro vote.", "title": "State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified", "pid": "3143d274-2019-04-18T18:19:27Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.17486572265625}, {"text": "Vaccines should be mandatory.", "title": "Mandatory Vaccinations", "pid": "ef8842bc-2019-04-18T12:14:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.1622772216797}, {"text": "Challenge Accepted! xD", "title": "Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children", "pid": "f5063168-2019-04-18T15:13:20Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.15798950195312}, {"text": "Children must be vaccinated it is a fact! 6 million lives if children are saved each year due to vaccinations.", "title": "vaccinating children must be a law", "pid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.15597534179688}, {"text": "Well now I just agree with you.", "title": "vaccinating children must be a law", "pid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.14898681640625}, {"text": "This debate is on whether or not children should receive vaccinations, and I am saying no.Voters think over it and vote . I strongly believe that students should not receive vacations", "title": "Children should receive vaccinations.", "pid": "79f05a32-2019-04-18T15:09:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.14541625976562}, {"text": "I believe vaccines should be mandatory (unless you have an allergy or some other medical problem), because it is for the greater good of the public. My preferred opponent would be an anti-vaxxer, although if you are a pro-vaxxer and against mandatory vaccinations, that is fine too.", "title": "Vaccines should be mandatory", "pid": "cea53ba4-2019-04-18T14:44:38Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.13980102539062}, {"text": "We need to Weigh the Cost the Child Receiving a Possible \"Illness\" from remaining unvaccinated, against the Premise that they would be denied a Basic education. CONTENTION 1. Children Being Denied a Basic Education Vaccination is no prerequisite to anything. Regardless of Age, ethnicity, social and economic background, children should have the right to attend School. According to many Constitutional and Laws Globally, this would infringe on the Act of Liberty, and Free will, in accordance with the First Amendment of the US constitution.(1) CONTENTION 2. Denial of Free will As stated Above, this would infringe on the act of Free will, a Basic right that all Humans should have, regardless. REFUTATIONS \"Although it is ultimately up to the parents on whether they wish to vaccinate thier kids, I think it breaks a social contract to exclude your child from vaccination and place them into an environment that may put your child and other children at risk.\" What Social Contract do you speak of, I've never heard of it. For whatever reasons an individual has, be it religious or Moral, they have the right to NOT have there children vaccinated. \"Vaccinations have proved to be more good than harm children and if you decide to to not vaccinate you should not be able to enter your child into a school that requires vacvcinations as a standard.\" No Schools require children to be vaccinated, as of saying this. Vaccinations are very effective, and carry little side effects, but as stated, people have the right to not vaccinate there child. \"This is not to say that not vaccinating isn't a right parent have, but that right should have consequences. Those children should not be intergrated with others in order to avoid reversing our progress against nearly eradicated diseases.\" What Studies do you have the Say not vaccinating your child \"Reverses\" our progress against nearly eradicated diseases? That sounds completely made up. You make another Statement based on opinion, rather then fact. \" \"Those children should not be intergrated with others\" That's not for you to decide. You may or may not Vaccinate your child, if you have one, but Making decisions for others is Unjust, and Unconstitutional. (1)(http://www.google.ca...)", "title": "Unvaccinated children should be home-schooled", "pid": "1f658c7-2019-04-18T15:06:29Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.13372802734375}, {"text": "My opponent has forfeited again. All of my points from R3 stand unrefuted.", "title": "Should Religious parents be exempted from getting their children necessary vaccines.", "pid": "6abd1330-2019-04-18T14:24:26Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.1160430908203}, {"text": "Many people abuse their first amendment rights to freedom of religion. When getting an exception from vaccinations for their child, parents don't have to explain the reasoning behind their religious refusal towards getting the vaccine. The merely have to state that they have a religious objection and are allowed off the hook whether they believe in that certain religion or not. (www.patheos.com) Not only this, but there are several mainstream religions that don't believe vaccinations are wrong, including Catholicism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. The Catholic Church believes there is no good or proper reason to refuse a vaccination against a dangerous and contagious disease. (www.whyimmunize.org.) Not vaccinating a child can affect more than just that child, and can endanger the lives of those around them. 29% of deaths of children between 1 to 59 months of age are vaccine preventable. This puts other children at risk of a lethal disease if someone chooses to not vaccinate their child (www.vaccinestoday.eu.) Measles is an extremely contagious airborne disease that lives in the air for 2 hours, making it unavoidable to breathe in (www.vaccinestoday.eu.) In 2008, a 7 year old boy's parents refused to get him vaccinated for the measles. He then infected his 9 year old sister and 3 year old brother, both of which were also not vaccinated for the disease. This then lead to 11 other children being infected, and 48 children too young to be vaccinated had to be quarantined for 21 days. (www.webmd.com)", "title": "Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement)", "pid": "4716187-2019-04-18T16:23:45Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.10800170898438}, {"text": "First of all, I never said that vaccines are not worth their risks. I stated that one should have the right to consider the risks, and decide what to put into their or their children's bodies. And while I'm on the topic of free choice, you brought up an important point about people being exempt to due to religious beliefs. Now, proposing a mandate that would FORCE these individuals to vaccinate against their religion is clearly in violation of their Constitutional rights. However, lets move on to the point you brought up of certain dieseases spreading. The United States vaccination policy has used a concept known as \"herd immunity\" in which the majority of the population is vaccinated and immune. Now that we have established this \"herd immunity,\" many dieseases cannot spread very far. You stated that due to lack of use for the MMR, measles cases have increased. However, because most of the American population are immunized with MMR, then these cases can be quickly contained. Therefore, our system already works, and it does not seem worth the effort to mandate vaccinations. While, yes it would have benefits, the problems that come with a mandatory vaccination make it unfeasible. There are two levels in which mandatory vaccinations for children would be ineffective. One is on the federal level. In order to make sure that EVERY child in the United States gets the vaccinations (and future boosters to vaccinations), a great deal of effort and money needs to be spent. If you have seen our national deficit recently, along with Social security fund security, then it is clear that it is not feasible for the government to implement, and ENFORCE this vaccination policy to all children. The second level that we can look at is on the citizen's level. While you are right, a responsible parent should get their children vaccinated (unless of moral and religous beliefs), you are assuming that every parent in America has the capability to pay for such vaccinations. This is not the case. In America, 45 MILLION americans, including 9 million children, lack health insurance. Some of the vaccines that have been mentioned, such as the HPV vaccine, consist of multiple shots. According to the Center of Diesease control, the 3 HPV shots can cost up to 360 dollars PER SHOT. Other vaccinations cost less, however, the way that you have proposed mandating vaccinations creates a long list of vaccines that must be paid by these uninsured parents. Since the incomes of many of these uninsured families are low, it is difficult to concieve a low income family paying thousands of dollars for vaccinations. While many low-income parents will still put their Children's safety first, it should not be forced upon them to pay for EVERY ONE of the vaccines available. Also, mandatory vaccinations will raise insurance premiums for all members of society. And many insurances might not cover all these vaccinations, therefore hurting the pockets of even the insured. In conclusion, a mandated vaccination not only infringes upon a citizens right to religious beliefs and choice, but the costs outweigh the benefits because of simply an inability on the federal and citizen's level to pay for such vaccinations. You have stated before that parents that do not vaccinate their children are irresponsible, yet it is the duty of the parent to do what is best for their kids.", "title": "Not getting children vaccinated", "pid": "6c8d356f-2019-04-18T20:03:16Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.0991668701172}, {"text": "Duty to protect the child", "title": "Make Vaccination Compulsory", "pid": "d77612cc-2019-04-15T20:24:10Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.0914306640625}, {"text": "Some parents may not be in the budget to pay for vaccination for there child. Parents may fear that their child will have bad side-effects as well as allergies. it is also not illegal or compulsory to vaccinate your child, Australia is a free country and she parents should have the option of taking the risk of not vaccinating their child.", "title": "Parents who don't vaccinate their children should still receive benefits from the government", "pid": "10fc577b-2019-04-18T13:19:46Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.08062744140625}, {"text": "Vaccinations such as hepatitis B are unnecessary because as stated by professionals on VacTruth.com, \"As of March 2012, disturbingly there were over 1500 hepatitis B vaccine-related deaths reported to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), some of those classified also as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). In addition to a high number of deaths, there were a total of 66,654 adverse events reported to VAERS, including but not limited to brain inflammation, convulsions, multiple sclerosis, headaches, irritability, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and Guiilain-Barre Syndrome.\" (vactruth.com) Dr. Meryl Nass stated: \"Many parents hold religious beliefs against vaccination. Forcing such parents to vaccinate their children would violate the 1st Amendment which guarantees citizens the right to the free exercise of their religion.\" The First Amendment clearly grants all citizens of the United States of America freedom to practice whichever religion they choose. Many citizens\" beliefs are against allowing people to receive vaccinations. By forcing American citizens to vaccinate their children and themselves, it is a direct violation of the First Amendment. (vaccines.procon.org/#arguments) All fifty states require vaccinations to enter public schools, but 48 of them allow exemptions for religious reasons for this very reason! When students enroll, all they have to do is have their parent or guardian fill out a form stating that they do not allow the student to receive vaccinations because of religious reasons. (vaccines.procon.org/#arguments) The college of Physicians of Philadelphia stated \"Certain religions and belief systems promote alternate perspectives toward vaccination. Religious objections to vaccinations are based generally on\" beliefs that the body is sacred, should not receive chemicals or blood or tissues from animals, and should be healed by God or natural means.\" (Historyofvaccines.org)", "title": "Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement)", "pid": "4716187-2019-04-18T16:23:45Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.07717895507812}, {"text": "Topic: State-mandated administartion of childhood vaccines is justified. Rules:1. No Ad Hominem2. No plagiarism3. No semantics/abusive arguments4. Dropping = Conceding5. By accepting, my opponent accepts the given rules.5a. If not, post in comments. =/Definitions:1. State-mandatedMandated is defined as requirement, so this phrase means each state has requirements relating to medical and safety issues.2. Administartion Administration, in this case, relates to allowing the government to give permission and obligating to trained medical professionals to give a shot to you. 3. Childhood VaccinesA series of vaccines, biological preparation, given during childhood to prevent future diseases. 4. JustifiedFor debate purposes, it means that on balance, it does more good than harm to the people. Good luck to whoever accepts.", "title": "State-mandated administration of childhood vaccines is justified.", "pid": "ccdef108-2019-04-18T18:19:43Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.0686798095703}, {"text": "The NVIC says, \"there are problems, many doctors are in denial.\" They looked at measles and all these infectious diseases that were killing people, they found that the drop in deaths had nothing to do with the vaccines. The verdict concerning Dr. Andrew Wakefield denied sound scientific studies replicating his findings. The public, parents, doctors and scientists worldwide are calling for a enquiry: http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com... Total Signed 4328 as of April 27, 2013. 5 reasons why we should have a choice to get vaccines. #1: Vaccines have Chemicals and Poisons #2: Vaccinated Children are Unhealtly also #3: We Are Learning the Dangers #4: Vaccines Have been Removed #5: You Can Get Vaccinated, But Never Undo a Vaccination", "title": "Vaccinations Against Preventable Childhood Disease", "pid": "7ec4257d-2019-04-18T17:35:48Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.0672607421875}, {"text": "To begin, I will remind my opponent that his/her next round will be their concluding round, in which they may not present any new information. This means that he/she can only weigh and crystallize arguments. My conclusion will be the first part of round 5, directly after my opponent's. My Arguments:My arguments have all been dropped by my opponent. This means that all my arguments have been accepted to be true. Refutations:Since my arguments have been accepted to be true, my opponent's incorrect and unproven assertions that vaccines are untrustworthy and harmful have been disproven by my arguments. I have proven that government-approved vaccinations work reliably, or as reliably as you can expect anything to. You can risk the slight risk of your child having an allergy and then have compensation from the government and protection from herd immunity. [1] This is obviously different from drinking orange juice from the grocery store, risk the slight chance of getting orange juice that is past expiration date, and then return it, get compensation from the grocery store, and get better orange juice. (Please infer sarcasm).", "title": "Children should receive vaccinations.", "pid": "79f05a51-2019-04-18T14:20:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.05943298339844}, {"text": "It is a HUGE SCAM by big Pharma. I don't care what anyone says!!!", "title": "There should not be Mandatory Vaccinations", "pid": "5a57225c-2019-04-18T11:55:06Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.04156494140625}, {"text": "I don't see how being new or using a cell phone is relevant to our discussion. Plagiarism isn't necessary in order to give us background information.", "title": "Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids", "pid": "3dd052cc-2019-04-18T13:46:56Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.02804565429688}, {"text": "This is awkward", "title": "vaccinating children must be a law", "pid": "a70ffd6e-2019-04-18T15:13:01Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.01638793945312}, {"text": "Children should not be vaccinated because vaccinations are not safe. The Ecowatch a website who concentrates on our economy and problems in the society stated in an article titled \" CDC Knew Its Vaccine Program Was Exposing Children to Dangerous Mercury Levels Since 1999\", \"Uncovered documents show that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) knew that infant vaccines were exposing American children to mercury far in excess of all federal safety guidelines since 1999. The documents, created by a FDA consulting toxicologist, show how federal regulators concealed the dangerous impacts and lied to the public...In 1997, Congress passed the FDA Modernization Act. A provision of that statute required the FDA to \"compile a list of drugs that contain intentionally introduced mercury compounds, and provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the mercury compounds on the list.\" In response, manufacturers reported the use of the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, in more than 30 licensed vaccines...\". Based on this article published in 2017, how do we know our children will be safe? If they have exposed our children once to dangerous chemicals, how do we know it will not happen again. This demonstrates the government does not care about our children, what are these vaccines really for? We are not experiments to simply test how many chemicals our body can intake, and neither are our children. Vaccines are not safe and neither are our children if we allow them to receive them. Kennedy, Robert. \"CDC Knew Its Vaccine Program Was Exposing Children to Dangerous Mercury Levels Since 1999.\" EcoWatch, EcoWatch, 17 Apr. 2017, www.ecowatch.com/cdc-mercury-vaccines-kennedy-2199157054.html.", "title": "Children should be vaccinated", "pid": "ea0ed4bb-2019-04-18T11:37:52Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.00830078125}, {"text": "PrefaceI have worked in healthcare for a decade now and find that the anti-vaccination crowd has become a small but booming voice in the industry. I am genuinley interested in a cultered debate on the issue and would love an engaging and academic contest.There is a 48 hour response time on this debate. Please consider before accepting.Full TopicOn balance, children should be vaccinated.TermsOn balance - means in general and after weighing all the available evidence.Vaccine - a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and humane atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. The BOP is shared8. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Constructive CasesR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case Thank you for your consideration", "title": "On balance, children should be vaccinated.", "pid": "f36f640f-2019-04-18T12:25:26Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.98989868164062}, {"text": "You want to do what is best for your children. You know about the importance of car seats, baby gates and other ways to keep them safe. But, did you know that one of the best ways to protect your children is to make sure they have all of their vaccinations? Immunizations can save your child\"s life. Because of advances in medical science, your child can be protected against more diseases than ever before. Some diseases that once injured or killed thousands of children, have been eliminated completely and others are close to extinction\" primarily due to safe and effective vaccines. Polio is one example of the great impact that vaccines had have in the United States. Polio was once America\"s most-feared disease, causing death and paralysis across the country, but today, thanks to vaccination, there are no reports of polio in the United States. Vaccination is very safe and effective. Vaccines are only given to children after a long and careful review by scientists, doctors, and healthcare professionals. Vaccines will involve some discomfort and may cause pain, redness, or tenderness at the site of injection but this is minimal compared to the pain, discomfort, and trauma of the diseases these vaccines prevent. Serious side effects following vaccination, such as severe allergic reaction, are very rare. The disease-prevention benefits of getting vaccines are much greater than the possible side effects for almost all children. Immunization protects others you care about. Children in the U.S. still get vaccine-preventable diseases. In fact, we have seen resurgences of measles and whooping cough (pertussis) over the past few years. Since 2010, there have been between 10,000 and 50,000 cases of whooping cough each year in the United States and about 10 to 20 babies, many of which were too young to be fully vaccinated, died each year. While some babies are too young to be protected by vaccination, others may not be able to receive certain vaccinations due to severe allergies, weakened immune systems from conditions like leukemia, or other reasons. To help keep them safe, it is important that you and your children who are able to get vaccinated are fully immunized. This not only protects your family, but also helps prevent the spread of these diseases to your friends and loved ones. Immunizations can save your family time and money. A child with a vaccine-preventable disease can be denied attendance at schools or child care facilities. Some vaccine-preventable diseases can result in prolonged disabilities and can take a financial toll because of lost time at work, medical bills or long-term disability care. In contrast, getting vaccinated against these diseases is a good investment and usually covered by insurance. The Vaccines for Children program is a federally funded program that provides vaccines at no cost to children from low-income families. To find out more about the VFC program,. Immunization protects future generations. Vaccines have reduced and, in some cases, eliminated many diseases that killed or severely disabled people just a few generations ago. For example, smallpox vaccination eradicated that disease worldwide. Your children don\"t have to get smallpox shots any more because the disease no longer exists. By vaccinating children against rubella (German measles), the risk that pregnant women will pass this virus on to their fetus or newborn has been dramatically decreased, and birth defects associated with that virus no longer are seen in the United States. If we continue vaccinating now, and vaccinating completely, parents in the future may be able to trust that some diseases of today will no longer be around to harm their children in the future.", "title": "Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids", "pid": "3dd052cc-2019-04-18T13:46:56Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 213.98802185058594}, {"text": "Firstly, you have said that \"parents may not be in the budget for the vaccination for their child', which is indeed possible, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to not give provide the vaccination, the government should provide the funds in that case. Which is the case in several countries already. For example, there is the Universal Immunisation Programme in India which pays for the vaccination for the children in poor families. In the USA, there is CDC (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention) which does so as well. Secondly, you have said that there are negative side effects of vaccinations on children. However if you would have researched the topic, you would have realised that the only possible issues that could arise are mild fever, shivering, fatigue, joint/muscle pain and headaches. These- by the way, are not in anyway going to hurt the child since active immunisation (that is what vaccination is) is the injection of dead or inert pathogen into the recipient's body for the white blood cells to create memory regarding the antigen's structure to fight a similar alive one in the future. Which would explain the negative effects. Next, just because it isn't legal to not vaccinate your child doesn't mean it is okay to not do so. As a matter of fact it should be illegal since a child's life is risked. And moreover, the statement is inaccurate as well since in the USA alone, it is legally required in all the 50 states to do so if he/she is entering an educational system (school, day care, etc). In addition to that, the motion suggests that the issue being debated refers to al the countries all around the world and not only Australia, so we should broaden our horizons and not only focus on one country. Additionally, you have said that parents should have the option of taking the risk of not vaccinating their child simply shows that you have said that it is wrong for children to be deprived of the medical necessity. Which is basically saying that you agree with me. Finally, I would like to say that if the government does indeed give these benefits to these families, it just suggests that it is okay to be ill and be a possible reason that a epidemic is spread. It will have a negative impact on all the future generations. It is the government's job to improve the standard of living of a nation, not deteriorate it. That is why the citizens have chosen them.", "title": "Parents who don't vaccinate their children should still receive benefits from the government", "pid": "10fc577b-2019-04-18T13:19:46Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.97930908203125}, {"text": "Vaccinations against highly infectious childhood diseases such as the measles, mumps, rubella, and pertussis (aka whooping cough) have saved millions of lives and improved the quality of life in countries where vaccines are accessible to the public. Unfortunately, more than half of the parents in the United States and some parts of the United Kingdom are choosing not to vaccinate for fear that vaccinations are harmful to their children. Autism, mercury, and aluminum are commonly cited as reasons against vaccinations: all reasons which have been poorly researched by antivaxxers. The Andrew Wakefield article loosely correlating the MMR vaccine and autism has been thoroughly debunked and retracted. The mercury used in Thimerosol (ethylmercury) is much easier for the body to break down than the mercury found in seafood (methylmercury), and an infant will have greater aluminum exposure from 6 months of breastfeeding than from their full vaccination schedule in the same time frame.", "title": "Vaccinations Against Preventable Childhood Disease", "pid": "7ec4257d-2019-04-18T17:35:48Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.9669952392578}, {"text": "No one should be allowed to risk the health of others just because of their personal, moral, philosophical, or religious views. The needs of the many is more important than the needs of the individual.", "title": "Vaccinations (mandatory/disbursement)", "pid": "47161a6-2019-04-18T16:19:35Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.96450805664062}, {"text": "http://www.vaccines.gov... I ask the voters to consider this when voting on this debate.", "title": "Why parents should immunized or Vaccinated they're kids", "pid": "3dd052cc-2019-04-18T13:46:56Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.96090698242188}, {"text": "h", "title": "Resolved: State Mandated Administration of Childhood Vaccinations is Justsified", "pid": "4039843a-2019-04-18T18:21:49Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.95330810546875}, {"text": "Evidence suggests that the dramatic rise in ear infections, allergies, and asthma in children can be attributed (at least in part) to the damaging effects of vaccines. The incidence of asthma, the most serious and life threatening of these conditions has steadily increased in the modern era since the introduction of vaccines. In the UK controversy surrounds the use of the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) triple vaccine, with many parents refusing vaccination for their children or insisting that they be vaccinated separately against the three illnesses.", "title": "Compulsory vaccination leads to a better health situation in a state. The child mortality rate is l...", "pid": "7c2f6af5-2019-04-19T12:44:28Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 213.95065307617188}, {"text": "I myself do not think vaccinations are necessary. Usually every time I get one I end up getting sick after. Also some may have the risk of cancer or actually do cause it. There have been many recalls on vaccines, and the people who were the first to get them were at risk for disease or were left sick. If people ate right and took care of their bodies we would not need them. Yes, there is bacteria and virus's but the healthier the person the less chance they are of getting sick.", "title": "Vaccinations are necessary", "pid": "954be27-2019-04-18T15:19:53Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.94833374023438}, {"text": "Pro makes the claim that there shouldn't be mandatory vaccinations on the premise that they cause autism, are a scam, and have other negative consequences. However they haven't provided any evidence this is the case. The claim that vaccinations cause autism isn't true. :The MMR vaccine controversy started with the 1998 publication of a fraudulent research paper in The Lancet linking the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine to colitis and autism spectrum disorders.\" [1] The key word there is fraudulent. \"An investigation by journalist Brian Deer found that Andrew Wakefield, the author of the original research paper linking the vaccine to autism, had multiple undeclared conflicts of interest,[9][10] had manipulated evidence,[11] and had broken other ethical codes. The Lancet paper was partially retracted in 2004, and fully retracted in 2010, when Lancet's editor-in-chief Richard Horton described it as \"utterly false\" and said that the journal had been \"deceived\" [2]. As we can see, basing the outlook that vaccinations shouldn't be mandatory because they cause autism is completely unfounded. Claims ought to be based on fact to be considered true. A scam can be defined as a dishonest scheme. It vaccinations are a scam, about what and why in particular? A case hasn't been provided. So with Pro not offering cant substance whatsoever, allow me to showcase why vaccinations are important. Immunizations can save your child's life. \"Because of advances in medical science, your child can be protected against more diseases than ever before. Some diseases that once injured or killed thousands of children, have been eliminated completely and others are close to extinction\" primarily due to safe and effective vaccines. Polio is one example of the great impact that vaccines had have in the United States. Polio was once America\"s most-feared disease, causing death and paralysis across the country, but today, thanks to vaccination, there are no reports of polio in the United States [3]\" Immunizations protect the future generation. \" Vaccines have reduced and, in some cases, eliminated many diseases that killed or severely disabled people just a few generations ago. For example, smallpox vaccination eradicated that disease worldwide. Your children don\"t have to get smallpox shots any more because the disease no longer exists. By vaccinating children against rubella (German measles), the risk that pregnant women will pass this virus on to their fetus or newborn has been dramatically decreased, and birth defects associated with that virus no longer are seen in the United States. If we continue vaccinating now, and vaccinating completely, parents in the future may be able to trust that some diseases of today will no longer be around to harm their children in the future [4]\". Humans have been able to live longer, flourish often, and progress society due to the lack of bubonic plagues and mystical diseases we previously died from before the research of science. Mandatory Vaccinations not only save lives, but allow the human race to be stronger than ever before. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://www.vaccines.gov... [4] https://www.vaccines.gov...", "title": "There should not be Mandatory Vaccinations", "pid": "5a57223d-2019-04-18T11:54:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.94412231445312}]}
{"idx": 10, "qid": "11", "q_text": "Should performance-enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?", "qrels": {"a7c47a5c-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00010-000": 0, "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00002-000": 2, "ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00003-000": 0, "fd2a6336-2019-04-18T16:18:03Z-00003-000": 0, "fc4fa3b4-2019-04-18T18:14:47Z-00000-000": 0, "f5b0db6a-2019-04-18T11:13:26Z-00003-000": 2, "f478b4b1-2019-04-18T19:53:39Z-00005-000": 0, "e9800d8d-2019-04-18T18:47:58Z-00007-000": 0, "e9800d8d-2019-04-18T18:47:58Z-00003-000": 0, "e9800d8d-2019-04-18T18:47:58Z-00000-000": 0, "df0ae2df-2019-04-18T12:28:30Z-00004-000": 0, "df0ae2df-2019-04-18T12:28:30Z-00001-000": 0, "de10c9ca-2019-04-18T14:41:06Z-00003-000": 1, "add356d0-2019-04-18T17:26:20Z-00001-000": 2, "acaa07c8-2019-04-18T15:00:41Z-00003-000": 0, "e5ccda7-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00015-000": 0, "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00002-000": 2, "dfa0f2e4-2019-04-18T11:51:34Z-00001-000": 0, "a126b2a4-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00005-000": 2, "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00003-000": 2, "df0ae2df-2019-04-18T12:28:30Z-00003-000": 0, "4e2a557f-2019-04-18T20:00:48Z-00001-000": 2, "610dae17-2019-04-18T14:52:24Z-00003-000": 0, "8c1650a5-2019-04-18T11:36:18Z-00005-000": 1, "59d1fc1c-2019-04-18T17:56:37Z-00005-000": 1, "50231541-2019-04-18T11:14:04Z-00002-000": 1, "4e2a557f-2019-04-18T20:00:48Z-00003-000": 2, "9324770-2019-04-18T19:59:00Z-00003-000": 0, "4cab66dc-2019-04-18T19:21:26Z-00000-000": 1, "4130d9ef-2019-04-18T19:22:11Z-00003-000": 2, "9324770-2019-04-18T19:59:00Z-00000-000": 0, "3e3bddfb-2019-04-18T17:02:13Z-00005-000": 0, "21fa6aa9-2019-04-18T15:26:34Z-00003-000": 2, "6a9cc0cb-2019-04-18T16:29:23Z-00001-000": 2, "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00004-000": 2, "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00003-000": 2, "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00002-000": 0, "9ba29485-2019-04-19T12:44:59Z-00010-000": 1, "1109cf85-2019-04-18T17:19:52Z-00000-000": 2, "1109cf85-2019-04-18T17:19:52Z-00005-000": 2, "1c1c7401-2019-04-18T18:06:00Z-00003-000": 2, "739d0c9a-2019-04-18T19:00:41Z-00003-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Performance Enhancing Drugs are defined as substances used to improve performance in a variety of fields. We're talking about steroids, lean mass builders, stimulants, nootropics, painkillers, sedatives, blood boosters, etc- not caffeine and green beans.", "title": "Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports.", "pid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 222.5520477294922}, {"text": "Accepted.", "title": "Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports.", "pid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 222.31997680664062}, {"text": "I accept", "title": "Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports", "pid": "91f321b3-2019-04-18T18:07:03Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 221.20089721679688}, {"text": "Just go by popular definitions.", "title": "Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports", "pid": "91f321b3-2019-04-18T18:07:03Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 220.94317626953125}, {"text": "1. Athletes should be able to use whatever means they would like to improve their performance. If that includes steroids, then let them use it. 2. Steroids' risks are clear, and an athlete has a right to choose whether or not he would like to use them. 3. Steroid testing is not efficient, and new types of steroids are being released that often pass screenings.", "title": "Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports", "pid": "91f321b3-2019-04-18T18:07:03Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 220.68614196777344}, {"text": "Extend.", "title": "Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports", "pid": "91f321b3-2019-04-18T18:07:03Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 220.6246337890625}, {"text": "Thanks to my opponent for a fun challenge! Good luck! :)", "title": "THW allow performance enhancing drugs in sport", "pid": "73f0ef4b-2019-04-18T16:26:16Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 220.4353790283203}, {"text": "Extend the argument.", "title": "Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports", "pid": "91f321b3-2019-04-18T18:07:03Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 220.40396118164062}, {"text": "PEDs should remain illegal. The idea of a performance enhancing drug is to improve immediate ability. This gives and unfair handicap to the players of that particular sport that are not using a drug. This in turn cheats the capitalist system by placing someone who is unfit to be at the top at the top.", "title": "Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman", "pid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 220.2471466064453}, {"text": "Protecting young and vulnerable athletes", "title": "permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 220.19589233398438}, {"text": "Protecting the health of athletes", "title": "permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 220.12646484375}, {"text": "Improving safety standards in sport", "title": "permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 220.09844970703125}, {"text": "Performance-enhancing drugs (PED) are substances used by athletes to improve their performances. These drugs are addictive and if we use it for a long time it will be affect our heart-health. And these regulation will not appropriate with the purpose of sport which is Be Healthy By Natural Ways. Because if the athlete use these PED it will insist them to do more than the energy they have. And of course it is not healthy.", "title": "Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament", "pid": "add356d0-2019-04-18T17:26:20Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 220.06063842773438}, {"text": "Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use", "title": "permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.9263916015625}, {"text": "Athletes should be free to take risks when training and competing", "title": "permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 219.9030303955078}, {"text": "Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport", "title": "permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.83819580078125}, {"text": "Drugs will undermine the central philosophy of sport", "title": "permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.6019287109375}, {"text": "I graciously accept Actionsspeak's concession. I greatly appreciate his willingness to debate this with me, and I think it's very big of him to concede, despite the fact that he made points that I felt were reasonable points of debate on this contentious subject. I hope that we will have another opportunity to debate in the future, but for now I honor his concession, and I urge voters to duly respect it by awarding him a conduct point in their votes.", "title": "WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues", "pid": "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.57000732421875}, {"text": "Said drugs should stay illegal for use in sports, for a few reasons. 1) Negative effect on the steroid user Steroids, as we all know, speed up protein synthesis to enhance performance. However, there are some harmful side effects to using them. They include: - higher blood pressure - higher cholesterol levels - higher risk of heart disease - liver damage - premature growth - testicular cancer - abnormally large amounts of acne - breast development in men This, obviously, is not good for the steroid user. Furthermore, exercising normally can avoid these problems, and regular exercise is better for physical and mental health. 2) Negative impact on children When children start to get into sports, they normally treat their favorite player as an idol, an image of what they want to be when they grow up. How would they feel if their idol essentially cheated by using drugs so they didn't have to work as hard? Furthermore, what if they decided to use steroids too, because their hero did? 3) Unfair advantage Most professional athletes work hard every day to stay in shape and sharp at their sport. Why should some players get to skip this hard work that everyone else is doing? That's all for now.", "title": "Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports.", "pid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.4925994873047}, {"text": "But, in this case, we talk about the athlete whose have so many fans. For example, the football player, they have so many fans all around the world, from those who already old, mid-age, or even the children. If the using of PED is allowed in this case, of course what the athlete did is being adapted by their fans. For example, Child \"A\" said \"Oh, my idol use that drugs to improve the energy during the match, I will try it too\" Isn't it will be dangerous for the children under age? And for your information, eating healthy diets and exercising more efficiently = Is natural ways :-)", "title": "Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament", "pid": "add356d0-2019-04-18T17:26:20Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.2998809814453}, {"text": "I affirm that PEDs should be permitted in sports. Legalizing PEDs would serve to level the playing field. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the top Tour de France finishers since 1998 have been confirmed to be doping while racing, despite efforts to stop them (1). So, the statistics clearly indicate that those who obey the rules and do not dope have a relatively low chance of performing well. If those who did not not use Performance Enhancing Drugs in the Tour de France were instead allowed to dope, those racers would have had the same advantages as those who currently dope illegally, and the playing field would have been more even. One of the primary reasons people enjoy watching professional sports is because they showcase the highest level of human achievement. Allowing PEDs to be used would raise the level of competition and skill in professional sports. This would thus make achievements in sports seem even more unthinkable and impressive, which would thus make more people attend these sporting events. As described in Forbes, \"A huge part of watching sports is witnessing the very peak of human athletic ability, and legalizing performance enhancing drugs would help athletes climb even higher (2).\" This shows that Performance Enhancing Drugs can raise the level of sports, which can make sports even more of a spectacle. For example, during the 1990's, when Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa used steroids, their respective games were usually sold out with people who wanted to see their heightened abilities (2). I will now refute my opponent's arguments. My opponent argues that PEDs provide with a large risk for athletes. However, Athletes who are using PEDs are already in a dangerous industry, and frequently become injured regardless of whether or not they use drugs. In the year 2013 alone, the NFL reported at least 152 concussions, and was forced to spend up to 765 million dollars to settle claims of traumatic head injury brought by former players (3). So, PEDs do not provide with a large injury risk compared to the inherent risk of professional sports. My opponent also argues that allowing PEDs takes away from true human achievement. However, being an athlete requires a high amount of skill regardless of whether or not you use PEDs. Hitting a home run, for example requires excellent timing and a perfect swing. Using PEDs may increase the distance of this home run, but hitting a it is still a spectacle of your own human, not chemical precision. So, performing in sports requires intricate skill, no matter what. It is thus clear that PEDs do not take away from human achievement. As such, I affirm. 1- http://www.nytimes.com... 2- http://www.forbes.com... 3- http://www.pbs.org...", "title": "Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports.", "pid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.22918701171875}, {"text": "\"Your \"Part one arguments,\" to the extent they raise true symptoms (which is not clear, because data on the symptoms of the usage of steroids at recommended dosages in healthy people is in a shortage and rather conflicting, which is perhaps why you have cited no scientific data), apply to the resolution \"Should you use steroids? \" Or \"Is hiring a steroid-using baseball player a good investment? \"\" . http://en.wikipedia.org... They do apply to the resolution, \"Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports\". They show that using these drugs is unsafe. \"Your part two arguments apply to \"Should children be encouraged to look into athletes as role models? \" No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children. \"Your part three argument applies to \"Should sports leagues concerned with an image of 'hard work' or 'fairness' allow steroid users to play? \" No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through. \"The resolution at hand, however, is whether it should be ILLEGAL for professional athletes to use these drugs. \" Uh, no, it's whether \"Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports. \" \"Allowed\" and \"legal\" are very different. \"Allowed\" means allowed within the sport's rules; \"legal\" means allowed within the law.", "title": "Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports.", "pid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.2025909423828}, {"text": "oh", "title": "Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament", "pid": "add356d0-2019-04-18T17:26:20Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.09677124023438}, {"text": "As am I, thank you for accepting Pro! PEDs should not be permitted for use in professional sports (or sports at any level) for a number of reasons. First and foremost, PEDs present an enormous health risk for athletes that use them. They lead to many severe health problems, including but not limited to heart and circulatory problems, psychiatric disorders and inhibited growth and development (http://www.mayoclinic.org... and http://www.livestrong.com...). The law, in the broader view of things, aims to generally protect people from making poor decisions. If all people are treated as equals under the law, it is the duty of the law to aim to protect athletes just as it aims to protect drug users. It is therefore the responsibility of the law to warn athletes away from taking performance enhancing drugs. In the broader scope of sport, it can be appreciated that teenage athletes who train among adult ones or share the same coaches would also turn to PEDs used by the people around them (were PEDs legalized and accessible), which would not only pose even more serious health concerns but also set trends about drug culture in general, spreading the reach of recreational drug use even further. Sports are enjoyed by people because they are a visual demonstration of what human beings can achieve, individually or collectively. They are designed to amaze and put on a show, and we watch them to celebrate this human achievement. If athletes took PEDs, we would be celebrating chemical achievement, instead. Thus, PEDs could be appreciated to undermine the central philosophy of sport. Finally, a counterargument could be that not all athletes would need to take PEDs and some may choose not to without consequence- however, this is not true. Even if some athletes uphold moral or health standards to not take PEDs, they have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to be successful, they will also have to take drugs. Allowing any athletes to take PEDs means no longer protecting any athletes, even ones that don't want to use dangerous drugs, from these things. This is exemplified in the American Scientific Magazine: \"Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a \"clean\" rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team\" (http://www.scientificamerican.com...). Two more websites consulted: http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org... http://www.usada.org... Your move! :)", "title": "Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports.", "pid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.09483337402344}, {"text": "Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not. ", "title": "Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 219.01390075683594}, {"text": "A ban is not the way to deal with addiction and health issues. Addiction is a personal situation that must be handled properly, meaning between the user, his doctor, and those affected by his behavior. The drugs being unnatural does not prove that they should be banned. If a certain activity should be banned for giving an artificial advantage, then shouldn't athletes logically be banned from eating healthy diets and exercising more efficiently? Because after all, these are unnatural processes.", "title": "Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament", "pid": "add356d0-2019-04-18T17:26:20Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.01019287109375}, {"text": "PED (Performance-Enhancing Drug) gives disadvantages for the sportsman. PED should not be legalized by everyone for the sportman. PED gives disdvantages, specially in terms of health!", "title": "Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman", "pid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.83419799804688}, {"text": "1. Athletes should NOT be able to take whatever they want, it's not fair, Athletes should do there best by doing it naturally. there are some things in steroids that can make people sick. 2. Steroids do have a psychological effects on a person, its been proven by tests and any health website weather major or minor would tell you the same. \"roid rage\" has been proven to be true. 3. liver damage kidney damage increased blood pressure and cholesterol (risk for heart disease) headache and stomach ache severe facial and body acne decreased joint flexibility 4.breast enlargement shrunken testicles lowered sperm count increased sex drive decreased sexual performance - difficulty getting and maintaining erections these effects of steroids are true and could be permanent to the user.", "title": "Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports", "pid": "91f321b3-2019-04-18T18:07:03Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.7918701171875}, {"text": "\" They do apply to the resolution, \"Performance-enhancing drugs should [not] be allowed in professional sports\". They show that using these drugs is unsafe.\" Doing unsafe things is allowable. People have the right to do unsafe things with their own bodies. \" No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they set a bad example for children. \" Athletes are not slaves, existing for the sake of their examples to children. They exist for their own sake and are to be treated as such, as human beings, so long as they treat others as such. This means they are not to be forced to a course of action just because it will benefit someone else, only them initiating force can justify such force. \" No, I'm saying that performance-enhancing drugs cheat users out of hard work and practice that other players have to go through. \" \"Have to?\" No one \"has to\" do such a thing. They are perfectly able to take the drugs themselves, or work hard, or not condition themselves, as they please. And the use of drugs by one party does not delete the hard work by another, they are separate bodies, separate phenomena. \" Uh, no, it's whether \"Performance-enhancing drugs should be ALLOWED in professional sports.\" \"Allowed\" and \"legal\" are very different. \"Allowed\" means allowed within the sport's rules; \"legal\" means allowed within the law.\" This would be a permissible arguments if your round 1 argument did not already concede you were talking about what THE LAW should allow. As it stands it is not, it is merely a tool of deception, and I quote (emphasis mine:) \" Said drugs should stay ILLEGAL for use in sports, for a few reasons.\" That was at the beginning of your first round argument. That leaves no room for weaseling out of it, the resolution was explicitly clarified by you as meaning allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league. You made your bed now argue in it. \"and not actually presented an argument, you vote CON at this point.\" Read second paragraph from the bottom of my Round 1. I did in fact present an argument, as relates to the resolution as you clarified it's meaning at the beginning of the debate. If you are going to state the resolution is anything other than what I have stated it is, you will be forced to admit the statement at the beginning of your Round One argument was deliberately dishonest.", "title": "Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports.", "pid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.70223999023438}, {"text": "Consisten? You're pro in this topic. so you agree to legalize PED. But ur argument ask to make PEDs remain illegal for sportman.", "title": "Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman", "pid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.6234130859375}, {"text": "x", "title": "Performance Enhancement Drugs in Professional Sports", "pid": "21fa6aa9-2019-04-18T15:26:34Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.48744201660156}, {"text": "x", "title": "Performance Enhancement Drugs in Professional Sports", "pid": "21fa6aa9-2019-04-18T15:26:34Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.48744201660156}, {"text": "Levels the playing field. Currently suspicion over drug use surrounds every sport and every successful athlete, and those competitors who don’t take performance-enhancing drugs see themselves as disadvantaged. Some drugs can’t be tested for, and in any case, new medical and chemical advances mean that the cheats will always be ahead of the testers. Legalisation would remove this uncertainty and allow everyone to compete openly and fairly.", "title": "Levels the playing field. Currently suspicion over drug use surrounds every sport and every success...", "pid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 218.43588256835938}, {"text": "To refute my opponent's arguments and his responses to my own, one by one: 1. \"Legalizing PEDs would serve to level the playing field. According to the New York Times, more than a third of the top Tour de France finishers since 1998 have been confirmed to be doping while racing\" Response: Not only should they not be legalized, there should be more enforcement to keep them out of sports. It's not a strong argument to say \"some people are doing it anyway, we might as well make it legal so everyone can\". Some people do cocaine! Furthermore, rich athletes from wealthier countries will have access to the latest, highest-quality PEDs while poorer athletes from poorer countries which don't have the same medical or scientific advances will not be able to keep up. As long as PEDs are available (or even legal), the playing field won't ever be level. PEDs are one of the largest factors that make the playing field not be level, because they give a foothold to wealth and country of origin as deciders of athletic performance. 2. \"One of the primary reasons people enjoy watching professional sports is because they showcase the highest level of human achievement. Allowing PEDs to be used would raise the level of competition and skill in professional sports.\" Response: Allowing PEDs would raise the level of competition in an extremely uneven manner, and we would showcase chemical achievement instead of human achievement (as outlined in my first argument). 3. \"My opponent argues that PEDs provide with a large risk for athletes. However, Athletes who are using PEDs are already in a dangerous industry, and frequently become injured regardless of whether or not they use drugs.\" Response: I would call it an invalid argument to say that, because what they do is dangerous already, it doesn't matter that PEDs could make their lives more dangerous. All people are under the law and the law should protect all people. Welders have a more dangerous career than teachers, but it isn't any less against the law for them to use cocaine. 4. \"My opponent also argues that allowing PEDs takes away from true human achievement. However, being an athlete requires a high amount of skill regardless of whether or not you use PEDs. [...] Using PEDs may increase the distance of this home run, but hitting a it is still a spectacle of your own human, not chemical precision.\" Response: I agree that there is a side of sports not affected by PEDs, but I think that this argues my side of the debate more than it does yours- we will celebrate the same skills, changed or unchanged by PEDs, as human achievement. The use of PEDs therefore does not increase this human achievement and should not be celebrated, it only adds chemical achievement to what is already amazing. This is not something we want to celebrate, as it is outside of the central philosophy of sport, and it is certainly not worth the health risks or other disparities (as outlined above) the PEDs would bring to sport at any level.", "title": "Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports.", "pid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.3937225341797}, {"text": "I now assume that Con has conceded all my points, as they have forfeited two times in a row.", "title": "Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs", "pid": "a126b2a4-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.38226318359375}, {"text": "!", "title": "WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues", "pid": "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.38137817382812}, {"text": "\"Doing unsafe things is allowable. People have the right to do unsafe things with their own bodies. \" Did you not see what \"allowed\" refers to? Rights or not, steroids are not allowed in professional sports. \"Athletes are not slaves, existing for the sake of their examples to children. They exist for their own sake and are to be treated as such, as human beings, so long as they treat others as such. This means they are not to be forced to a course of action just because it will benefit someone else, only them initiating force can justify such force. \" I didn't say that. Obviously, an athlete should be expected to be a role model for children, since many kids will look up to him/her. This does not dictate the way they live; it simply means they should not do stupid things, cheat, etc. because that will negatively influence kids. This is why, for example, Michael Phelps got a lot of crap for doing drugs. \"\"Have to? \" No one \"has to\" do such a thing. They are perfectly able to take the drugs themselves, or work hard, or not condition themselves, as they please. \" Do you see any unconditioned professional athletes? They all have to do some sort of tough conditioning to stay sharp at their sport. And most people consider steroids cheating, or do not use them because of the aforementioned side effects. Professional athletes who do not use steroids HAVE TO work hard to stay in shape and up to expectations. \"And the use of drugs by one party does not delete the hard work by another, they are separate bodies, separate phenomena. \" EXACTLY - one party still has to go through hard work, while the other can just take drugs. \"This would be a permissible arguments if your round 1 argument did not already concede you were talking about what THE LAW should allow. As it stands it is not, it is merely a tool of deception, and I quote . . . That was at the beginning of your first round argument. That leaves no room for weaseling out of it, the resolution was explicitly clarified by you as meaning allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league. \" Well, first, if something is illegal for use in sports, then it is not allowed for use in sports. So I can relate these arguments to the resolution even if you were right. Second, you just contradicted yourself. First you state that I conceded that I was talking about what the law should allow. But then, you say I \"explicitly clarified [it] as being allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league\". But really, I was laying the latter all along. The very first sentence says \"illegal for use in sports\". That means that their use is punishable by law if used in sports. Now before you start saying that we should not jail people for steroid use, that's not what \"punishable by law\" means. Loitering is punishable by law; do you get thrown in jail for it? What about littering or violating curfew laws? =============================================================================== My opponent has spent all of his arguments attempting to not relate my arguments to the resolution. However, I have showed how he has misinterpreted all of my arguments. Furthermore, he has not attempted to argue with my position, and is giving contradictory and misleading \"reasons\" on why I have \"not\" supported the resolution.", "title": "Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports.", "pid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.3714141845703}, {"text": "I will use this speech to further strengthen my constructive, and refute my opponents refutations. My opponent argues that it does not make sense to legal PEDs with the intention of leveling the playing field. However, I have provided evidence that says that a majority of athletes in some sports use PEDs. Because of this, it is incredibly difficult to eradicate PEDs. This has been seen recently in sports such as baseball. Despite continuous effort by Major League Baseball to take PEDs away from the game, PED use is still widely present. This shows that it would simply be less cumbersome to allow everyone to use PEDs than to attempt to remove them entirely. My opponent also observes that PEDs increase chemical achievement instead of human achievement. However, I have shown that professional athletes still are incredibly skilled, regardless of whether or not they use PEDs. Furthermore, I have shown that people do in fact celebrate \"chemical\" achievement. An example of this would be the MLB Home Run races in the 1990's, when a majority of the contenders used PEDs. During this point in MLB history, there were more fans and spectators than ever before, which shows celebration of what my opponent dubs \"chemical achievement.\" So, it is clear that PEDs do not eliminate human achievement, and any chemical achievement that they provide is still celebrated. My opponent refutes my argument regarding the inherent dangers of sports by comparing it to teachers and welders who use cocaine. This argument cannot be weighed in this debate for two reasons. First, Professional Athletes are paid much more than welders or teachers. Second, PEDs are much less dangerous than using cocaine. Professional Athletes are being paid much more than teachers or welders, and they are also submitting themselves to the inherent danger of their sports. And I would observe that this argument was mainly put into my constructive speech to show that the dangers of PEDs do not come close to outweighing the inherent dangers of sports. Because of this, the contention regarding the dangers of PEDs cannot be weighed highly. My opponent finally argues that chemical achievement will never be celebrated, as all that people celebrate is human achievement. I do accept that people embrace human achievement in sports, as I even said that in my constructive speech. However, I have also shown that chemical achievement can be celebrated, which increases the appeal to watch professional sports. So, it is clear that PEDs do in fact level the playing field, make sports more appealing, and should in fact be legalized in professional sports. So, I affirm the resolution that Performance Enhancing Drugs should be permitted in professional sports, and I urge a pro ballot.", "title": "Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) should be permitted in professional sports.", "pid": "ffe83842-2019-04-18T15:14:48Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.3460693359375}, {"text": "Thanks to Actionsspeak for clarifying his case and for his opening remarks. This looks to be an interesting debate. I ask the audience to recognize that even his case is a departure from status quo. He would like to afford the capacity to decide whether steroid and hormone usage is allowed in any given sport to the sporting leagues themselves, and thus take it out of the hands of legislators. Con's third contention made it clear that the league, not lawmakers, should have the right to determine how a sport is played. So what we're really discussing here is whether or not the option should be available to individuals or to sporting leagues, not whether their usage should be legalized or not. This is an important distinction, and one that should be kept in mind that the American legal structures [1] aren't going to be an impediment in either of our cases as this debate goes forward. Now, onto my rebuttals. On Equality: 1. Sports aren't about equality. If it was, we wouldn't have winners and losers. The system of competition is meant to elevate those who are better at what they do, whether that's as a result of inherent capacities or how well they use their resources. No one is entitled to play professional sports \" it's a privilege requiring enormous sacrifice and massive risk, whether they use steroids or not, and most walk away. If Con wants equality, sports isn't the place to find it. 2. Sports aren't equal. Recall two things I said in R2. First, I discussed what athletes do in order to get in shape. Flying into the mountains to thicken the blood and increase the flow of oxygen through their bodies isn't something everyone can do before competitions, nor can they all find training facilities above a certain altitude. Even among those that can, not all of them will have access to top of the line equipment, masseuses, trainers, or all the other expenses required to build muscle quickly and efficiently. They don't all have access to the same megadoses of vitamin pills, dietary supplements, equipment, clothing, or medical treatments that are allowed to everyone in status quo. Hell, things like hyperbaric oxygen chambers, which increase the rate of recovery for players, are being purchased by many teams and players at tremendous costs, providing them and only them an appreciable advantage.[2] and would continue to be allowed in Con's case. Why are steroids so special? Second, I talked about how some people just have higher inherent capacities. They produce more testosterone, HGH or erythropoeitin, they can endure a faster heartbeat, or even the fact that they produce normal blood cells. Not everyone has those advantages, and Con has provided no way for anyone to make up for any such deficiencies. Only my plan seeks to solve for these concerns. 3. Con's case is worse for equality. Black market drugs are more expensive, harder to find,[3] and more dangerous, but more on that last point later. But you can look at this point one of two ways. You can accept that steroid usage causes more steroid usage, in which case Con's case is more detrimental there's already a system in place where athletes feel the need to use steroids and hormones to succeed. The only difference is that they can't use the cheapest, safest, and most well-known steroids prescribed directly by doctors at specific doses and lower cost. Con provides absolutely no reason to believe that legalization will increase usage over status quo. Even if he does, recognize that equality is only a larger problem within his case and in the status quo. The only reason why an advantage such as steroids would be considered unfair is if they're unequally distributed, but as I pointed out in the previous round, the distribution is currently as unequal as it gets. Using basic steroids and hormones instead of what's available on the black market will lower, not raise, the barrier for entry, and increase fairness to all athletes. Or you can notice that this argument has no warrant. Con asserts that steroid usage among some athletes will spread to other athletes who want to compete. This is nothing more than an assertion, and one which is not well explained. Mandatory testing programs among MLB players have revealed that a whopping 5-7% of athletes were using steroids[4], which means 93-95% of athletes were able to play at a very high level without coercion. There's no reason to believe that legalization will cause these numbers to balloon out of control. The uncertainty regarding who is using steroids/hormones in status quo, if anything, creates more impetus to use than a transparent system where everyone who does use does so openly. 4. Con also allows sports leagues to create their own barriers to entry for those with anemia, low testosterone production, reduced muscle growth, and anything else that puts them at a marked disadvantage. He allows individual leagues to discriminate against these groups, harming any sense of equality by denying access to those who could easily keep up if they had access to the available resources. On Health Concerns: 1. Athletes are already forced into an incredibly unhealthy lifestyle and die young. I made this clear in the previous round, but there's no significant difference between any of the health harms presented by Con and the ones I presented in R2. Con will have to address my point that these harms are non-unique and my hypocrisy arguments as well in the next round in order to win this point. 2. Health concerns are worse in an environment where black market drugs are the only ones being used. The reality is that the health concerns are far more excessive using designer steroids and gene doping, as I pointed out last round. Worse yet, his case only exacerbates these harms by legalizing their usage in the general community, but not in all sports. In my case, incentive to use designer steroids and gene doping is erased due to their expense and ineffectiveness by comparison. Con encourages the legal usage of the most dangerous doping substances. 3. Each athlete accepts these health concerns the moment they take these drugs. There's no reason why athletes shouldn't be able to take these concerns on themselves, especially if they know about them in advance. Since Con's case encourages athletes to pursue drugs with unknown health harms, his forces a lower capacity to consent than mine does. On \"The league's rights\": 1. There's no impact here. Con doesn't explain how changes in the way sports are played is actually harmful. Even if this is certain to happen, the lack of a harm makes it unimportant. 2. There's no warrant for this claim. Con doesn't explain how a change in one rule affects another one. The only possible warrant is a slippery slope fallacy, which has no rational basis in this debate. Worse yet, even if it was true that one rule change could link to another, the rules he's trying to link have nothing in common. The rules of what an athlete can do to their own bodies have no effect on whether any player can disregard the basic rules of how a sport is played in competition. 3. The league doesn't have a right to deny access based on any person's characteristics, training regimen, or nutritional intake. This is one of the very few influences they have on what athletes can take and use for playing their sports, and it's done with extreme hypocrisy based on shaky reasoning. Leagues should not be allowed to spurn athletes who they think have an unfair advantage based on other characteristics, and yet Con wants us to believe that this is crossing some special line. With that, I leave it to my opponent to rebut my case and respond to these arguments. 1. http://www.steroidabuse.com... 2. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com... 3. http://www.theguardian.com... 4. http://mlb.mlb.com...", "title": "WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues", "pid": "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.2786407470703}, {"text": "I still hold out hope that Con will make a last round appearance. I believe in you Con. I believe that we can have at the very least a decent conclusion to this debate.", "title": "Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs", "pid": "a126b2a4-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.27435302734375}, {"text": "There is no distinction between \"natural\" and synthetic methods of performance enhancement", "title": "permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.2568817138672}, {"text": "\" Did you not see what \"allowed\" refers to? Rights or not, steroids are not allowed in professional sports. \" Again, you are ignoring your own statement at the beginning of the debate. You conceded the point about which meaning of \"allowed\" is to be used. \" I didn't say that. Obviously, an athlete should be expected to be a role model for children, since many kids will look up to him/her. This does not dictate the way they live; it simply means they should not do stupid things, cheat, etc. because that will negatively influence kids. \" You're contradicting yourself. The ability to do \"stupid things\" is part of the ability to choose how to live. Either you dictate how they live or you don't, there is no middle ground here. Respect their rights, or treat them as slaves. That's it. If you dictate that a person acts as a role model, this means you are dictating that they live as one. \" Do you see any unconditioned professional athletes? \" Yes, actually, in baseball for example, at some of the positions that are specialized, it is possible to just have a good technique down for pitching and hitting and not actually do much in the way of conditioning. Not optimal but some people do it with success. And you are ignoring the fact that being a professional athlete is a choice. They are free to be one or not to be one. So no, they don't HAVE TO do anything, even those whose sports do require conditioning, are not forced to choose that sport. \" EXACTLY - one party still has to go through hard work, while the other can just take drugs. \" Again that \"Has to,\" which is false, and the false assumption that the first party can't use the drugs. And if you'll notice, exhbit A, the most successful steroid users also work the hardest (See Barry Bonds' extensive workouts.) The steroids simply allow the workout sessions to last longer and be more productive. \" Well, first, if something is illegal for use in sports, then it is not allowed for use in sports. So I can relate these arguments to the resolution even if you were right. Second, you just contradicted yourself. First you state that I conceded that I was talking about what the law should allow. But then, you say I \"explicitly clarified [it] as being allowable by the law, not allowable by the sports league\". But really, I was laying the latter all along. The very first sentence says \"illegal for use in sports\". That means that their use is punishable by law if used in sports.\" You are twisting logic here, and it is you who contradict yourself. You state that i contradict myself by declaring you were talking about the law, and then declaring you were talking about the law? That is the opposite of a contradiction! Meanwhile you contradict yourself by stating you are talking about the sports league's rules, and then stating \"PUNISHABLE BY LAW.\" \"LAW\" is not what a sports league makes. It is what congress makes. A sports league has every right to forbid participation based on such grounds as steroid use... but such a rule is not a \"law,\" does not make participation \"illegal.\" Only that which is forbidden by a government body, Congress, is \"illegal.\" Unless you were trying to say I stated you were arguing it \"Should be allowable by the law, not the sports league,\" which means you misinterpreted my statement. I stated the debate, you clarified, was about \"What is allowable\" by the law, rather than \"what is allowable\" the sports league, which means you are dropping the context and thus altering the meaning of my statement. Either way I have not contradicted myself, either you misunderstand the term contradiction or you are dropping the context of a statement (Your summary of my supposedly contradictory arguments was so ambigous I have a hard time telling which.) \" Now before you start saying that we should not jail people for steroid use, that's not what \"punishable by law\" means. Loitering is punishable by law; do you get thrown in jail for it? What about littering or violating curfew laws? \" You are given fines, which if not paid result in jail. The end that lies down the road is the same, there are simply more steps. The point is that the penalty is government administered, and active, as opposed to the passive penalty of being refused employment if the prohibition were private. Jail and government-mandated fines are morally equivalent. Where one is morally unjustified, so is the other. \" My opponent has spent all of his arguments attempting to not relate my arguments to the resolution. However, I have showed how he has misinterpreted all of my arguments.\" And I have shown how you have misinterpreted mine, and thereby not shown how I have misinterpreted yours. \"urthermore, he has not attempted to argue with my position,\" Your explicit position, explicated in Round 1, is that it should be, again, ILLEGAL for athletes to use steroids. Not, grounds for a private entity to not hire, but, ILLEGAL. If you think I haven't been arguing with that position, you haven't paid the slightest bit of attention. \"nd is giving contradictory and misleading \"reasons\" on why I have \"not\" supported the resolution. \" I already demonstrated I have not contradicted myself. I hope you can do the same. It isn't my fault what you chose to open the debate with, had you not, the meaning of \"allowed\" would still be open to discussion, but your inclusion of the term \"illegal\" made certain it is not, and you have not responded to my arguments against it being illegal (or, since i am Pro, in favor of it being legal, though there is no difference between the two terms).", "title": "Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports.", "pid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.10105895996094}, {"text": "Players that are convicted of using Performance Enhancing Drugs (or PED's) should have their records, accomplishments, and titles (if in a single player sport) stripped from them. The use of PED's is cheating. The most recent case about this has been Lance Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong was found guilty of using a PED and was stripped of all of his Tour de France victories. This was rightfully done because, if he had not used them, then maybe someone else could've won. The use of PED's has become an infamous problem in sports and it shouldn't go without real consequences.", "title": "players found guilty of using PED's should have their records and accomplishments stripped", "pid": "3a5d6f0-2019-04-18T18:05:01Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.01669311523438}, {"text": "wait, sir. you're not consistent with your position. Disadvantages : - Performance enhancing Drugs could have an impact on the body if left or the sportsman quits sport. - Any sport is expected to be fair and based on your natural talent and training. - There are athletes that can\"t consume performance enhancing drugs. This makes their chance of winning, bleak. - A sport is usually considered as a passion. The essence of the sport is lost if performance enhancing drugs are legalizes - Be legalizing such performance enhancing drugs, athletes could be motivated and get addicted to other forms of drugs. - The athletes can take it for granted that these drugs will enhance their performance and thus, the hard work that could be put otherwise can be hampered. and it can kill the sportman who consume it. For example, some German athletes who took anabolic steroids in the 1970\"s and 1980\"s are having health problems now. A famous NFL player, Lyle Alzado, died at the age of 43 after having taking steroids for more than 2 decades. And the sciensist's research : \"Performance enhancers, like steroids and other forms of doping, have a negative effect on long-term health. For then users of these enhancers are hurting themselves in the long run without on the average improving their short-term rewards from athletic competition, as long as competitors also use harmful enhancers. This is the main rationale for trying to ban steroids and other forms of doping from athletic competitions.\" Gary Becker, PhD Professor in the Departments of Economics, Sociology, and the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago \"Doping in Sports,\" Becker-Posner blog Aug. 27, 2006 THINK MORE !", "title": "Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman", "pid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.00527954101562}, {"text": "I question what you mean sir, I am consistent with my position.", "title": "Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman", "pid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.99591064453125}, {"text": "Is there any evidence of the behaviors of athlete's replicated by their fans? In the aftermath of the Lance Armstrong incident, there has not been an epidemic of people using steroids. People turned away from Armstrong, and he will never get his reputation back You have given no evidence that eating healthy and exercising more efficiently are any more natural than steroids. A smiley face does not count as an argument.", "title": "Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament", "pid": "add356d0-2019-04-18T17:26:20Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.99119567871094}, {"text": "I contend that professional sports leagues should legalize steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. I understand that this position may initially be considered blasphemy, but there are multiple reasons that leagues should legalize performance-enhancing drugs. First of all, throughout history, humans have been trying to stretch the limits of what is possible. This includes through the use of any available technology. The fact that humans cannot physically fly did not stop the Wright Brothers from building the first airplane. Yes, legalized use of steroids would create frequent changes in the record books, but those are all part of human achievement. Furthermore, comparisons between eras are already moot, considering the differences between the rules of today and those of 50 or 100 years ago. Also, it benefits the sports economically to allow performance-enhancing drugs. In 1999, when Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire both broke Roger Maris's single-season home run record, interest in baseball soared. Many casual fans found their accomplishments fascinating, as those men were going to a place no human had been before. A comparable analogy would be when the oldest person ever, Jeanne Calment of France, died at the age of 122 years. She would never have been able to live that long with primitive technology, but people were fascinated by her shattering the record (no other human has even lived to 120). Why should a different standard be applied to sports? Baseball was always the sport most impacted by performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, it saw the biggest excitement around new records. Today, players normally are caught and suspended when they take other performance-enhancing drugs. Thus, there is less opportunity to have the excitement of breaking records. Consequently, baseball's ratings have slipped in a time where football and basketball are basking in rising ratings relative to the average TV show. Thus, steroids should be legal in sports.", "title": "Steroids Should Be Legal in Professional Sports", "pid": "1109cf85-2019-04-18T17:19:52Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.97601318359375}, {"text": "I have no other arguments at the moment, and thus will wait until my opponent provides rebuttals.", "title": "Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs", "pid": "a126b2a4-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.96841430664062}, {"text": "i think sterids should be ban from all sports. its very unhealthy for the body. Those who oppose the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs say that the athletes who use them are breaking the rules and getting an unfair advantage over others. Opponents of the drugs say the athletes are endangering not only their own health, but also indirectly encouraging youngsters to do the same.", "title": "steriods in sports", "pid": "1c1c7401-2019-04-18T18:06:00Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.94705200195312}, {"text": "What is sport, but entertainment? And what is entertainment, without pain? We don't care when football players experience debilitating injuries as early as high school, and even worse, long-lasting injuries at the professional level. An estimated one in three NFL players experience brain trauma of some sort, with life-long effects [1]. We don't care. We still watch football. From that, it can be concluded that the negative health effects of PEDs are irrelevant to the discussion of whether professional athletes should use them. It could even be argued that these negative side effects are preferable if it prevents brain trauma or other terrible injuries from the dangers of a sport itself. And so now, the only points of contention are the facts that it is unfair to athletes that do not use them, and that it is illegal. The first point may be justified easily enough. Sport is already an unfair sport. While you may practice thousands and thousands of hours, a person who's practiced half that but has a natural biological advantage can still win. Thus, it can be argued that PEDs can be used to actually level the playing field, between those who do not have as much of a natural biological advantage and those that do. It is a good point that the risk of losing their entire career may not be worth the above advantages. However, it is the choice of the athletes to take that risk, and not for us to judge them. As well, if enough athletes begin to use PEDs, it will eventually become legal nevertheless, or else the sport industry will die down. [1] http://www.nytimes.com...", "title": "Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs", "pid": "a126b2a4-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.9442901611328}, {"text": "Oh, than simply, sir, LOL. I disagree with what I accepted to, but it is their own damn fault for using performance enhancing drugs, if they know the effects, both long and short term, than I guess it should be legal because they are stupid, the end.", "title": "Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drug for Sportman", "pid": "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.90687561035156}, {"text": "In todays world the temptation to use performance-enhancing drugs is too great for too many athletes. Performance-enhancing drugs are self explanatory, it is a drug to enhance physical performance. Usually associated with professional athletes striving for perfection. There are many risks that come with taking performance-enhancements there are many types of PEDs, all of which are illegal. The United States Anti-Doping agency should keep performance-enhancing drugs illegal to keep professional athletes safe. Breaking the law is not worth the risk. when a professional athlete uses performance-enhancing drugs, they have got a lot to lose. The wrong choice almost brought an end to many athletes careers. One tragic example is Lance Armstrong, stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. Jim Thorpe was denied two gold medals in the olympics, The list is endless. Athletes do not only lose their awards but it destroys their reputation that they have built. Life for professional sports organizations focused on managing the anti-doping policies would be easier. That might be true, but the people who manage the organization would no longer have a job there. Legalizing PEDs would not only negatively affect the athletes, but the people around them. There is an overwhelming amount of negative side effects that can occur from using performance-enhancing drugs. \"Simply put PEDs have the ability or potential to drastically alter the human body, and biological functions, including the ability to considerably improve athletic performance\" These drugs, however, can be extremely dangerous and in certain situations, deadly\" (USADA). Other negative side effects include muscle weakness, hallucinations, liver abnormalities and tumors, etc. Yet, with all those factors in play, many still choose to go down that dangerous road. Professional athletes are already risking a lot when playing the sport, so why does it matter if they use performance enhancements? If athletes are already taking so many risks, then they should absolutely try to keep themselves as safe as possible. The danger of using PEDs outweigh the gains in muscle mass or strength. When an athlete uses PEDs, it defeats the purpose of the competition altogether. \"Success in sports takes talent...using steroids is a form of cheating and interferes with fair competition\"(littleleague). There are other ways to improve performance; train safely, eat healthy, and get plenty of rest. To be a truly great athlete you have to work hard. There is no shortcut to success. \"Steroids and doping will help pitchers to throw harder, home runs go further, cyclists to charge longer and sprinters to test the very limits of human speed(Smith).In the moment that might be exhilarating, but it can cause a whole lot of problems later in life. using performance-enhancing drugs is not worth the risk at all. To keep athletes safe, performance-enhancing drugs should stay illegal.The bottom line is professional athletes have too much to lose, the risk is too great, and it is cheating the game.\"Life is full of grays, but sports are black and white. There is always a clear winner in the end and everyone expects that the winner achieved the success in a fair and ethical way\"(little league).It is important to understand the facts about Performance-enhancing drugs. Works Cited \"Fitness.\" Performance-enhancing Drugs: Know the Risks. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. \"Why Steroids Are Bad for Major League Baseball.\" Why Steroids Are Bad for Major League Baseball. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. \"Effects of Performance Enhancing Drugs | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency USADA.\" US Anti Doping Agency USADA. Web. 28 Nov. 2014. .", "title": "Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs", "pid": "a126b2a4-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.78770446777344}, {"text": "Unfortunately, I have to say that your arguments apply to a few related resolutions, but not the resolution at hand. Your \"Part one arguments,\" to the extent they raise true symptoms (which is not clear, because data on the symptoms of the usage of steroids at recommended dosages in healthy people is in a shortage and rather conflicting, which is perhaps why you have cited no scientific data), apply to the resolution \"Should you use steroids?\" Or \"Is hiring a steroid-using baseball player a good investment?\" Your part two arguments apply to \"Should children be encouraged to look into athletes as role models?\" (and I note they also have a flaw, how would the child feel about his uber-clean athlete role model if he found out the athlete was only being uber-clean because he was forced to? Kind of disillusioning no?) Your part three argument applies to \"Should sports leagues concerned with an image of 'hard work' or 'fairness' allow steroid users to play?\" The resolution at hand, however, is whether it should be ILLEGAL for professional athletes to use these drugs. That is, whether Johnny McSuperStrong's use of steroids is a justification to send a man with a gun to his door and stick him in a cage, shooting him if he doesn't cooperate. This raises questions of \"What are proper social limits (rights)?\" Since human beings require the application of their own mind to their own actions to live, and need to produce goods with those actions, and this is a universal need, it holds that each human who wishes to live should find it proper that others not interfere with this (the rights of liberty and property). In order to pursue this, it is of course necessary that they themselves not interfere first, for interfering with one who does not interfere removes the incentive for that other to not interfere. Thus the question in whether to violate someone's liberty or property is \"Have they violated yours?\" I await your proof that the injection of steroids into one's own body, or between consenting parties, somehow violates anyone's liberty or property.", "title": "Performance-enhancing drugs should be allowed in professional sports.", "pid": "ac709939-2019-04-18T19:39:56Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.76588439941406}, {"text": "Once some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years’ time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs. An example of the pressure is cycling. The American Scientific magazine explains: “Game theory highlights why it is rational for professional cyclists to dope: the drugs are extremely effective as well as difficult or impossible to detect; the payoffs for success are high; and as more riders use them, a “clean” rider may become so noncompetitive that he or she risks being cut from the team.” (1)   Michael Shermer, The Dopping Dillema, 03/31/2008, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-doping-dilemma accessed 05/15/2011", "title": "Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00019-000", "bm25_score": 217.74398803710938}, {"text": "Once some people choose to use drugs to enhance their performance, other athletes have their freedom of choice infringed upon: if they want to succeed they have to take drugs too. Athletes are very driven individuals, who would go to great lengths to achieve their goals. The chance of a gold medal in two years time may out-weigh the risks of serious health problems for the rest of their life. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs.", "title": "Freedom of choice. If athletes wish to take drugs in search of improved performances, let them do s...", "pid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.71932983398438}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Doping should be allowed", "pid": "9a4dadf6-2019-04-18T12:48:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.6927490234375}, {"text": "Performance Enhancements are Putting Athletes in Danger Athletes are cheating more and more now by taking performance enhancements for their professional sport. An athletes health could be at risk while taking performance enhancement drugs, we already have the great technology to support them, plus the athletes are playing their sport for the determination it takes, and the love of the game. Therefore, Performance Enhancement Drugs (PED) in professional sports should remain illegal for the players to keep them safe. Athletes already have great technology to help them with their performance while playing their sport. Athletes will use scientific diets, and oxygen tents as a healthier way of helping them improve. Sports have the technology to push the athletes bodies to extents. \"Athletes already use technology to push their bodies to the edge of human capability. Scientific diets, oxygen tents that stimulate high altitudes and supplements that fine-tune already genetically superior bodies are all simple-- and legal\"examples.\" (Duncan). None of those examples are illegal to use for the athlete to help improve their performance. On the other hand, when using PEDs for the extra technology it will help them become better, faster, stronger, then it will make the sport more interesting for both the players and the crowd. \"Scientists and engineers have recently developed devices that bump up cognitive performance by dousing the brain in low levels of electricity and using magnetic fields to stimulate the brains nerve cells.\" (Duncan). This is saying that now because of the help of scientists and engineers athletes can use certain devices to encourage the brain to keep going. Instead of risking their health, they have other ways to improve their performance. PEDs could cause multiple health problems that could be very dangerous. The website of the World Anti-Doping Agency gives warnings on what steroids could do to the athletes ad their body. \"The website of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) for example, warns that steroids increase the odds of mood shifts, reduced sperm counts, damage to the heart, and masculinization in women.\" (Duncan). There are many different problems that could occur while taking PEDs, they only list a small amount of possible health risks. If a player were to have one of these problems, then they could be taken out of the sport because of the damage to the body. Yet, athletes could want to use these in order to get stronger to help prevent any injury that could happen while playing. Some athletes are willing to take the chance to help with making the sport safer for the player. The purpose of having the sport is for competition. When an athlete uses PEDs, that purpose is no longer there and with competition the love of the game remains. \"Any thoughtful person who plays a sport understands the connection among talent, dedication, and excellence. Every sport sets limits.\" (Murray). While the athlete is playing the sport each time he/she plays the love of the game should grow. The determination and competition will still be there, but when taking PEDs the athlete forgets about why they are playing in the first place. But, when the athlete uses PEDs it does make them become stronger and better at their sport making it a little bit easier on them, the athlete will then be able to play longer and practice longer because of their strength. To have athletes remain safe, PEDs should remain illegal. Athletes have amazing technology to help them improve in their sport, and there are many different health problems that can occur. Lastly, athletes are playing for the love and competition of the game. Hard work and determination will get the athlete farther than risking the athletes career with taking PEDs.", "title": "Performance Enhancement Drugs in Professional Sports", "pid": "21fa6aa9-2019-04-18T15:26:34Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.60389709472656}, {"text": "Laws should in general protect people from making uninformed decisions. Due to the potential severe consequences the ban has to be upheld. An analogy with the seatbelt can be used: the government forces people to use them, because of the possibility of severe injury in case we do not use it.    The use of performance-enhancing drugs is the opposite – use can lead to severe health problems.   Thus, if all people are treated as equals under law, then the law should equally protect athletes as the law does other would- be drug users. Equality before law also means athletes can’t be exempt from the moral standards we have for others. Firstly due to value of life and secondly because many times athletes themselves are not aware of the severe consequences of performance enhancing drugs.   BBC Drugs and Sports (GCSE Bitesize):  http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/pe/performance/1_performance_drugsinsport_rev1.shtml , accessed 05/15/2011", "title": "Protecting the health of athletes", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00021-000", "bm25_score": 217.59803771972656}, {"text": "Sport is also about the spectacle for spectators. Sport has become a branch of the entertainment business and the public demands “higher, faster, stronger” from athletes. If drug-use allows world records to be continually broken, and makes American Football players bigger and more exciting to watch, why deny the public what they want, especially if the athletes want to give it to them? The criterion that athletes should only be applying their ‘natural abilities’ runs into trouble. The highly advanced training technologies, health programs, sports drinks, use of such things as caffeine pills, and other energy boosters seem to defeat the notion that athletes are currently applying only their 'natural abilities'. Performance enhancing drugs would not go too far beyond the current circumstances for athletes.", "title": "Drugs will undermine the central philosophy of sport", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 217.596435546875}, {"text": "I would like to address the debate, however my opponent ask me to clarify the side I will support and it's quite simply the literal opposite of yours. My side is apparent simply based on the title of the debate and our positions, I will be arguing that performance enhancing drugs shouldn't be legal in every major sporting league. Also it seems you have taken care of the basic definition needed to begin the debate and I see no need for additional definitions atleast while the debate is still somewhat simple. Onto my argument 1. Equality As these drugs became allowed in sporting leagues, they would increase player production meaning in order to compete you would have to take drugs in order to win. One great example of this would be in cycling many cyclists's resorted to doping to boost their production in order to win the tour de france. So in order to stay equal to the competition Lance Armstrong took drugs alongside them, all may appear equal but in truth the drugs are expensive and discriminate on players on the league who are too poor to acquire the quantity needed to stay on par with opponents. [1] 2. Health Concerns Their are many bad health effects of anabolic steroids such as[2]: 1. Changes in liver function 2. Infertility 3. Growth of male breasts 4. Retardation in fetus's 5. Death 6. Increased aggressiveness 7. Sleeping disorders 8. Confusion 9. Paranoia 10. Hallucinations 11. A weaker immune system 12. Hair loss 3. The league's rights The league has the right to determine how the sport is played, for example in the NBA only 5 players may on the court at a time. The league itself should be able to determine drug limitations, as the league determines the game rules. [3] Sources: [1] http://www.cyclingnews.com... [2] http://www.sportsci.org... [3] http://www.nba.com...", "title": "WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues", "pid": "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.54942321777344}, {"text": "Hello again. I have done a bit more research and found at least, 150 sports Halls of Fame worldwide. As I do not know if you are specifically referring to one particular sport. I will proffer a brief reflection on the use and issues surrounding the use of performance enhancing drugs, in sport generally. A quick analysis indicates that worldwide, there is now a total ban on the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport. Also testing for steroid abuse, especially at a professional level is now very vigorous. I would therefore suggest that it is unlikely that, any one inducted into a professional sporting Hall of Fame today, is unlikely to have slipped through the drugs testing net. It is fair to assume that a sportsman/woman inducted into a professional sporting Hall of Fame in the past, especially in the latter half of the 20th century was using performance enhancing drugs. Though we must pay regard to the fact, that the use of steroids to enhance sports performance, was not always considered inappropriate or illegal. Would it therefore be just, to retrospectively impose bans on our veteran sporting heroes and as a consequence, strip them of their Hall of Fame status? Con. Would suggest that we let bygones be bygones. Move forward and put our trust and faith in the ability of our sports governing bodies, to thoroughly and rigorously police our modern professional sports organisations.", "title": "HOF Players that used Steroids", "pid": "ad998274-2019-04-18T12:30:10Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.45420837402344}, {"text": "Athletes should be punished for using performance enhancing drugs", "title": "Should Athletes using performance enhancing drugs be subject to harsh punishment", "pid": "dfa0f2e4-2019-04-18T11:51:34Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.39337158203125}, {"text": "As he has not yet explained his case, I hope that he will take the next round to clarify it as I have in the first, but for now, I will focus on providing advantages for my case. The current system for athletes is such that they already put themselves at great physical risk in endeavoring to be the best. Just as a result of training, athletes suffer intensely. High altitude training is a must for many athletes, as it leads to a much higher production of red blood cells and therefore more transport of oxygen through the body, increasing endurance. However, acclimatisation to high altitude leads to the production of too many red blood cells, making the blood thicker and reducing blood flow. This stresses out the heart, and deprives parts of the body of oxygen. High altitudes also lead to intense weight loss (both from loss of appetite and the body eating itself), risks of weakening the body's immune system, and lengthened times of recovery from muscle damage. That's not to mention the expansive list of altitude illnesses that can result from pressure changes and oxygen deprivation. [1] Pro athletes train for 5-6 hours a day 6 days a week, training intensely the entire time. Typical athletes have to maintain incredibly high heart rates for long periods of time, stressing their hearts in the process. [2] This all comes in part from the extremely unhealthy diets that these athletes ingest, as well as excess stress. [3] What are the results of all this? Cardiomyopathy, enlarged hearts, wearing down of heart valves. [5] This leads to a much higher likelihood of early and sudden death. [4] This is played out in football, where the average life expectancy of an NFL player is 58 years. [6] Overtraining can lead to massive systemic issues, such as imbalances in the brain, nervous and hormonal systems, upper respiratory illness, compromised immune function, and chronic inflammation. [3] The basis for this harm actually plays out as a result of free radical production, which causes chain reactions that destroy cells in the body. [4] Athletes push themselves through pain and injury, and are expected to do so in order to achieve glory, thus perpetuating health harms, and spurning treatment and prevention efforts. [3] But the hypocrisy goes beyond training. Athletes are allowed to use any number of dietary supplements, equipment, clothing, and medical treatments to enhance their performance. Vitamin pills are commonly used, megadoses of which have been shown to cause a number of deaths among athletes and significant health harms even at regular doses. [7][8] Many use whole-body Lycra suits, and the Speedo LZR Racer swimsuit is thought to be responsible for breaking world records in swimming, increasing the costs required in order to succeed. [9] Steroids will not significantly add to these harms. More than that, it's hypocritical, and the legal structure of any organization should always endeavor to be consistent. If they're going to allow athletes to engage in practices such as I've detailed above (and, in fact, encourage it), then they should allow similarly damaging practices that the players take upon themselves to engage in. These athletes are allowed to put themselves in harm's way in dozens of other ways (not to mention the numerous ways in which they're made vulnerable to physical injury), and I see no reason why this shouldn't apply to use of drugs. Why are these allowed while steroids and hormones remain problematic? It's really just a perceptual thing \" steroids are viewed as cheating, whereas all of these are effectively reasonable, despite the health harms associated with them. But the reality is that the current system is the one that encourages cheating, not one in which these are legalized. Why is that? The main reason is that athletes and the organizations behind them have found ways to outwit the system. Athletes pursue alternatives to the usual anabolic steroids and hormones that allow them to fly under the radar. Designer steroids are \"manufactured to closely resemble existing known compounds, but with sufficient chemical diversity to ensure that their detection by the WADA accredited laboratories is more difficult. \"[10] We manage to find the ones we know exist, but lack detection mechanisms for new designer steroids, detection cannot keep up with the rate of development. Gene doping is a newer system based on gene therapy, which is meant to insert a gene into a given site in the body, where it will then produce large amounts of steroid/hormone endogenously. It's not safe, and it's untested in humans, yet athletes have already begun to pursue it. [11] They may even already have been used at Sochi. [12] There are three major harms to this system 1. It's classist. It allows only those who are capable of affording these expensive alternatives to engage in this type of cheating. Only those who can afford the increased expense can rise to the top, something that legalized, cheap steroids could demonstrably improve upon. 2. It damages the credibility of sporting leagues, who often don't detect these for years and even decades, and of athletes and their organizations, who are forced to hide their usage. They can acquire any number of medals over the years, be idolized and immortalized by their records, and then have to be torn down much later, much to everyone's embarrassment. This also ends up damaging the organizations they're associated with. A great example is Lance Armstrong, who started the Lance Armstrong Foundation. They were forced to change their name to Livestrong, and lost the very helpful endorsement of Nike, thus reducing valuable contributions to an organization aimed at supporting cancer victims. 3. It's more dangerous for athletes. At best, they're getting these from reputable sources, where they've only been lightly tested, and thus they're using the athletes as guinea pigs, causing major harms. [10] Since they are normally less effective than what is detectable,[13] they have to take more, exacerbating the problem. And the reality is that most of them won't come from reputable sources, and any number of dangerous substances may exist alongside their choice doping agent. These athletes are far less likely to pursue the far more dangerous, less effective, and more expensive route to success in the absence of a ban. They will be taking thoroughly tested steroids and hormones, often prescribed by doctors and health officials who can monitor them. Here's another benefit, though it may seem counter-intuitive \" steroids provide an opportunity to level the playing field. Individuals produce different levels of testosterone, which can dramatically affect muscle growth. [19] Those with anemia are effectively handicapped by the lack of oxygen shuttling through their bodies. The presence of hormone injections and compounds that control red blood cell production like erythropoietin make it possible for these athletes to keep up. Con, you have the floor. 1. www. altitude. org/altitude_training. php 2. health. india. com/fitness/a-professional-athletes-fitness-regime-an-insiders-guide/ 3. www. philmaffetone. com/files/20158/Athletes-Fit-But-Unhealthy. pdf 4. . http://imbodybuilding.com... 5. . http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com... 6. . http://strengthplanet.com... 7. . http://whatstheharm.net... 8. . http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org... 9. . http://www.economist.com... 10. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 11. . http://www.bbc.com... 12. . http://www.businessinsider.com... 13. . http://www.steroid.com... 14. . http://www.livescience.com...", "title": "WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues", "pid": "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.3172607421875}, {"text": "Extend all my points. ..", "title": "Anabolic steroids should not be allowed for use in professional sports.", "pid": "e8bee87e-2019-04-18T19:38:55Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.2160186767578}, {"text": "The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of those who take them to meaninglessness. New drugs such as the growth hormone EPO are very difficult to detect, but the Olympic authorities are doing little to overcome the problem. The President of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio Samaranch, has been notoriously reluctant to put his weight behind attempts to beat doping.", "title": "The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of th...", "pid": "bcde55c5-2019-04-19T12:44:29Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.2008056640625}, {"text": "I believe steroids should be allowed in sports. It would maximize the skills of most players and is the next step in advanced training. The primary reason steroids get a bad rap is because they are against the rules and viewed as cheating. Players who don't want to take steroids can be free to make that choice, just as some players don't choose certain training methods now. Players who want to take the health risks associated with steroids should be able to do so.", "title": "Steroids in sports.", "pid": "4e2a557f-2019-04-18T20:00:48Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.18817138671875}, {"text": "The use of performance enhancing drugs is based on advances in science. When new drugs and therapies are found, athletes turn to them and as a result are much of the time ahead of the anti-doping organizations, which need to develop methods of athlete testing whenever a new drug that is meant to be untraceable is created. In 2008 it was a big shock when Riccardo Ricco (a cyclist) was caught using the performance-enhancing drug Mircera, which had been considered undetectable for a number of years. The fact is that a ban of performance enhancing drugs enables mainly athletes from wealthy countries and teams that can afford the newest technology to go undetected, whilst others are disadvantaged (1). So because it gives an unfair advantage to the wealthy one who can pay for the undetectable drugs, we should legalize it.   Millard Baker, Riccardo Ricco Tests Positive for Undetectable New Drug Mircera at 2008 Tour de France, 07/18/2008, http://steroidreport.com/2008/07/18/riccardo-ricco-and-mircera-pegylated-epo/, accessed 05/20/2011", "title": "Controlling, rather than ignoring, performance enhancing substances will improve competitive standards in sport", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 217.18331909179688}, {"text": "Very bad for athletes. The use of performance-enhancing drugs leads to serious health problems, including “steroid rage”, the development of male characteristics in female athletes, heart attacks, and greatly reduced life expectancy. Some drugs are also addictive.", "title": "Levels the playing field. Currently suspicion over drug use surrounds every sport and every success...", "pid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 217.136474609375}, {"text": "Hello, and thanks for opening this discussion. I will be countering these specific claims made by my opponent: 1. Use of PED's destroys the spirit of competition and love of the game. 2. Hard work and determination are all that is needed to make athletes \"elite.\" 3. PED's are too dangerous to be used. I wish to make it clear that I do not advocate the unrestricted use of all PED's. I will instead make the case that PED's are not significantly different than other performance enhancing measures, and that the controlled allowance of PED's will make sports both safer and more competitive. 1. Use of PED's destroys the spirit of competition and love of the game - Quite the contrary, PED's increase the spirit of competition. Nature has it's own performance enhancing drug called \"genetics.\" Genes are attained by pure luck, and it is undeniable that some genes bestow natural advantages for some sports. For example, superior eyesight is proven to be a natural advantage in baseball. Slender legs are proven advantages in distance running. Long torsos are a natural advantage in swimming. The list goes on and on [1]. If no performance enhancement was ever allowed, elite sports would only be accessible to a few genetically lucky people. As a result, performance enhancement allows more people to pursue their love for the game who may not have naturally bestowed advantages. For example, the pro baseball player Tommy John was bestowed by nature with an inferior tendon in his arm. In 1974, he underwent surgery to replace his tendon and went on to win, on average, 20 more games per season than he did before he surgery [2]. Since eyesight is so advantageous in baseball, many baseball players routinely get laser eye surgery to artificially enhance their sight [3]. This could definitely be considered artificial performance enhancement, which may be considered unfair. Yet without access to such measures athletes would be subject to a different kind of unfairness - the genetic lottery. In many ways, performance enhancement allows the genetic playing field to be more level. Sports would actually be LESS competitive if the genes bestowed by nature were the only PED's allowed, because less people would be able to compete. If certain PED's were available to everyone, then people with less advantageous natural traits could overcome them and there would be more competitors. 2. Hard work and determination are all that is needed to make athletes \"elite.\" - This ties into the last point. Hard work can definitely make you better, and it is important. But when genetics come into play, no amount of hard work can overcome natural gifts. Consider the example of Stefan Holm, a world-class Scandinavian high jumper. Stefan was the epitome of an all-natural athlete forged through hard work. He began practicing high-jump in his back yard at the age of 6. As he got older, he followed a very strict diet and weight lifting routine to strengthen his legs. He was obsessed as a teenager and practiced for hours each day, taking thousands and thousands of practice jumps. After years of practice, he won gold in the 2004 Olympics. Two years later, a college student named Donald Thomas was dared by a friend to take a high jump at a track practice. In the first jump of his life, with no training, he cleared 6'6\". Two days later, in flat high-top shoes and basketball shorts, he cleared 7' and broke the university record. 8 months later, with only mild amounts of practice, he went against Holm at the world championships and defeated the man who had been training obsessively all his life. Donald Thomas was born with an abnormally long Achilles Tendon which allowed him to jump extraordinarily high with little effort [4]. Clearly, hard work and determination was not enough to give Holm an edge over such a genetically lucky individual. Once again, with equal access to PEDs, all athletes would truly be able to reap the rewards of hard work while avoiding the futility of genetic disadvantage. 3. PEDs are too dangerous - no doubt some are, and they should be banned. But some are not. They are no more dangerous than other performance enhancing measures such as eye surgery, tendon replacement, or self-imposed anorexia (wrestlers). What is more dangerous is the current system, where PEDs are illegal but still widely used. In the current system, those who play by the rules are indirectly punished and outmatched by those who do not and avoid getting caught. This creates a \"cat and mouse\" game atmosphere where athletes do not stop using PEDs, they merely devise new ways to avoid detection. It also blurs the line between what is truly a PED and what is not. Athletes are people who naturally want to push limits, and it creates a more dangerous climate where they try to experiment with PEDs that are potent enough to be questionable yet barely legal enough to be legit. Banning all PEDs is hardly the best solution to the problem of sportsmanship and fairness. [1] All examples taken from David Epstein's book \"The Sports Gene.\" [2] http://gladwell.com... [3] Ibid. [4] David Epstein, \"The Sports Gene\"", "title": "Performance Enhancement Drugs in Professional Sports", "pid": "21fa6aa9-2019-04-18T15:26:34Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.0440673828125}, {"text": "Even if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalized for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country, something which would be problematic for sports that are global. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressures to use drugs, if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalization. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of “recreational drugs” with all their accompanying evils more widespread.", "title": "Protecting young and vulnerable athletes", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 217.03140258789062}, {"text": "I'm sad, Con. I'm so sad. I believed in you. I believed in you so hard. But you let me down.", "title": "Professional athletes using Performance-Enhancing drugs", "pid": "a126b2a4-2019-04-18T15:25:09Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.00247192382812}, {"text": "I'd like to welcome Actionsspeak to this round of the Group B Round Robin debate in the World Cup Debate tournament! It is my pleasure to debate with him, as I have not yet had the opportunity to do so and look forward to it greatly. I wish him luck in this and his other debates. With that, I'll move into explaining my policy to uphold the above resolution. Before I get into it though, I'd just like the audience to realize that this will not be a debate of my policy versus status quo, but rather one of policy versus policy. Con will present a policy as well in his opening round, and we will debate the merits of those two policies. So, my policy is pretty self-explanatory. The U. S. will legalize the use of anabolic steroids and hormones of all sorts in major sporting leagues. This will remove any current infrastructure based on detection of their usage in sports, though health examinations and basic protective measures will remain in place. Brief definition analysis: \"Anabolic steroids, technically known as anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS), are drugs that are structurally related to the cyclic steroid ring system and have similar effects to testosterone in the body. They increase protein within cells, especially in skeletal muscles. \" . http://en.wikipedia.org... Hormones \" In this case, we'll mainly be discussing the usage of major groups of hormones like erythropoietin and human growth hormone. I'll clarify each: \"Erythropoietin. .. , or EPO, is a glycoprotein hormone that controls erythropoiesis, or red blood cell production. It is a cytokine (protein signaling molecule) for erythrocyte (red blood cell) precursors in the bone marrow. \" . http://en.wikipedia.org... \"Growth hormone (GH or HGH). .. is a peptide hormone that stimulates growth, cell reproduction and regeneration in humans and other animals. \" . http://en.wikipedia.org... As we are both discussing policies, the burden of proof is shared, as each of us must defend our individual policies while providing reasons why the others' policy is harmful. The debate will consist of 4 rounds, 8,000 characters a round, with 72 hours for us to make our arguments.", "title": "WC Debate - RR: Performance enhancing drugs should be legal for use in all major sports leagues", "pid": "117d2319-2019-04-18T16:13:12Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.92169189453125}, {"text": "It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. First, to protect athletes from harmful drugs. Secondly, to preserve the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness. Eating a balanced diet and wearing the best shoes are clearly in a different category from taking steroids and growth hormones. We should continue to make this distinction and aim for genuine drug-free athletic competitions.", "title": "Natural/unnatural distinction untenable. Already athletes use all sorts of dietary supplements, exe...", "pid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 216.85218811035156}, {"text": "What about the children? Even if performance-enhancing drugs were only legalised for adults, the definition of this varies from country to country. Teenage athletes train alongside adult ones and share the same coaches, so many would succumb to the temptation and pressure to use drugs if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalisation. Not only are such young athletes unable to make a fully rational, informed choice about drug-taking, the health impacts upon growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. It would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of “recreational drugs” with all their accompanying evils more widespread.", "title": "Current rules are very arbitrary and unfair:e.g. cold remedies denied to athletes, even in sports wh...", "pid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 216.7428436279297}, {"text": "Drug use in sports poses a negative effect on the user's health. Enacting the legalization of drug use in sports seeks an unfair advantage towards other athletes and sets a bad perception on how athletes should compete in sports. Drugs I am talking about are: stimulants, Anabolic-androgenic steroids, Erythropoietin, And 'blood doping' (practice of increasing the number of red blood cells in one's circulatory system). But I'm open to HGH (human growth hormone) ONLY if it is prescribed to them and they do not use it with anabolic steroids or testosterone.", "title": "Drug Use in Sports", "pid": "f5b0db6a-2019-04-18T11:13:26Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.73782348632812}, {"text": "I personally do not condone the use of Performance Enhancing Drugs and/or Supplements whether they are illegal or not. But, I believe that in small quantities they are not harmful to teenagers. I look forward to further informing you on this topic.", "title": "Performance enhancing supplements are not necessary and absolutely harmful for teens", "pid": "98d8337d-2019-04-18T18:14:26Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.69915771484375}, {"text": "with that being said, drugs should be allowed in sports because it is just another means of trying to get ahead. Over training can be unhealthy and result in death but that isn't being stopped. Simply think of it this way, every athlete (to my knowledge) wants to do the best that they can in their particular sporting event/ field so why shouldn't they be allowed to make their own choices as to how they get to where they want to be?", "title": "Drugs in sports", "pid": "bb7b9e0f-2019-04-18T17:42:12Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.5491485595703}, {"text": "Doping: administering drugs to an athlete in order to enhance sporting performance.If doping were to be permitted (I will refer to it as legal), this would mean unrestricted use. The drugs would not be allowed to be regulated, the use would be unrestricted. Since the topic is normative (“should”), the BoP is shared. My case for why doping should not be permitted in all sports is as follows. HealthIt is truism that doping enhances sporting performance. Already, 14-39% of athletes dope [1]. If it is legalized, this number will undoubtedly increase. The sports industry is extremely competitive, athletes are pushed and constantly pressured to go out there and perform, if they fail in that aspect, they are benched, or worse, dropped from the team. Also, if doping were made legal, then those who dope will have an advantage over those who don’t, and thus those who don’t will have to dope in order to stay in the athletic industry. From this we can conclude that in order to keep their jobs, and their fame, athletes are going to take all opportunities to increase their performance. Thus, if doping were to be legalized, there would be a very large increase in the amount of athletes that dope. The most popular doping drug is anabolic steroids. If doping was to be made legal, the usage of steroids would have a tremendous increase. This is bad, as steroids are very dangerous. The use of steroids can lead to baldness, infertility, impotence, prostate gland enlargement, severe acne, increased risk of tendinitis and tendon rupture, liver abnormalities and tumors, increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (the \"bad\" cholesterol), decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (the \"good\" cholesterol), high blood pressure (hypertension), heart and circulatory problems, aggressive behaviors, rage or violence, psychiatric disorders, such as, drug dependence, infections or diseases such as HIV or hepatitis, inhibited growth and development, and risk of future health problems in teenagers [2]. Use of steroids can also cause severe depression, which leads to suicides [3]. This is devastating for the families of the victims, and anyone around them. “Brenda Marrero came upon her son Efrain surfing the Internet one day last October. When Efrain hid what was on the screen, she asked what he had been looking at. He turned and said he wanted to tell her something: He was using steroids.She called her husband, Frank, and they told Efrain he needed to stop, because steroids are dangerous.\"But Barry Bonds does it,\" his parents remember Efrain saying.\"That doesn't make it right,\" his father responded.To please his parents, Efrain retrieved a dozen pink pills, a vial of liquid and two syringes. His mother flushed the pills and kept the vial. Efrain, who played football, promised to stop using steroids. It was a promise that no one doubts he kept.Three and a half weeks later, Mrs. Marrero found Efrain in a bedroom at home, a bullet in his head, a .22-caliber pistol in his hand. He left no explanation for his suicide. He had no history of depression or mental illness. He was 19.” [4]There are thousands more stories like this. If doping were to be made legal, this would increase drastically. As well as the other health related issues associated with it. Unfair AdvantageEveryone responds to steroids differently [5]. If doping were to be legal, this would give athletes an unfair advantage over others, based not on skill, but on doping.Ruins Purpose of SportThe meaning of sports is in the values that it exhibits. The forms of human excellence it promotes, and how each athlete strives to perfect his or her skill. Doping ruins this purpose, and thus should not be permitted.[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] http://www.mayoclinic.org...[3] http://www.evolutionary.org...[4] http://www.nytimes.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...", "title": "That doping should be permitted in all sports", "pid": "bb621258-2019-04-18T13:52:35Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.51202392578125}, {"text": "In light of recent events in all sports, I believe that there is an easy solution. Allow doping.DefinitionsDoping = Use of (currently) banned performance-inhanced drugs in sportsSports = Can mean 'an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.'- but for this debate sports shall be taken to mean athleticsAthletics = The sport of competing in track and field events, including running races and various competitions in jumping and throwing.RULES1.) No Wikipedia2.) No trolling3.) No kritks/semantics4.)Begin in 1st round.5.)FF is concession unless same numberThanks!", "title": "That doping should be permitted in all sports", "pid": "bb621258-2019-04-18T13:52:35Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.51136779785156}, {"text": "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?", "title": "Anabolic steroids should not be allowed for use in professional sports.", "pid": "e8bee87e-2019-04-18T19:38:55Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.5019073486328}, {"text": "Sports are not about the practices. If they were, then they would be televised a lot more. What matters are the games. Those are what everyone wants to see. If a professional athlete took the right amounts of the right kinds of steroids, then his game performance would be better and the team would do better. If I were a coach, I would allow my players to do just that so we could beat the other team.", "title": "Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes", "pid": "d4cf84c8-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.4945526123047}, {"text": "What kind of message would we be sending our children if we allowed doping. A young boy with dreams of becoming a professional athlete would feel he has to use drugs in order to compete and pursue his dreams. We as a society should not promote the use of drugs. And you can't compare a special swimming suit or an oxygen tank to a chemical that has negative side effects on an athletes body. We should encourage our athletes to be as healthy as possible. Just because it is hard to screen every athlete for PEDs and the results havn't been perfect doesn't mean we should give up.", "title": "As an international sporting committee we would lift the doping ban", "pid": "5ff35ceb-2019-04-18T13:07:08Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.48574829101562}, {"text": "We should have some sympathy with athletes: very often, they are compelled to take drugs by their team’s coach. There are stories of Chinese swimmers eating steroid-laced noodles. To overcome this, the IOC Conference in February 1999 recommended that coaches should take the Olympic Oath as well as athletes. Techniques to detect new drugs are being developed and being embraced by the Olympic authorities. A new mass-spectroscopy unit was installed for the first time at the 1996 Atlanta Games, and a technique that can detect the taking of growth hormones up to 6 months earlier was introduced at Sydney. An Independent Anti-Doping Agency was also established for Sydney. Samaranch declared himself to be fully behind the drugs war as early as 1998. The battle is being won: 12 cases of doping in 1984; two in 1996. The IOC is coming down hard on those who take drugs: a two year ban for the first offence has been introduced.", "title": "The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of th...", "pid": "bcde55c5-2019-04-19T12:44:29Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.4375}, {"text": "It is unfair for athletes to take drugs. It is like getting a free 48 hour workout by just taking a pill. You get into professional baseball or any other sport because you practiced hard, and that you are good. Protein shakes are like eating healthy. That's what people have to do to stay fit. In steroids there are many chemicals to boost what ever it boosts. It is just unreasonable to have steroids legal in professional sports.", "title": "Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes", "pid": "d4cf84c8-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.41943359375}, {"text": "The argument is whether or not a person should have their wins taken away. Im not saying that every person that does use a PED wins. thats not necessarily the case, what im saying is, that if they win, they didnt deserve to win. Like when playing a board game as a kid, you always yelled at the cheater. whether they won or not they either got kicked out of the game and/or banned from playing it again. Sports are becoming corrupt because of performance enhancing drugs and cheaters should not be rewarded if they win, if they lose they still deserve some type of punishment.", "title": "players found guilty of using PED's should have their records and accomplishments stripped", "pid": "3a5d6f0-2019-04-18T18:05:01Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.39837646484375}, {"text": "If legal then drugs can be controlled and monitored by doctors, making them much safer. Athletes on drugs today often take far more than is needed for performance-enhancement, running needless health risks as a result, simply because of ignorance and the need for secrecy. Legalisation allows more information to become available and open medical supervision will avoid many of the health problems currently associated with performance-enhancing drugs.", "title": "If legal then drugs can be controlled and monitored by doctors, making them much safer. Athletes on...", "pid": "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 216.3928680419922}, {"text": "There is no such thing as a forced decision. Everyone has complete control over their own body and their own decisions. Everyone has an absolute right to possession of one’s own body. If you own your body then you can choose what to do with it, and any exchange, such as money to an employer in exchange for use of your body (labour) is justified, because it was a voluntary exchange and you still possess yourself.  If you choose to take drugs, you have not been forced into it no matter the peer pressure you may be under or that other having taken the drugs may make you uncompetitive.", "title": "Permitting the use of performace enhancers would have a coercive effect on athletes who would otherwise avoid drug use", "pid": "6143b928-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 216.28273010253906}, {"text": "Extend.", "title": "That doping should be permitted in all sports", "pid": "bb621258-2019-04-18T13:52:35Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.27938842773438}, {"text": "Everything should be legal unless the arguments against it are stronger than the arguments for it. No arguments against steroids are stronger than the arguments for it so my position is that steroids should be legal. I will debate anyone on this topic.", "title": "Steroids should be legalized in sports.", "pid": "6a9cc0cb-2019-04-18T16:29:23Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.27235412597656}, {"text": "Said drugs should not be used in sports, for a few reasons. 1) Negative effect on the steroid user Steroids, as we all know, speed up protein synthesis to enhance performance. However, there are some harmful side effects to using them. They include: - higher blood pressure - higher cholesterol levels - higher risk of heart disease - liver damage - premature growth - testicular cancer - abnormally large amounts of acne - breast development in men This, obviously, is not good for the steroid user. Furthermore, exercising normally can avoid these problems, and regular exercise is better for physical and mental health. 2) Negative impact on children When children start to get into sports, they normally treat their favorite player as an idol, an image of what they want to be when they grow up. How would they feel if their idol essentially cheated by using drugs so they didn't have to work as hard? Furthermore, what if they decided to use steroids too, because their hero did? 3) Unfair advantage Most professional athletes work hard every day to stay in shape and sharp at their sport. Why should some players get to skip this hard work that everyone else is doing? That's all for now.", "title": "Anabolic steroids should not be allowed for use in professional sports.", "pid": "e8bee87e-2019-04-18T19:38:55Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.26422119140625}, {"text": "A team should be punished if it is discovered and can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire Olympic team has been involved in illegal ‘organized cheating’. However, this does not mean that just because only one athlete was accused of using performance enhancing drugs, the entire team should be held responsible. You cannot punish someone for simply being affiliated with a person who has cheated. That is akin to arresting someone because their brother stole a car. You cannot punish someone for the bad decision of another. It is an individual’s right to make their own decisions about what they do to their bodies. Even if a convincing argument is made as to why performance enhancing drugs are a god idea, it is ultimately that athlete’s decision whether or not to use them. If the teammates did not also take the drugs, then they should not be punished. Why should we penalize the whole team for making the wrong assumption that their teammate would think twice before doping because s/he will have the entire team to consider? Some athletes are willing to cheat even if they know they are risking their career. Then, here is quite obvious question, is an athlete going to prioritize their career or their team's career? Assuming that their team's career might 'increase the risk' is not going to necessarily prevent any athletes from dope usage, and this is because each individual are even willing to sacrifice their own. Thus, our opposition has also stated that there is ‘peer pressure’, which would apparently make the athlete ‘uncomfortable’, which is illogical. At the end of the day adding pressure to someone will not guarantee that they will make a decision one way or the other. The choice ultimately rests in the hands of the athlete.", "title": "There's no I in team", "pid": "d13617c6-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 216.23651123046875}, {"text": "Steroids should be allowed in SOME sports. All of the below scenarios negate all arguments my opponent has placed 1Steriods should be allowed in any sport that steroids will not have an impact on performance, such as the sport of darts or billiards. 2Steriods should be allowed in sports that nearly every participant already uses steroids, such as body building (not the same as weight lifting) 3Steriods should be allowed in sports that are simply played for fun and not professional, such as a game of touch football with family. Further every private sports association should have the right to determine their own stance on steroid use, whether that be banned or not. My opponent says\"...It is against the law to participate in sterood use.\" Not all steroids are illegal in all countries. I assume my opponent means the United States of America. Even in the United States of America human growth hormone is Legal.", "title": "Steroids should be banned in all sports.", "pid": "e9b63a9a-2019-04-18T19:37:33Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.21563720703125}, {"text": "Schools should regularly drug test their athletes to prevent performance enhancing drugs. These drugs give you a higher advantage on the field and can get you disqualified from a game or season. it is the schools responsibility to regulate drug tests too prevent drugs and be a legitimate team in a conference. Also drugs tests will allow coaches to warn and inform athletes about the effects of these drugs on their bodies and mind and prevent them from using them in the future.", "title": "Resolved: That schools should regularly drug test their athletes to prevent drug use.", "pid": "5d238bd8-2019-04-18T17:02:34Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.2139434814453}, {"text": "what do u mean when u say that its rampant and so be made legal. .. .rapes are also rampant so do you mean to say that they should also be made legal? Another point in my view is that if doping is made legal then whether the spirit of sports will give up to the circumstances. Then sports will transform from competition between the skills of the players to the wars between the pharmaceutical labs and industries of the two countries. The country which possess the advanced medicine will have a straight win and advanced medicines could only be achieved by the countries which have a hefty budget amount to support the industry. This will directly lead to deprive the economically weak countries to even dare to challenge the the so called developed countries and will be completely overshadowed by them. the world will then be confined to these rich countries which will snatch this very chance of the poor countries to make their presence felt. Use of steroids made legal will make the strong even stronger and weal negligible. I would like to make you recall the real motto of organizing sports to bring countries or organizations together together not to demean anyone. Yes winning should be the main thought, but the path used for achieving it should also be kept in mind. The steroids will also have a degrading effect in the health of the sportsmen which will make them succumb to the particular drug and may even take his/her life . Winning the game at the cost of someones life is not that should be done.", "title": "should doing be made legal in sports", "pid": "363193e9-2019-04-18T17:17:54Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.18365478515625}, {"text": "The use of performance-enhancing drugs is widespread in the Olympics and reduces the victories of th...", "title": "Olympic Dream Is Dead", "pid": "bcde55c5-2019-04-19T12:44:29Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.17970275878906}, {"text": "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.", "title": "Doping should be allowed", "pid": "9a4dadf6-2019-04-18T12:48:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.1761932373047}, {"text": "Today sportsman in order to achieve greater results decide to take drugs stimulating both stamina and power. This on the other hand can resolve into serious problems to one's health. Recent situation at the football match where a young defense player died during the game has unveiled the importance of this problems. I personally believe that sports it about human natural mental and psychical power but not about cheating yourself and others and more especially cheating the nature.", "title": "Steroids should e legal in some cases", "pid": "a5cc8c4a-2019-04-18T17:40:51Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.13409423828125}, {"text": "First, I would like to point out that the debate says \"Professional Athletes.\" High schoolers taking steroids is a completely different debate than this one. Anabolic steroids are a substance that boosts your testosterone levels in your body. There are different kinds of steroids that have different effects on your body. Some increase your stamina, others your muscle mass, and so on. These substances are like other kinds of technology we see on the sports field. For example, a shoe that increases running speed, or a swimsuit that increases your aerodynamical position and your ability to freely move all your limbs. These are both examples of technology on the playing field, just like steroids. Taking steroids is just like drinking a protein shake, it increases your athletic ability, and it should be allowed in professional sports.", "title": "Anabolic Steroids Should be Legalized for Professional Athletes", "pid": "d4cf84c8-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.13006591796875}, {"text": "Inducting these below average players would not be representative of one of the most profitable, successful, and enjoyable eras in all of baseball. Yes, in hindsight, it was an unfair advantage, but virtually everyone was doing it. To leave out Bonds, A-Rod, Clemens, and Pettite would be leaving out four of the best players of all time (just to name a few). And most doctors have agreed with the point that PED's have a rather low plateau in terms of improving overall game, and that they act more as a longevity helper. Skill is there, PED help keep it going longer. You can't leave out an entire era of baseball, just because the players did what was inherent of the time; take PED's.", "title": "Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame", "pid": "ffd45b01-2019-04-18T18:54:19Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.10031127929688}, {"text": "I accept but please give in your first arguement examples of suggested drugs so I can understand fully thank you. I hope for an enlightened debate.", "title": "Performance enhancing supplements are both un-necessary and potentially harmful for teens", "pid": "fc4fa3b4-2019-04-18T18:14:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.08291625976562}]}
{"idx": 11, "qid": "12", "q_text": "Should birth control pills be available over the counter?", "qrels": {"daa1c0-2019-04-18T14:20:22Z-00003-000": 0, "dd985bd6-2019-04-18T17:07:09Z-00005-000": 1, "deb2a1a4-2019-04-18T14:56:32Z-00000-000": 0, "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00009-000": 2, "f27da082-2019-04-15T20:22:16Z-00016-000": 1, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "c64898ed-2019-04-18T18:17:24Z-00005-000": 0, "c64898ed-2019-04-18T18:17:24Z-00002-000": 2, "d76dccec-2019-04-18T19:56:26Z-00002-000": 0, "b1860d04-2019-04-18T16:00:48Z-00003-000": 0, "b1860d23-2019-04-18T16:01:20Z-00005-000": 0, "b1868cc5-2019-04-18T14:11:15Z-00000-000": 0, "b67fc3fb-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00218-000": 0, "b67fc3fb-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00244-000": 0, "c011178b-2019-04-18T13:41:51Z-00002-000": 0, "c2e1dab8-2019-04-18T15:37:54Z-00004-000": 0, "d8150fb5-2019-04-17T11:47:48Z-00065-000": 0, "b6a62852-2019-04-18T11:45:24Z-00003-000": 0, "5329d243-2019-04-18T17:45:01Z-00000-000": 0, "5504cb87-2019-04-18T16:02:19Z-00002-000": 0, "4417e87a-2019-04-18T16:59:02Z-00000-000": 0, "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00009-000": 2, "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00007-000": 2, "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00006-000": 2, "3418c277-2019-04-18T12:40:05Z-00000-000": 0, "284f3543-2019-04-18T12:51:10Z-00001-000": 2, "1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00002-000": 0, "b44abf31-2019-04-19T12:47:38Z-00004-000": 0, "606a81ac-2019-04-18T16:27:00Z-00003-000": 0, "b1869884-2019-04-18T13:49:38Z-00001-000": 2, "6702c862-2019-04-18T12:51:56Z-00000-000": 0, "679b4310-2019-04-18T18:44:18Z-00004-000": 0, "6b3f6ff2-2019-04-18T15:38:12Z-00004-000": 0, "71bfcb55-2019-04-18T20:02:15Z-00000-000": 0, "5a745a9a-2019-04-18T14:49:14Z-00001-000": 0, "7c48bf09-2019-04-18T16:59:10Z-00001-000": 1, "9a5e9680-2019-04-18T18:50:24Z-00004-000": 0, "8e214b94-2019-04-18T12:19:56Z-00000-000": 0, "739d0c9a-2019-04-18T19:00:41Z-00001-000": 0, "8e214b94-2019-04-18T12:19:56Z-00001-000": 1, "8d834d48-2019-04-18T20:01:52Z-00004-000": 1, "89e52114-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00208-000": 0, "739d0c9a-2019-04-18T19:00:41Z-00002-000": 0, "83672f1d-2019-04-18T11:13:31Z-00003-000": 0, "81e67f4b-2019-04-18T16:37:43Z-00002-000": 0, "81e674e1-2019-04-18T17:00:08Z-00002-000": 0, "7d6799b0-2019-04-18T17:09:31Z-00004-000": 0, "7d6799b0-2019-04-18T17:09:31Z-00005-000": 1, "81a3881b-2019-04-18T17:59:42Z-00005-000": 0, "8791f9a4-2019-04-18T15:46:11Z-00002-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Arguments left unchallenged as per opponent forfeiture. Von Con please.", "title": "Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance.", "pid": "3d9819c3-2019-04-18T18:25:50Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.14649963378906}, {"text": "Arguments extended to next round.", "title": "Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance.", "pid": "3d9819c3-2019-04-18T18:25:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.7754364013672}, {"text": "Hello, potential opponents! First off, this will probably be an easy win for you, as I am a new debater and a high school freshman who wants to improve his skills. The debate will be in the format of: 1. Intro and main argument, 2. Rebuttals, 3. Re-rebuttals and closing arguments. I would much rather hear from Con first. Nevertheless, here are my opening arguments:1. First of all, birth control occasionally serves actual medical needs, such as curing ovarian cysts, or (relatively) less important, lightening menses.While this is probably not a good argument on its own for someone who needs birth control for its primary, stated purpose; it must be brought up.2. Even if the only purpose of \"the pill\" is to facilitate sex, health insurance already covers Viagra and its relatives, and their primary purpose is to allow for intercourse.3. On a purely financial (probably heartless) note, it would be cheaper for insurance companies to cover birth control than covering the resulting medical expenses arising from the unexpected child.I apologize for the omnipresent spelling and grammer mistakes, but please try to keep the argument from devolving into a fight over semantics and syntax. I welcome and appreciate critiques (and dismantlings) of my argument. Thanks for helping my debating skills grow!", "title": "Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance.", "pid": "3d9819c3-2019-04-18T18:25:50Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.63973999023438}, {"text": "Birth control is a \"free will\" medication. It's purpose is to allow a woman to engage in sexual intercourse without becoming pregnant. The drug is therefore administered to women who: Choose to be sexually active. Choose to be reproductively barren. Based on the points of \"free-will sexual intercourse\" and \"free-will reproductive suppression\" I will argue that a Company health care system or the Government's health care system is not responsible for incurring the cost of this drug. This drug, in it's intended form, falls under three prospective categories: Recreational use. Family planning. Hormone therapy. (Exclusive to only a handful of birth control methods) If we forced a health care provider to pay for birth control, it would be just as liable to pay for other recreational supplies. Should the HMO also pay for novelty condoms? Sex toys? Pornography? All these things are designed for recreational sex. If we forced the health care provider to pay for birth control, it would prospectively force the HMO to furnish other services for family planning. Should the HMO pay for fertility treatment? Cryogenic sperm storage? Day care? Education? Food? All these things are prospective costs incurred through family planning.As my opponent has mentioned, birth control has some medical benefits. What he failed to mention, is that these benefits are drug specific. Not all birth control methods prevent ovarian cysts and not all birth control methods decrease menstrual activity.If the pill is being used to treat cysts, excessively painful menstruation or a hormonal imbalance, then the pill is no longer considered birth control. It has taken on the properties of medication. For this purpose and this purpose alone, the HMO should cover the cost of the pill.", "title": "Birth control pills, even as contraception, should be covered by health insurance.", "pid": "3d9819c3-2019-04-18T18:25:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.3092041015625}, {"text": "There are good reasons for making the morning-after pill a non-prescription drug. It can take time to get a prescription from a doctor, and in cases of emergency contraception speed is very important. Some patients may be embarrassed to tell their doctor about their sexual behaviour, and consequently be put off seeking a prescription. The restriction of emergency contraception to over-16s makes no sense in any case; a girl under 16 who has had unprotected sex may well need emergency contraception.", "title": "There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors...", "pid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 214.27981567382812}, {"text": "I favor that the Affordable Care Acts requires health insurance policies to cover birth control products. I disagree with the idea that companies have the right to take away parts of the insurance coverage of theiremployees, because of the personal preferences of the employers.Not to be pedantic, but the title of this debate is misleading, because businesses are not required to buy birth control products for their employees.I will argue PRO.", "title": "Businesses Providing Birth Control Products", "pid": "224936ac-2019-04-18T16:48:40Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.07701110839844}, {"text": "I believe that birth control pills should be given out in schools because we don't want children!!! Children are bad, we need to save the planet by saving space. So every girl and boy should get given them. The girls will take the pills, the boys will give them to their girlfriends.", "title": "Schools give out free birth control pills", "pid": "8e214b94-2019-04-18T12:19:56Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.03697204589844}, {"text": "They should not because the pills are very expensive and a teenager needs a parents help in this important ordeal.", "title": "Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent", "pid": "136c9048-2019-04-18T18:17:33Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.9583282470703}, {"text": "There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors...", "title": "Emergency Contraception", "pid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.95217895507812}, {"text": "Whether it is a contraceptive or not is not in dispute. I am more concerned with the irresponsibility that will be created if those that are over 17 years old have easy access to the pill especially when that are under 16 years old could easily ask someone who is 17 years old to get them the pill or even worse their partner who could be of age and get it for them. Therefore, the morning pill should banned.", "title": "Banning the Pill", "pid": "928f9e5e-2019-04-18T16:33:36Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.8023223876953}, {"text": "Given the existence of the various unpleasant side-effects discussed, nobody would sensibly choose the morning-after pill over other forms of contraception, or risk unprotected sex on the grounds that they can take a morning-after pill afterwards. Emergency contraceptives are for use in emergencies - and emergencies really do happen, and really do need to be dealt with.", "title": "Emergency contraception may be seen by some as an alternative to safer forms of contraception. Its ...", "pid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 213.6808319091797}, {"text": "I believe that, barring extraneous circumstances (such as health), women who declare they do not want children should find it mandatory to take birth control (specifically of an implant-type) if they wish to be sexually active. The mandatory length of commitment is 1-year and is reevaluated annually. I believe this would greatly reduce accidental pregnancy.", "title": "Birth Control Should Be Mandatory For Women Who Do Not Want Children", "pid": "5a745a9a-2019-04-18T14:49:14Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.66934204101562}, {"text": "Protection against unwanted pregnancy is a medical necessity because it must be prevented at all costs, certain women under grave circumstances cannot physically, mentally or emotionally carry the burden of reproduction and as long as their bodies are capable of conceiving a child they should be given guaranteed ways of preventing it and birth control fits the description. The burden of medical necessity lies with a doctor and should not be determined by an insurance company. As for the Viagra claim, the fact that some insurance companies cover this drug proves sexism because no insurance company has ever covered birth control under any circumstances. If certain insurances deem a man's erectile dysfunction as being a medical problem than a women who is battling cancer should be allowed the same coverage. Men cannot bare children this is true but women should not have to suffer because they are capable of bringing life into this world that is one of the reasons as to why we have the equal rights amendment, to procure that women be treated fairly when it comes to men in every aspect regardless of their physical description or biological make up.", "title": "birth control should be covered by insurance", "pid": "88b831f5-2019-04-18T18:25:06Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.59898376464844}, {"text": "The Affordable Care Act requires businesses to provide birth control products to their employees. Many religious business owners have a problem with this, and want it to stop. I as Con want this requirement to go out of effect, Pro must want the opposite. First Round will be for acceptance. Otherwise the debate format is unstructured. Please note the 48 hour response time limit.", "title": "Businesses Providing Birth Control Products", "pid": "224936ac-2019-04-18T16:48:40Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 213.56173706054688}, {"text": "Contraceptives encourage sex with many multiple partners which is unsafe. Ask Charlie Sheen. It gives a false sense of security. People believe suddenly that they are safe. Then...they have an STD. Then...they pass it to someone else. * Pop a birth control pill and your baby-maker isn't the only thing that's getting the treatment. That's because each of those little pills contains hormones and changes the hormones in your body, according to Toni Stern, M.D., Chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Coney Island Hospital. The Pill may hurt- LibidoOC's slash libido-friendly testosterone in two ways: First, they quiet the ovaries, halting their production of testosterone. Second, the liver pumps out a protein called the sex hormone-binding globulin, which gloms onto sex hormones ,including testosterone, like bargain shoppers on Black Friday sales. But while OC's lower testosterone levels in all women, they lower libido only in some. And even if the Pill does affect your mojo, plenty of other factors like anxiety about getting preggers affect it, too. You may have serious problems below the belt. Blood clots- Chances are, you've heard this warning speed by during more than one birth control pill commercial. But before you reach for a bottle of Bayer, let's put things into perspective: Each year, 7 in 10,000 women experience blood clots. Birth control extremely enhances your chances, while pregnancy and childbirth raise your chances even more. But if you experience any signs of a blood clot, such as chest pain or a swollen leg, immediately stop the pill for God's sake. http://www.parents.com... * This is why passing out contraceptives is not only wrong, but it is deadly. Of course Liberals, generally don't care about long term results, just temporary satisfaction. This is how children think.", "title": "Contraception is a right.", "pid": "f3fff523-2019-04-18T13:04:43Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.5596466064453}, {"text": "Birth control isn't just to prevent pregnancy. There are a lot of benefits from birth control, such as it can treat endometriosis, balance hormones and periods, ease cramps, make periods lighter and shorter, and lower the odds of ovarian and endometrial cancer. I do think that underage girls should tell their parents that they're on birth control, but some don't. I don't know about a requirement. Some parents think that if they're child is on birth control, they're more likely to have sex but studies have shown that women that are on contraceptives are more likely to have romantic, solid relationships. Due to this assumption, parents won't let their children get birth control which could effect them later in their life.(http://www.womenshealthmag.com... on contraceptives are more likely to have romantic, solid relationships than women who aren't using birth control)", "title": "should teenagers be required to inform there parents they are on birth control", "pid": "284f3543-2019-04-18T12:51:10Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.53363037109375}, {"text": "Yes but as I said in the last round teenagers will contiue to use birth control pills to not get in trouble and they think they will be invincible and will be untouchable. Soon their body will be immune to the pills and will have the child btu teenagers aren't ready for birth control pills. If teenager drink underage then how can you believe they will overuse the birth control pills?", "title": "teens should beallowed to get birth control", "pid": "8d834d48-2019-04-18T20:01:52Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.5306854248047}, {"text": "To clarify, the basis of your argument is that women should be allowed to take birth control. If that is the case, I agree with you. I was evolving the discussion to a more controversial topic about who would be supplying the birth control as it has been the topic of many interesting debates and an important supreme court case. If you would like to debate more on this topic, I would welcome a response of any view.", "title": "Contraception is a right.", "pid": "f3fff4a7-2019-04-18T15:33:41Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.51744079589844}, {"text": "I understand your argument and respect your opinions however, I also continue to stand by my opinion that girls under the age of eighteen should not have access to birth control without a parent's consent. A young girl with the maturity of a freshman in high school should not be able to make such an important decision on her own. With easy access to the pill, a whole new set of problems can erupt. Just talking to a parent about birth control helps make the decision easier and more understandable for a young girl with little to no education in such areas.", "title": "Birth Control", "pid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.51246643066406}, {"text": "Providing access to birth control empowers women with more control over their bodies. Historically women have often suffered more because of restrictive policies related to reproduction (abortion laws, restrictions on birth control purchases, parental consent policies). Men often don’t have to face the consequences of their actions. Condom distribution encourages the responsibility of men and increases choices for women. It can also establish condom use as the norm, not something that women continually have to negotiate, often from a position of weakness.", "title": "Providing access to birth control empowers women with more control over their bodies. Historically ...", "pid": "e897bde-2019-04-19T12:47:15Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 213.50807189941406}, {"text": "I would greatly appreciate some proof that the pill can treat cancer. I could not find proof of such a claim but instead found studies that showed it could be linked to breast cancer and cervical cancer in women. [1]Second, I've already expressed the fact that a woman can simply practice abstinance. There are a wide variety of alternative methods to the pill, such as IUDs, condoms, and surgery. Some of these are just as effective as the pill.Why should it be an insurance company's responsibility to look after a woman's womb in such a way? It is her personal responsibility to take care of that issue, not her insurance company. In the case of rape, providing birth control would apply to a large range of women and not just rape victims. They could also use one of the alternative methods mentioned above.Again for the Viagra case, my opponent's claim is inane. It is the company's right to choose what they cover and what they don't. Viagra actually treats a legitimate health problem, unlike my opponent's stark belief that birth control somehow prevents cancer. If it were proven that the pill prevents cancer by a reputable institution, then the argument might have more of a base.The final claim again is ludicrous to me considering that not providing birth control would in no way cause women to \"suffer because they are capable of bringing life into this world.\" Unless my opponent is referring to the pain of childbirth (which is uncontrollable for an insurance company), her statement has no support or reasoning behind it.1- http://www.cancer.gov...;", "title": "birth control should be covered by insurance", "pid": "88b831f5-2019-04-18T18:25:06Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.50318908691406}, {"text": "Extend my argument please. Cudos to my opponent for appologizing in the comments for the forfeit.", "title": "Pharmacies shouldn't be allowed to sell contraceptives to teens under the state's age of consent", "pid": "2059e76d-2019-04-18T18:24:15Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.4921112060547}, {"text": "I believe that birth control should be allowed to be obtained without parental consent. When a girl is requesting to use birth control, she is being mature and responsible and it is her own right, not her parents, to make the decision to have sex or not. If someone is making the decision to have sex, they should be mature enough to make the decision to be safe about it. Further more, most teens would have sex if they want to regardless if they have protection or not, so it is better to be safe than sorry.", "title": "Birth Control", "pid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 213.42393493652344}, {"text": "I disagree the morning after pill is not giving teens the OK to have unprotected sex. It's an option to have for just in case something goes wrong; if teens are old enough to engage in sexual intercourse then they are also old enough to know when to buy the morning after pill in a responsible manner. Now if teens have an STD then they shouldn't have unprotected sex with many partners nor should they think that the morning after pill is a cure for a sexual disease. The argument stands to protect women's right for unwanted pregnancy's not a reason to have unprotected sex out of a whim; especially since condoms and birth control are available for people of all ages.", "title": "young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill.", "pid": "10c1d5c6-2019-04-18T16:38:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.38192749023438}, {"text": "Birth control should be covered because its a medical necessity for women. Viagra is covered for men because its seen as being medically necessary to treat men with erectile dysfunction but women who have certain forms of vaginal cancer are not being covered for birth control which helps treat their condition, thus making this problem into a very sexist issue. Birth control is used as way to protect a woman's body from an unwanted pregnancy, a protection which is guaranteed by the 14th amendment, the equal rights amendment also warrants women with equal rights as men under the law. This is not just about being sexist this is also about women's health. And insurance companies not covering birth control is simply saying women and their health are not important.", "title": "birth control should be covered by insurance", "pid": "88b831f5-2019-04-18T18:25:06Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.3752899169922}, {"text": "The morning after pill should not be banned. P1. It is true that the morning-after pill may act as a contraceptive; if it is taken before ovulation, it may act to prevent conception. http://www.prolifephysicians.org... P2. It can act for emgergencies for mistakes that a person may have done the night before P3. Everyone should be responsible for their actions Conclusion. The morning after pill should be available for eveveryone because its their life and their actions that impact their life, nobodys elses.", "title": "Banning the Pill", "pid": "928f9e5e-2019-04-18T16:33:36Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.34764099121094}, {"text": "Birth control is not a medical necessity for all women. In fact, I challenge my opponent to prove how it is since the burden of proof lies with her. On the subject of Viagra, Pro's claim is untrue; that medication is only covered by some insurance companies, not all. Other men have to pay for the medication just like women have to pay for birth control. There is no sexism behind this issue unless you wish it to be there. It is absurd to bring in the equal rights amendment considering that men cannot become pregnant. The situation is completely biased and that makes the issue moot. If a woman wishes not to become pregnant, she can practice abstinance or buy the birth control on her own. The implication that not covering birth control says that women's health is not important is incorrect and unfounded. If anything, it makes women more independent because THEY have to be responsible for their own selves. This is equivalent to men having to buy condoms; it is their responsibility and no one else. In conclusion, there is no reason for insurance companies to pay for any type of birth control, whether male or female. It is a purposeless endeavor.", "title": "birth control should be covered by insurance", "pid": "88b831f5-2019-04-18T18:25:06Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.33428955078125}, {"text": "It's their life. They should do as they please. Banning the pill can be helpful to them if they made an irresponsible mistake. It shouldn't matter what age she is. You said yourself, if the girl can get someone older to buy it, what's the point of changing the age when she can potentially still have access?", "title": "Banning the Pill", "pid": "928f9e5e-2019-04-18T16:33:36Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.2767333984375}, {"text": "There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors are not informed of their patients’ over-the-counter purchases, but a patient’s previous use of a drug as powerful as the morning-after pill may be something they need to know about to make good future medical decisions. Pharmacists cannot check medical records to find out whether there is anything in the customer’s medical history which might make taking the pill dangerous. They have no way of telling whether their customer is over 16.", "title": "There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors...", "pid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 213.24935913085938}, {"text": "You are saying that it is no problem for a 11 year girls to walk into a pharmacy and purchase this pill why would 11 years old girls need to buy these pills ? Because in the first place they shouldn't be sexually active. At what age do we draw the line . The price of the plan B is $50 where is a 11 year old girl going to get that amount of money from if they are not telling their parents or don't need their consent . Don't you think because of the available of the pill now that more girls younger than age 11are going to start having sex? http://m.cvs.com...", "title": "young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill.", "pid": "10c1d5c6-2019-04-18T16:38:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.22483825683594}, {"text": "Widespread condom distribution will establish sexual activity as the norm among young teens, creating peer pressure to participate in sex. The added temptation to engage in sexual activity that is 'protected' will result in more women having sex at a younger age, perhaps furthering their exploitation.", "title": "Providing access to birth control empowers women with more control over their bodies. Historically ...", "pid": "e897bde-2019-04-19T12:47:15Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 213.20205688476562}, {"text": "The morning after pill should not be banned from young adolescent girls. If restrictions are passed against teenage girls buying pregnancy prevention medication; then these young women will have to go to more extreme measures in ensuring that pregnancy will not be an issue for them. Let's face it most young adults don't share everything with their parents especially things that they feel will get them into trouble. These girls will feel reluctant telling an adult that they are pregnant. Why not allow them to safely prevent something that will no doubt change their lives forever.", "title": "young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill.", "pid": "10c1d5c6-2019-04-18T16:38:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.1949005126953}, {"text": "I would argue in favor of keeping the morning after pill and to just have restriction that will only allow adults to buy it but I cant. Even though there are already restrictions that only allow anyone over 17 to buy the pill there is still a possibility that anyone younger than 17 can get access to it through those that are allowed access to this pill, since, once they leave the store they are able to do what ever they want with the pill.", "title": "Banning the Morning After Pill", "pid": "fd36e585-2019-04-18T16:35:51Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.17149353027344}, {"text": "The morning after pill should be allowed for all ages. Some teens who engage in sexual activity younger than seventeen can become pregnant if her partner was not careful in wearing a condom. People go to parties or clubs and hook up, some I knowlingly do not use a condom, the morning after pill can help because it will delay her ovulation.", "title": "Banning the Morning After Pill", "pid": "fd36e585-2019-04-18T16:35:51Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.15309143066406}, {"text": "I should 1st make myself clear, the ban should be for all. Those that are over 17 have easy access to the pill and could provide it for those that are younger. In order for the pill to be effective the person taking it would need to have a certain BMI for it to be effective [1] therefore those that are below 16 need a prescription but there are those younger than 16 that would not know this and if they are aware of the existence of the morning after pills but nothing more then this could create a misconception of it being a second option which shouldn't be. Therefore to prevent this misconception the morning pill should be banned for good. 1 http://www.plannedparenthood.org...", "title": "Banning the Pill", "pid": "928f9e5e-2019-04-18T16:33:36Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.12266540527344}, {"text": "By making the morning after pill easy accessable to teen. Is saying it ok for them to go and have unprotected sex .which Opean door for them to get STD. the morning after pill is there to fix problem and undo the wrong. But the morning after pill doesn't cured STD.", "title": "young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill.", "pid": "10c1d5c6-2019-04-18T16:38:18Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.11691284179688}, {"text": "Condoms are not always the best protection method. Condoms can break. Women need to use birth control to guarantee that pregnancy will not occur. Using a condom alone is more risky than using birth control alone. Should parents know whats going on with their children? Yes. But are they ever going to? No. If teens know that their parents will find out when they go to the clinic for help and birth control..they will never go. They wont get help. And more and more teens will get pregnant. Teens shouldnt be responsible enough to have access to birth control is what con has said, however, kids should be responsible enough to have a baby? Which is worse? dealing with a pill a day so that you dont get pregnant, or dealing with a human being? Teens will never stop having sex. It happens. They will also never tell their parents and never want their parents to know. In a perfect world parents would find out and be there for their children, but were not living in that kind of society. Help teens not get pregnant, and let them have birth control.", "title": "Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent", "pid": "136c9048-2019-04-18T18:17:33Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.11561584472656}, {"text": "Birth Control is extremely hard to manage, and should not be seen as this fool proof way of stopping teen pregnancy. Without a parent to help them, chances are a teenage girl will improperly administer it, especially if she is trying to keep it secret from her parents. No one should condone allowing a teenager to have access to something as important as birth control without parental knowledge and supervision because a) the parent has the right to know and can help and b) they will probably use it incorrectly at some point. If you want them to have protection without parental knowledge then they have condoms....you need to show why condoms are not an appropriate solution to the problems you've listed, and why we should allow inexperienced teenagers access to a drug that plays hell with their hormones and can be very dangerous. It's kind of like saying that teenagers should be allowed to get a vasectomy without parental consent. The resolution is negated.", "title": "Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent", "pid": "136c9048-2019-04-18T18:17:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.0973358154297}, {"text": "I do understand your point about how parents should be aware if their child is doing prescription medication. However, concluding my argument, I still stand by my point that women under 18 should have the right to birth control without parents' consent. In history, during the National Birth Control movement, a right to privacy was established, which meant that women had the right to control their own body. I believe that this right is extended to all women, not just women over 18. It is a young women's own decision to use birth control, and if a girl does not feel comfortable talking to her parents about her sexual activity, I do not believe that should prevent her from a mistake like teenage pregnancy.", "title": "Birth Control", "pid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.08982849121094}, {"text": "P1: Seventeen year olds do not need a prescription to have access to the morning after pill. P2: Anyone under seventeen does need to have a prescription to know whether they should be allowed to take the pill [1]. P3: Those under seventeen could get the pill from people over seventeen. P4: Having the pill will create a mistaken belief that the pill is a second option to solve their responsibilities of not having sex. Therefore: The morning pill should be banned. [1] http://www.plannedparenthood.org...", "title": "Banning the Pill", "pid": "928f9e5e-2019-04-18T16:33:36Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.04241943359375}, {"text": "The argument that every drug has side effects is not a sufficient enough excuse for the use of this potentially dangerous drug, and the fact that other drugs have side effects doesn't make it okay for them to be on the market especially one as unnecessary as this one. The example you use of water drags us to the red herring fallacy as you bring premises that have little to do with the conclusion and is pointing out one harmful ingrediant in our drinkingwater but ignore the fact that the positives and necessity of our everyday drinking water unlike this drug which is not essential at all There are plenty of other contraceptives out there already and just providing this harmful back up even further damage these woman and there decision making", "title": "Banning of the \"morning After Pill\"", "pid": "4c2eee41-2019-04-18T15:38:30Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.03282165527344}, {"text": "First, let\"s understand how birth control pills work in your body. Typically, your body ovulates once a month, ripening a new egg that will then journey down a fallopian tube. Eventually it reaches the uterus, where it would implant, if fertilized. If not fertilized by a sperm, then the lining of the uterus that had built up in preparation for the fertilized egg is unnecessary. Both egg and uterine lining leave your body, cleansing your system and preparing for a new month. When you take birth control pills, you impose synthetic hormones on your natural cycle. Many birth control pills contain high levels of estrogen that effectively convince your pituitary gland that you are pregnant (this explains some of the side effects of the drugs) and that you don\"t need to ovulate. Because your body thinks you are pregnant, the uterine lining thickens. Once you start the placebo pills, however, your estrogen level drops suddenly, and your body menstruates \"normally.\" This abnormal cycle is what millions of women experience every month, and yet few doctors discuss the consequences of taking these prescriptions for year after year.", "title": "is birth control good or nah", "pid": "8791f9a4-2019-04-18T15:46:11Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.0026092529297}, {"text": "You claim that teens being able to buy birth control automatically will cause teen pregnancies to drop, but just because you buy something doesnt mean you will actually use it or use it properly. My dad buys rifles and ammunition almost once a week but he never uses them he just mounts it on the wall or sells it to a higher price to his friends. Just because teens could buy birth control does not guarantee they will actually use them. Only 35% of teenagers use condoms even though they have access to them. http://www.idph.state.il.us... After you read that statistic look two lines lower on the website, teenagers like to get hammered and use illegal drugs during sex so they might not even have the common sense to use the birth control they bought..... You may want to consider that just because it is now more accessible doesnt guarantee that teenagers will still go and buy them. Also consider the fact that they must be used correctly. There are many birth control contraptions that could do quite a bit of damage to the teenager if they use it improperly, sometimes birth control pills and such are linked to causing many problems in an individual Yaz: a birth control product used by millions of women was found to be linked to horrible side effects such as blindness, in some cases cancer, strokes, etc. and that is just ONE of the DOZENS of birth control supplements out there on the market. You claim that parents dont want to let their kids have sex because they will get pregnant and that sex is safe with birth control, perhaps you have never heard of things called STD's.... STD's, as we all know, are sexually transmitted diseases and there is no form of birth control on the market that prevents against the passing of any STD from one individual to another. STD's affect far more teenagers than teenage pregnancies do, and STDs affect teenagers more than any other age group.... Sources showing birth control does not protect against STD's http://www.pregnancyandchildren.com... http://ehealthforum.com... http://kidshealth.org... http://www.zocdoc.com... http://www.womenshealthzone.net... Number of STD cases each year (roughly 3 million a year among teenagers) HIV = 10,000 to 20,000 new cases a year among teenagers Chlamydia = 40% of ALL girls 15 to 19 HPV = 15% of ALL girls 15 to 19 Herpes = up to a million new cases each year total, a great proportion of them among teenagers AIDS = Over a million total, many cases are not even reported though.... http://health.shiawassee.net... http://www.bhg.com... Teenage pregnancy = 1 out of 12 teenage girls, Teenage STD's = 1 out of 4.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com... I could go on but Ill stop here for now, so let me summarize: Unconditional access to birth control by teenagers should not be legal because 1) Just because teenagers buy them doesn't mean they will use it properly or at all 2) Birth control (Yaz for example) has many harmful effects that cause many more health problems then they prevent 3) Birth controls do NOT prevent against STD's which spread faster and affect WAY more teenagers than pregnancy does 4) The alleged health \"benefits\" of the POSSIBILITY of lowering pregnancy rates would be greatly offset by the number of new STD cases, which in many cases prove to be lethal.....", "title": "Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent.", "pid": "6b19ea3e-2019-04-18T18:37:17Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.9915313720703}, {"text": "Please define your argument a little more specifically please. I think that women can defiantly take contraception if they please, however the way of the contraception being provided is the most debatable topic in this issue. I think that women should be able to go out and buy birth control, which is cheap, on their own dime. Their employers or the taxpayers are not responsible to provide this. Also, if you are having sex and taking birth control, you are having sex for recreational purposes. I love to go fishing on the weekends, but I don't demand from my employer that he or she pay for my fishing pole. Women should defiantly be allowed to use contraception, but I would like to debate how the contraception is paid for more.", "title": "Contraception is a right.", "pid": "f3fff4a7-2019-04-18T15:33:41Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.98931884765625}, {"text": "[ derpadoo! ]", "title": "Birth Control Should Be Mandatory For Women Who Do Not Want Children", "pid": "5a745a9a-2019-04-18T14:49:14Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.97970581054688}, {"text": "Sex has become more socially accepted and teenagers are having sex at a younger age but this does not condone the use of a pill with a primary ingredient with many dangerous side effects . If anything this further proves my point because now the risk is being exposed to teenagers which are much more likely to need this \"back up\" plan more frequently than adults and further putting themselves at risk and continually damaging their menstrual cycles that can pair with their already complicated hormonal imbalance. The view of teenage moms and the financial Burdens they go through would be a solid defense if it was only used by teenagers but the fact is that the pill is used by females of all ages and poses a health risk that is not necessary.", "title": "Banning of the \"morning After Pill\"", "pid": "4c2eee41-2019-04-18T15:38:30Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.902587890625}, {"text": "But come you can't expect teens to have sex to have any sort of right to have birth control pills? It would give other teens more peer pressure to have sex and their great bypass would be use the birth control pills as a way not to get caught. It would stop teenagers from having to dropout but it would be wide spread. It would challenge the parents rights and the teenagers rights to giving them birth control pills. I just think that birth control pills to the wrong hands will have devastaing effects and teenagers are the people to give the least to because peer pressure is their \"wise master\".", "title": "teens should beallowed to get birth control", "pid": "8d834d48-2019-04-18T20:01:52Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.89794921875}, {"text": "People make mistakes when having sex. Irresponsibility should always have a consequence, but with the pill there cut can limit there chances of dealing with that. It also: \"-Lowers the rate of unwanted pregnancies. -Stops an unwanted pregnancy before abortion is needed or considered. -Does not cause birth defects if the woman is already pregnant. -The morning after pill simply provides another method that can be used as an emergency.\" http://homepages.rpi.edu... These reasons prove that the pill shouldn't be banned. Regardless of age, if a woman cannot take care of a child there is an option for her to use which can benefit her.", "title": "Banning the Pill", "pid": "928f9e5e-2019-04-18T16:33:36Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.8920135498047}, {"text": "1. sex has become more socially accepted and statistics show that more teenagers are having sex at a younger age then they where ten years ago. 2. although the morning after pill is not a alternative to using condoms and other forms of safe sex. It gives you that second option in case a accident does occur. 3. not everyone can financially support a child. 80 percent of teenage moms end up on welfare and do not finish their education therefore limiting job opportunities in the future. c: the morning after pill should not be banned", "title": "Banning of the \"morning After Pill\"", "pid": "4c2eee41-2019-04-18T15:38:30Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.87384033203125}, {"text": "Emergency contraception may be seen by some as an alternative to safer forms of contraception. Its widespread easy availability would encourage women to have unprotected sex. This increases their risk of getting or passing on sexually transmitted diseases which are prevented by barrier contraceptives such as condoms but not by emergency contraceptives which are taken after sex.", "title": "Emergency contraception may be seen by some as an alternative to safer forms of contraception. Its ...", "pid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 212.86964416503906}, {"text": "Menstruation. Something that is unavoidable women. Thousands of impoverished girls risk their own health and safety without access to these necessary products. Reverting to makeshift methods like plastic or grocery bags to try to keep themselves clean. While condoms are made readily available for free in various locations, girls in shelters and prisons and even some schools are denied easy access to these vital items. Should these products be made free and available to those in the aforementioned locations?", "title": "Women's sanitary products should be available for free in prisons, shelters, and schools", "pid": "f3984cdd-2019-04-18T12:39:39Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.85662841796875}, {"text": "ConR2: Then don't have sex of penis entering vagina. ProR: There is nothing wrong with having sex or using birth control. Stop trying to force your beliefs on other people. ConR2: If this was the case then why would anyone bother to get rich? I mean if we magnified your regime to every single way in which a rich woman as more choices available than a poor one, we'd end up at an almost infinite number of variables that would mean either we have severe Communism taking reign or we try to make peace with competition and the nature of losing it. ProR: Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If it is not your body, it is not your choice. Con: That proves nothing... Women still have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. People own the bodies and have the right to prevent pregnancy. Con: What has this even got to do with the resolution? It has everything to do with a woman's right to choose. Con: Okay but why is it health plan providers who have to pick the short straw here? Why not support government subsidized contraception like there is in many European nations for the pill? Employers have no right to their employee's bodies.", "title": "Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why.", "pid": "a4a6c3d4-2019-04-18T15:38:59Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.80079650878906}, {"text": "Push", "title": "The US government should make long term birth control affordable for low income women", "pid": "6bf018ce-2019-04-18T15:42:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.7840576171875}, {"text": "Arguments extended.", "title": "birth control should be covered by insurance", "pid": "88b831f5-2019-04-18T18:25:06Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.78363037109375}, {"text": "Large companies get certain perks (tax benefits, bankruptcy protection). In return, they have certain obligations such as mediating between government and employees to make sure that the employees have health insurance. Health insurance are a part of the benefits that an employee has earned. So employers do not have a right to take away parts of the benefits of their employees. Whether the health insurance should have coverage for birth control is a matter between the employee, the insurance company and the government, and is not the business of the employee. The objection of some employers that they would be paying for birth control which is against their religion is misplaced. Health insurance that covers birth control is cheaper than health insurance that does not cover it. My opponent has dropped her argument that such a mandate would lead to discrimination, because, as I pointed out, the Affordable Care Act eliminates gender discrimination by requiring insurance companies to charge women and men the same premiums.", "title": "Businesses Providing Birth Control Products", "pid": "224936ac-2019-04-18T16:48:40Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.77828979492188}, {"text": "No need to wait, just jump right in. All I ask is that you address each of my points according to the number I gave it. 1. Contraception improves the health of women by allowing them to prevent pregnancy. 2. Childbirth is much more expensive than contraception. 3. No matter how you feel about abortion, people do have the right to choose what to do with their bodies as long as they do not hurt anyone. 4. Contraception saves money by allowing a person to avoid the cost of pregnancy, childbirth, recovery after childbirth, and so on. 5. Unwanted children are more likely to suffer and be abused, so why not prevent their conception. 6. Contraception is cost effective.", "title": "Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why.", "pid": "a4a6c3d4-2019-04-18T15:38:59Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.744873046875}, {"text": "1) Unconstitutional Telling women that they are forced to take birth control if they wish to be sexually active (without having children) is a violation of the ninth amendment, which refers to the rights retained the people. 2) In addition to being a violation of the ninth amendment, the Pro's arguments are a violation of the first amendment.", "title": "Birth Control Should Be Mandatory For Women Who Do Not Want Children", "pid": "5a745a9a-2019-04-18T14:49:14Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.72732543945312}, {"text": "I understand your point however you may be misunderstanding me. I do believe girls should be able to obtain birth control to take control of their sex life and be able to prevent unwanted and unplanned mistakes. I agree with you on the fact that girls should be able to obtain such prevention and the high number of teen pregnancy further proves that. However I believe the users parents should be involved in the process. Even though a young girl may not want to talk about such topics with her parents, the discussion and decision to get birth control are things that should not be simply left to the opinions and maturity of a freshman or sophomore in high school. At that age girls are influenced by so many other things that may make a responsible decision difficult. Do you believe that such an important decision should be able to be made by a child of any age?", "title": "Birth Control", "pid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.7256317138672}, {"text": "1: The \"morning after\" pill presents the risk of levonorgestrel the main source for the pills effectiveness throwing off woman's menstrual cycles which can have long term effects especially if used habitually. 2: The pills other side effects include significant weight gain of on average 15 pounds, depression, ovarian cyst enlargement, gallbladder disease, high blood pressure, respiratory disorders, increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and death 3: Studies show the woman who use the pill are more then likely to use the pill habitually which can only increase the chances of the individual being effected by the side effects. C: The \"Morning After Pill\" should be banned. Source:http://www.pop.org...", "title": "Banning of the \"morning After Pill\"", "pid": "4c2eee41-2019-04-18T15:38:30Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.71739196777344}, {"text": "The morning after pill can only be taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex.Each day girls wait their chances of becoming pregnant increase.The Morning after pills do not cause birth defects in women who are already pregnant;the morning after pill when taken causes estrogen levels to rise within the female body giving mixed signals to the sperm trying to fertilize an egg that the female is currently on her period thus killing the sperm off.According to Princeton University\"The most serious of these side effects are extremely rare and do no long term damage besides it would be considered by women who choose to use emergency contraception to be a price worth paying for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy\" Article source: http://ec.princeton.edu...", "title": "young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill.", "pid": "10c1d5c6-2019-04-18T16:38:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.70709228515625}, {"text": "I understand your side, and I agree that girls should be able to talk to their parents about obtaining birth control. However, in cases where a parent would not let his or her child obtain birth control, I believe a young woman should be able to receive it herself. If a young woman is interested in obtaining birth control, then chances are she has been or will be sexually active soon, with or without her parents' consent. If she is allowed to get birth control, then the risk of becoming pregnant is decreased significantly, a conclusion that I believe should be a young woman's own right. If you believe that someone needs parental consent, what age do they no longer need it, 18?", "title": "Birth Control", "pid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.63473510742188}, {"text": "I understand and respect your arguments. In response to your question regarding age, yes I do believe a girl should wait until the age of eighteen to be able to obtain birth control. I understand your point that you believe a girl who wants to obtain birth control is already sexually active, however I believe that in some cases the lack of birth control will keep them from becoming sexually active and possibly prevent a mistake from happening. By allowing a young girl of any age to obtain birth control with no knowledge to their parents, it is making it easy for young girls to make mistakes that they may be too immature to recognize at the time.", "title": "Birth Control", "pid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 212.62112426757812}, {"text": "Studies shows that condoms and other contraceptives do NOT work 100% and therefore whether or not they are available there will still be the spread of sti's/std's and there will still be a high rate of teenage/unwanted pregnancies. Just the teen knowing that they have access to that contraceptive they will abuse and overuse it therefore not being cautious because in their mind it is \"suppose\" to make them safe with no risks and so no\" what if's\" or \"worries\" are in their minds.", "title": "Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors.", "pid": "5fdf615c-2019-04-18T15:36:16Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.607666015625}, {"text": "This is quite ridiculous,really.Condoms are easily available in all medical stores. Did it ever happen that you were walking past a store and thought to yourself,\"Hey,a Condom.I should have intercourse tonight.\" It doesn't work like that. Does the availability of guns give you an \"okay\" to go ahead and involve yourself in killing ? Your whole argument is flawed. Now,let's look at the opposite.If you take away the condoms and contraceptive,can you even imagine the consequences ? Rampant STD's,unwanted pregnancies and a plethora of other evils.So,No.Access to Condoms and other contraceptives does not lead to promiscuity.", "title": "Access to Condoms and other contraceptives leads to promiscuity and other irresponsible behaviors.", "pid": "5fdf615c-2019-04-18T15:36:16Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 212.5881805419922}, {"text": "THIS IS OR A SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT, I DONT THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE ALLOWED BEECAUSE, IT CAN BE DANGEROUS TO THE GIRL WETHER IT'S ABORTION OR PILLS, OR ANYTHING. AND YIT IS AGAINST gOD", "title": "SHOULD teenage girls be able to participate in any form of birth control without parents' permission", "pid": "6b229b30-2019-04-18T19:44:54Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.56573486328125}, {"text": "Con will argue that teens should only be given birth control if their parents are told. I am not looking for a 'formal' debate. I am not planning on posting sources or doing any of that formally, unless con asks me to, and in that case, i will. Thank you to who ever accepts to be con, and good luck:) -i will say this before you accept, i am not in this for winning. I am in this to hear others opinions on this situation, and also to give out my opinion.-", "title": "Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent", "pid": "136c9048-2019-04-18T18:17:33Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.55352783203125}, {"text": "I would like to direct voters to the comments wherein I asked my opponent to clarify some of the round. She reiterated that R1 is her main argument, and so I'm going to take a more niche position. That is, we can maintain access without subsidizing those who choose to receive them. It's not clear to what extent 'preventive health care' is inclusive or exclusive of healthcare vs. sexual health. But I will start with the observation that the oft-repeated trope that the 'ounce of prevention is a pound of cure', etc. , is frequently without justification. We can delve into this claim, but as a rudimentary warrant, we should recall the scuffle over the frequency of mammogram testing 2-3 years ago. While we can draw a number of valid conclusions here, most important is that prevention is never an unlimited good--prevention has costs which can outweigh the benefit. Moving on to what appears to be my opponent's main focus, we should differentiate between the ability to purchase condoms and 'constant access to condoms'. For example, it's cheap enough to purchase condoms that we probably don't need bowls heaped with Trojan ultra-thins at the door to each high school classroom. Access without the subsidy. That same would apply to female contraceptives. While there's a reasonable argument that some could be sold over the counter, this in no way suggests that we need a blanket no-cost birth control guarantee of the sort imposed by the Obama administration earlier this year. We can, and potentially should explore this specific issue further, but my essential claim dovetails with the mammogram example--such a policy could only encourage migration to the most expensive forms of birth control for very marginal benefit. This has a second impact related to the host of potential consequences to sex--i. e. both pregnancy and STD. Clearly we have an interest in preventing both, but the focus on this policy only looks to the former and could potentially exacerbate the latter. Since my opponent apparently agrees sexual behavior carries with it implicit risks, I'd ask why a responsible policy would pretend these risk don't exist--i. e. access vs. subsidization. Paying for condoms vs. getting them for free.", "title": "Preventive Health Care", "pid": "775cd6a9-2019-04-18T18:14:26Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.55221557617188}, {"text": "Hello, and welcome, good luck. First I would like to make note of the fact that God's opinion on birth control is completely assumed, and unless you can prove what he thinks that argument is useless. I also think that you need to look at the broad spectrum of birth control, not just pills and abortion, but other options, mainly condoms. Abstinence-only programs don't work, they never have and never will, so assuming that teens will stop having sex is foolish, it has been tried, and failed, and although I agree that underage sex is bad, it is a fact of life, and either you can allow condoms and stop some of the repercussions of teen sex, or not allow any birth control and give teenagers no option but to deal with the STDs and babies. Due to lack of a case from the CON I have no further arguments.", "title": "SHOULD teenage girls be able to participate in any form of birth control without parents' permission", "pid": "6b229b30-2019-04-18T19:44:54Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.53578186035156}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "Resolved: Information on birth control should be included in sex education classes.", "pid": "a1cc594d-2019-04-18T18:12:22Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.5173797607422}, {"text": "Teens should feel free to do as try please. It's their life and body. He/she should be responsible for themself. The morning after pill would not decrease of increase their chance because they would still be having sex. Banning the pill for people who are younger than 17 can be beneficial but scarcely.", "title": "Banning the Morning After Pill", "pid": "fd36e585-2019-04-18T16:35:51Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.51483154296875}, {"text": "I accept. I'm basically going to defend the position that it extremely irresponsible and dangerous to allow teenagers to play around with something as important as birth control behind their parents backs.", "title": "Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent", "pid": "136c9048-2019-04-18T18:17:33Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.50173950195312}, {"text": "Accoring to this article by Ezine \" use of morning after pill raises the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. In such a pregnancy, the embryo gets lodged in the fallopian tubes rather than in the womb\" whenever an argument comes up about the morning after pill it alway about the positive aspects . What about the long term and short term side effects that comes along with it. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com...", "title": "young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill.", "pid": "10c1d5c6-2019-04-18T16:38:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.50050354003906}, {"text": "You make very good points, but I never said that birth control prevents STD's. Also it is logical that if not used correctly it would be harmful. Also I never said that ALL teen girls would actually go and get it, but the one's that are willing to go get it. Your father might buy guns, but that doesn't give him the right to murder. A teen that has strict parents, (possibly Catholic parents), cant just go and say I need birth control because it in most cases, just does not work. The doctor would explain how to use it, and it would but up to the free willed teen to use it correctly. When birth control is not used correctly by ANY ONE it can be harmful not just teens. Also not just teens sell and use drugs, not just teens use or don't condoms, and just because the legal drinking age is 21 doesn't mean that teens don't drink. Note: This applies for teen girls ages 15-17 that really what to be protected from pregnancy.", "title": "Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent.", "pid": "6b19ea3e-2019-04-18T18:37:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.486572265625}, {"text": "I understand what the debate is about, what I am showing though is that if birth control were to be available to all teenagers then STD cases would go up. Teenagers would be having sex and pregnancy rates may go down but because STD rates would go up is the reason why I am against allowing all teens unrestricted access to birth control. My final arguments against unrestricted birth control: 1) A subsequent rise in STD rates 2) Teens may not even use them 3) Even if they do they may not use them correctly 4) Pregnancies may fall but STD rates would climb so there would be no net health benefit (I see what you meant by the guns argument, so no harm done)", "title": "Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent.", "pid": "6b19ea3e-2019-04-18T18:37:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.44956970214844}, {"text": "I would agree with you, but you need to understand that not every young couple is going to have under-aged sex. Also, it's one's decision to have sex. If someone gets pregnant, its their fault and they should worry about it, themselves. The schools shouldn't have to be the ones to take care of that situation. It also gives the impressing that the schools think so little of you. \"Welcome to our school! Now take these birth control pills, because we think the worst for you.\" Wait a second, I just thought of something. What about those who don't know what sex is? No, really, what about those who weren't taught what sex is. I don't know if every school has a sex ed class, but you have to factor in the fact not every kid is going to know about sex. Also, you would think the parents would be in the biggest rampage because of that.", "title": "Schools give out free birth control pills", "pid": "8e214b94-2019-04-18T12:19:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.43270874023438}, {"text": "Providing access to birth control empowers women with more control over their bodies. Historically ...", "title": "Condoms in Schools", "pid": "e897bde-2019-04-19T12:47:15Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.41937255859375}, {"text": "Pro: There is nothing wrong with having sex or using birth control. Stop trying to force your beliefs on other people.Con: there is if you are wasting fellow insurance invester's money on your horny habits and leaving less over for them to spend on their cancer treatment.Pro: Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If it is not your body, it is not your choice.Con: So they have the right to choose to not have sex and should choose to do that if they want to avoid the thigns that you stated women would be avoiding in earlier rounds of this debate.Pro: Women still have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. People own the bodies and have the right to prevent pregnancy.Con: Yes and if they choose unwisely, fellow people spending their hard earned cash on a health insurance plan shold not be forced to have that money wasted on a ton of pills or condoms because a woman is too horny to care about their heart transplant.Pro: Employers have no right to their employee's bodies.Con: What does this have to do with anything?", "title": "Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why.", "pid": "a4a6c3d4-2019-04-18T15:38:59Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.3995361328125}, {"text": "~Definitions~ birth control: the practice of preventing unwanted pregnancies Source: google definitions immoral: not morally good or right, unethical Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... There are many different types/forms/methods of birth control, however in this debate we will be focusing mainly on the morning after pill, condoms, and/or daily pills, as these are the most common and well known methods. For the sake of this debate, abstinence will not be considered a \"birth control\". Rules for Instigator (me) Round One: Rules and Introduction Round Two: Arguments Round Three: Rebuttals Rules for Contender (opponent) Round One: Argument Round Two: Rebuttals Round Three: write \"no argument as agreed upon\" Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7 point deduction. Good luck.", "title": "Birth Control is Immoral", "pid": "606a81ac-2019-04-18T16:27:00Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.38824462890625}, {"text": "ConR1: No one has to have sex until they want to conceive.Pro: No one has to be a parent until they are ready to go through pregnancy, childbirth, recovery from childbirth, and parenting.ConR2: Then don't have sex of penis entering vagina.ConR1: If they are too poor to afford contraception, the health plan has no obligation to prevent whatever consequences may come of their voluntary, unnecessary sexual intercourse.Pro: Poor women have the same right to choose as rich women.ConR2: If this was the case then why would anyone bother to get rich? I mean if we magnified your regime to every single way in which a rich woman as more choices available than a poor one, we'd end up at an almost infinite number of variables that would mean either we have severe Communism taking reign or we try to make peace with competition and the nature of losing it.Pro: Contraceptive coverage actually helps any woman, but especially poor women.Con: That proves nothing... Pro: If you cannot trust women to use the right contraception, what makes you think you can trust them with a child?Con: What has this even got to do with the resolution?Pro: Without contraception, there would be more abortions and no matter what you believe about abortion, you have to agree that reducing abortion is a positive.Con: Okay but why is it health plan providers who have to pick the short straw here? Why not support government subsidized contraception like there is in many European nations for the pill?", "title": "Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why.", "pid": "a4a6c3d4-2019-04-18T15:38:59Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.38816833496094}, {"text": "Women may not have a choice, even if contraception allows them the option of reproductive control. In many developing nations, there can be a cultural preference for sons over daughters, religious pressure to have as many children as possible, and a traditional male dominance in sexual relationships and family planning decisions. Birth control may not even be socially acceptable. Even if contraception allowed a woman the potential for biological control over childbearing, these factors can prevent her from exercising this new-found choice. It is also unclear if women’s rights are advanced by contraception. In reality, contraception typically forms part of a wider population control policy by national government. Such policies (e.g. China’s one-child policy), when considered as a whole, often violate the women’s rights that advocates of contraception claim to value so highly.", "title": "Contraception empowers women by giving them reproductive control. By deferring pregnancy, this helps...", "pid": "d0b50e27-2019-04-19T12:46:41Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 212.37680053710938}, {"text": "I agree with your point that in some cases, a young woman not being able to obtain birth control would prevent her from being sexually active, and therefore might prevent a mistake from happening. But isn't the point of birth control to prevent a mistake from happening either way? The common age for a girl to become sexually active is 15... and though a parent should know what is going on with their child, most likely, they will not and never will know what is going on with their 15 year old daughter. Furthermore, each year in United States, 800,000 to 900,000 adolescents 19 years of age or younger become pregnant, with a high percentage of that number being unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. If a young woman could prevent an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy that may or may not end in abortion, why shouldn't she be able to?", "title": "Birth Control", "pid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.35885620117188}, {"text": "I sure hope this isn't really for school because if it is I have a feeling you won't get a good grade for forfeiting the rounds, I stand firm on my arguments.", "title": "SHOULD teenage girls be able to participate in any form of birth control without parents' permission", "pid": "6b229b30-2019-04-18T19:44:54Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.3549041748047}, {"text": "I believe that any female who is using illegal drugs/narcotics should be forced by the law too take contraception in order too prevent them giving birth too drug addicted babies. I believe any woman who is taking drugs such as heroin, cocaine etc should not be allowed too get pregnant. Too many babies are born too scumbag women who are in no fit state too care for themselves yet alone a baby. I think any woman who gives birth too a drug addicted baby should be charged with child abuse.", "title": "Female Drug users should be made by law too take contraception.", "pid": "923e4a2c-2019-04-18T19:39:00Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.35467529296875}, {"text": "The mental image of condoms stacked in a bowl like Halloween candy is quite humorous, but truly a ridiculous misinterpretation. I'm not saying to stuff the pockets of teens with rubbers. I'm pointing out that making contraceptives unavailable does not prevent sexual intercourse, it merely increases the levels of pregnancy and STD's in teens. As a sort of case study, I present the words of an anonymous teenage mother, (they have been edited for profanity) \" When I was 14 I got (sexually active), but I didn't know how dangerous ( sexual intercourse) was. I didn't take some health class or even know what a condom was. My (partner) didn't have condoms cuz the lady at the gas station told him to go get his parents. I wasn't gonna ask my mom to take me to a (gynecologist) so I just hoped my friends were right when they said you cant get preggers the first time... If I knew what I know I would be a college junior and not a baby-mama.\" If these two had access to birth control methods without social interference, they might have been much more successful. These facts are presented by Pregnant Teenage Help at http://www.pregnantteenhelp.org... \"A condom is most common, since access to the pill is limited. 70 percent of teens whose parents are unaware of their sexual activity would not use contraceptives if their parents were made aware of their visits to family planning centers and clinics. 21 states (plus the District of Columbia) allow contraceptive services without parental involvement. The other states - with the exception of Utah and Texas, where parental consent is necessary - have notification policies, but consent is not required. 20 percent of teens whose parents are unaware of their contraceptive use say that they would continue having sex - even if methods of contraception were not available to them. Of all the developed nations, the U.S. Has the highest rate of teen pregnancy. The U.S. Has a teen pregnancy rate that is twice that of England and Canada and eight times that as Japan and the Netherlands. 82 percent of pregnancies amongst teens are unplanned. About 20 percent of all intended pregnancies each year are related to teenagers. 29 percent of teen pregnancies end in abortion.\" All elementary schools should be caused by the Board of Education and federal regulations to teach children about their own bodies and how to protect them. No adult consent/notification systems need to be placed in order for minors to obtain preventive health care. Mothers are told when girls obtain IUD's and hormones treatments, but this does little but discourage getting them. It does not discourage sex. It discourages safety. These statistics show more information to back my position.", "title": "Preventive Health Care", "pid": "775cd6a9-2019-04-18T18:14:26Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.3526153564453}, {"text": "The debate is about, Teens should be able to get birth control without their parents consent. Not STDS! I know that STD's are spreading throughout the nation, but you did not include how many babies are born with STD's. everydayheath.com I never meant that your dad is a murderer, I was trying to imply that guns are accessible it is up to the person to use them correctly. Just like with birth control, it is up to the person use it to use it correctly. Sorry if I offended you.", "title": "Teens should be able to get birth control without thier parents consent.", "pid": "6b19ea3e-2019-04-18T18:37:17Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.33712768554688}, {"text": "Contraception is a right. If a woman wants to prevent a pregnancy, she has that right. Women own their bodies.", "title": "Contraception is a right.", "pid": "f3fff4a7-2019-04-18T15:33:41Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.32728576660156}, {"text": "you are right the morning after pill does come with side effects just like every other drug on the market. . The water we take our medication with contaminated with fluoride that can damage the brain and bones of the consumer. It is banned in over ten countries including china, Japan and all of Europe but yet is nearly found in all aspects of American consumption. I am not saying the morning after pill makes it ok to have unprotected sex regardless of what age you are. We know teenagers are not the only ones using this product although they are the majority, we are just giving does how are unprepared for a child or not ready to have one the option of not doing so.", "title": "Banning of the \"morning After Pill\"", "pid": "4c2eee41-2019-04-18T15:38:30Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.32595825195312}, {"text": "I am strongly against the idea that a pharmacy is legally allowed to sell contraception like condoms and spermicide to people under the state's legal age of consent. All that this does is encourage our nation's teenagers is to have sex knowing that they have contraception to help. But what most teens don't realize is that a condom, spermicide, or both don't work 100% of the time against pregnancies and STI's/STD's. In fact, per every 100 condoms, 2 are reported to be broken. Not to mention the 1-5% that slip off or the 3-13% that slip down the penis during intercourse (stats from http://hamovhotov.com...). But it's not just that condoms fail, but it's the shockingly high number of teenage pregnancies. In America in 2010, 367,752 infants were born to girls between the ages of 15-19. Granted those numbers did fall from 2009 when the numbers were about 9% higher, but that number is still too high if you ask me (stats from http://ww.cdc.gov...). And you do have to imagine that there are more pregnancies if you consider that there are some girls under the age of 15 who engage in sexual activity. Then you have to consider the cost of raising a child from day 1-year 18. In health class (I'm only 13) I discovered that raising a child from day 1 to year 18 for just the bare essentials (food, shelter, child care, etc.) averages around $250,000! How many teenagers do you think have the financial support to afford that? That is too big an investment for a person who's independent life hasn't even truly begun. My last point is the transmission of STD's and STI's. Every year in America, 3 million teenagers contract an STD. One of the most common STD's is chlamydia, which affects up to 40% of girls between the ages of 15 and 19. And chlamydia can cause sterility in both males and females. Another common STD that strikes among teens is HPV (Human Papilloma Virus), which affects 15% of sexually active teenage girls, and the most common strain can lead to cervical cancer. And some teenagers are going to have to live with the fact that some dumb choices they made will affect their lives forever (stats http://www.bhg.com...). Now, my rambling may seem senseless at first, and would be a good sermon to tell teens why not to have sex, but there's a method to my madness. And my method is, when a teen puts on a condom or injects spermicide or uses another method of contraceptive, they tend to get cocky. They tend to feel that they're 100% in the clear if they use contraceptives. But what they don't realize is that nothing will work 100% of the time. But the thing is, who supplies the 15 year old, the 14 year old, or even the 13 year old with the condom package with that one broken condom? And what happens if that teen puts on the broken condom? But that could be avoided if the teen never got the condom, never felt on top of the world, and never had sex.", "title": "Pharmacies shouldn't be allowed to sell contraceptives to teens under the state's age of consent", "pid": "2059e76d-2019-04-18T18:24:15Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.32550048828125}, {"text": "I apologize for not noticing that bit about the punishment. However, there still remains no source for that. I would appreciate one. Also when speaking of God's mercy, forget you not our old pal, Uzzah. As the Biblia Sacra Vulgata (I apologize for using the outdated version last round, this round I use the official version from the Vatican's website) says (2 Samuel 6:6-7)\"(6) Postquam autem venerunt ad aream Nachon, extendit manum Oza ad arcam Dei et tenuit eam, quoniam boves lascivientes proruperunt.(7) Iratusque est indignatione Dominus contra Ozam et percussit eum super temeritate; qui mortuus est ibi iuxta arcam Dei.\" [1]God killed Uzzah, who was only trying to help out. Why not kill Onan for polluting? Also, some random folks on Wikipedia agree with my random assertion that he was killed for disobedience, so we cannot rule that out so quickly. [2]As far as I know, contraceptive side effects are fairly uncommon. Perhaps some statistics would bolster Con's argument. Regardless, most every drug has a side effect. Surely Con does not propose that we discontinue pharmaceuticals? Additionally, while Con's argument is unsourced, I leap to the conclusion that most people who use NFP do so for a religious reason, which would also keep them from divorce. It is likely a coincidence based on the groups of people likely to use NFP and the groups of people unlikely to divorce overlapping. Also, as I will go into later, NFP can fail. A lot.Contraceptives do not have high failure rates. Additionally, they are greatly superior to NFP. Some things are pretty easy to screw up, but there aren't that many ways you can mess up taking a pill. Not so with NFP. NFP, even used perfectly, has a 1-9% failure rate (not to mention when used imperfectly) as opposed to the 0.3% failure for perfect use of birth control pills. Even imperfect use is only 8%. There are even options like the etonogestral implant that have a very low 0.05% failure rate. Even properly used condoms have a low failure rate of 2%. Even perfectly used withdrawal can be more effective (4%). [3]Even though condoms do not protect 100%, they are still far superior to the 0% protection offered by no contraceptives whatsoever. My source claims they are \"very effective\" in preventing HIV/AIDS. It goes on to say that they reduce the risk of any STD, including HPV. [4]Contraceptives best allow for planning, and they can prevent STDs. Additionally, there is no compelling reason for not using them. The resolution is affirmed.Sources:1. Biblia Sacra Vulgata2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://www.cks.nhs.uk...4. http://www.cdc.gov...", "title": "Birth control", "pid": "c64898ed-2019-04-18T18:17:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.317626953125}, {"text": "Hi! INTRO/EXPLANATION: Because of the sometimes astronomical cost of health care, the Affordable Care Act includes a new provision that makes many preventive services available patients. These services will not require co-pays or deductibles, and will apply to both self-inusured and fully insured plans. Among these preventative services are FDA-approved contraceptives for men and women, with some restrictions. This provision was included as a way to drive down costs, to reduce pressure on overburdened systems, and to remove cost barriers - ensuring that more women maintain access to preventative health care. [1] Only half of Americans have historically sought health care as a normal preventative measure, and this has driven up medical costs in the US exponentially. [1] Additionally, women's health care needs in particular can be difficult to meet, especially in relation to reproductive health, where the health of an infant may be necessarily included. [2] Hopefully, this debate will help to explain some of the reasons for including preventative health care and reproductive health care in particular, as part of any new health care reform laws. I look forward to an interesting exchange! --------------- For the record, this is a link to a DDO Opinions section that covers this subject: http://www.debate.org... [1] http://www.hhs.gov... [2] http://www.hrsa.gov...", "title": "Contraceptives should be classified as preventative health care for insurance coverage", "pid": "7d6799b0-2019-04-18T17:09:31Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 212.31588745117188}, {"text": "Im sorry for the forfeit. Teenagers are going to have sex. They are NOT going to tell their parents, and while people say they should, they wont. So you're going to let them have a child instead of giving them birth control? Sure its expensive, but so is diapers, food, and everything else a brand new human being is going to need. The common age for teenager girls to have sex is 15.. you really think all these 15 year olds want to tell their parents? No. Let them have protection.", "title": "Teenagers should be able to get birth control without their parents consent", "pid": "136c9048-2019-04-18T18:17:33Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.30125427246094}, {"text": "Con: \"there is if you are wasting fellow insurance invester's money on your horny habits and leaving less over for them to spend on their cancer treatment.\" I say: People have the right to choose what to do with their bodies. If a women wants to prevent a pregnancy, she has that right. You say: \"Con: So they have the right to choose to not have sex and should choose to do that if they want to avoid the thigns that you stated women would be avoiding in earlier rounds of this debate.\" Who are you to force your beliefs on others? If people want to have consensual sex or use birth control, they have that right. You say: Con: \"Yes and if they choose unwisely, fellow people spending their hard earned cash on a health insurance plan shold not be forced to have that money wasted on a ton of pills or condoms because a woman is too horny to care about their heart transplant.\" I say: I never said that condoms should be covered by insurance, but I think the more effective methods should be covered. You said: \"Con: What does this have to do with anything?\" I say: The issue of consent is key in this issue. If women do not want to be pregnant, they should be able to prevent pregnancy.", "title": "Health plans should cover contraception, and here is why.", "pid": "a4a6c3d4-2019-04-18T15:38:59Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.2902374267578}, {"text": "So, You change your argument from \"menstrual products should be free\" to \"menstrual products shouldn't be taxed\". Let's get to that, But first some of your arguments. You say that condoms are free. I personally don't think condoms should be free, As they are extraordinarily cheap and accessible. But colleges don't want students to get pregnant, So I see the reasoning. Saying that people won't have to pay a lot for free menstrual products is ridicolous too. Does that mean you can tax them because you don't want to pay for your own hygiene products? Of course not. Why should men and women in menopause pay for something they will never use? The argument that menstrual products are very important doesn't mean they should be free or shouldn't be taxed. Dental products are important, Toilet paper is important, Soap is important, Shampoo is important, Clothes are important, Food is important. . . Something being important for humans to live doesn't mean it should be free or not taxed. Please find a better argument than \"women need menstrual products\". I need to floss my teeth everyday, But do I advocate for floss being free or not taxed? Menstrual products are very cheap. You can go and buy 30 tampons for $7 at Walmart. That's cheaper than condoms, Which you are so against being free. Don't tell me that an average American woman can't go to a store and buy cheap menstrual products. That's crap.", "title": "Menstrual products should be free", "pid": "4f3508bf-2019-04-18T11:08:26Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.28744506835938}, {"text": "Final push...thank god.", "title": "The US government should make long term birth control affordable for low income women", "pid": "6bf018ce-2019-04-18T15:42:47Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.26727294921875}, {"text": "UK-specific argument: Even though abortion is legal, emergency contraception is not covered by the t...", "title": "Emergency Contraception", "pid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.26512145996094}, {"text": "I sure hope this isn't really for school because if it is I have a feeling you won't get a good grade for forfeiting the second round, I stand firm on my arguments.", "title": "SHOULD teenage girls be able to participate in any form of birth control without parents' permission", "pid": "6b229b30-2019-04-18T19:44:54Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.26278686523438}, {"text": "And it's all over!", "title": "Resolved: Information on birth control ought be included in sex education classes", "pid": "a301550f-2019-04-18T18:20:41Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.26165771484375}, {"text": "To answer your question, while I do agree with you that a freshman or sophomore in high school may be influenced by many other factors in her life, she might not be emotionally ready or mature enough to make the decision about obtaining birth control by herself. However, if this young girl believed she was emotionally stable enough to become sexually active (even if she is not) she should have the right to obtain birth control in case her parents do not consent. Again, if this young girl was to continue being sexually active even without her parents consent to get birth control, why should she be able to get pregnant which would complicate her life even further? If she could pay for the birth control pills, and was responsible enough to take them everyday, I don't understand why she should not be able to prevent a mistake from happening.", "title": "Birth Control", "pid": "3d1a752c-2019-04-18T17:01:05Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.2440948486328}, {"text": "Extend", "title": "Resolved: Information on birth control should be included in sex education classes.", "pid": "a1cc594d-2019-04-18T18:12:22Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.2303466796875}, {"text": "This has been open and unaccepted for a few days, so I thought I might as well give it a go. I accept my opponent's challenge and eagerly await their argument.", "title": "Resolved: Information on birth control ought be included in sex education classes", "pid": "a301550f-2019-04-18T18:20:41Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.22999572753906}]}
{"idx": 12, "qid": "13", "q_text": "Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?", "qrels": {"f4c49f83-2019-04-18T19:00:07Z-00002-000": 2, "f074f877-2019-04-18T12:16:57Z-00007-000": 2, "f074f81a-2019-04-18T12:45:51Z-00006-000": 1, "ea61b0fc-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00077-000": 0, "dee205c0-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00042-000": 0, "e7056476-2019-04-19T12:47:46Z-00008-000": 0, "d6155d38-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00050-000": 0, "d3d77219-2019-04-18T16:07:25Z-00004-000": 2, "cb3a59ce-2019-04-18T13:56:11Z-00003-000": 0, "b2fea2fb-2019-04-18T12:22:27Z-00004-000": 2, "ae50ee6c-2019-04-18T14:36:33Z-00004-000": 2, "e9f159b3-2019-04-18T14:40:43Z-00002-000": 0, "bb33e2b7-2019-04-18T18:22:23Z-00001-000": 0, "6e782a7f-2019-04-18T13:11:24Z-00003-000": 2, "7785529c-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00052-000": 0, "688558a7-2019-04-18T13:20:50Z-00002-000": 0, "6abdbffe-2019-04-18T15:37:17Z-00004-000": 0, "71db0e9a-2019-04-18T15:36:41Z-00003-000": 2, "7729e8b4-2019-04-19T12:45:07Z-00028-000": 2, "7785529c-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00017-000": 0, "7785529c-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00043-000": 0, "7983ff18-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00021-000": 0, "8706d0e3-2019-04-18T19:44:13Z-00003-000": 1, "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00026-000": 0, "8df51034-2019-04-18T14:36:19Z-00005-000": 2, "8fdcc598-2019-04-18T19:16:21Z-00002-000": 2, "8fdcc598-2019-04-18T19:16:21Z-00005-000": 0, "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00073-000": 0, "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00074-000": 0, "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00015-000": 0, "688558a7-2019-04-18T13:20:50Z-00000-000": 0, "688558a7-2019-04-18T13:20:50Z-00005-000": 0, "688558a7-2019-04-18T13:20:50Z-00003-000": 0, "669a08bf-2019-04-18T19:03:49Z-00004-000": 0, "148bb110-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00014-000": 0, "148bb110-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00061-000": 0, "1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00003-000": 2, "669a08bf-2019-04-18T19:03:49Z-00005-000": 0, "2e721803-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00046-000": 0, "2e721803-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00015-000": 0, "33a444c-2019-04-18T15:58:58Z-00002-000": 2, "2b6bd5cb-2019-04-18T11:43:36Z-00000-000": 0, "3d507ec5-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00004-000": 2, "3d507ec5-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00003-000": 2, "4911d42e-2019-04-18T12:51:15Z-00000-000": 1, "534c28d7-2019-04-18T15:18:27Z-00000-000": 0, "3af9364a-2019-04-18T18:59:56Z-00003-000": 2}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "I believe that alternative energy will eventually replace fossils fuel as the most efficient source of energy in the world. first round state claim, second round evidence, third round rebuttal. good luck have fun.", "title": "Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels.", "pid": "1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.67677307128906}, {"text": "Fossil Fuels are a limited resource meaning that they will eventually run out. Because of this, there must be a replacement source of energy. The definition of Alternate is to take place of. This means any thing that provide energy for a source. Given this fact this means that when Fossil Fuels run out there has to be an ALTERNATE source. We are already working with many alternate resources such as Solar energy, Wind power, and others. Therefore when Fossil Fuels run out there will ALWAYS be an alternate for it.", "title": "Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels.", "pid": "1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.8056640625}, {"text": "I affirm that alternative energy is the future of the world we live in. Alternative energy should replace fossil fuel use because it is saving our precious planet and cost less money in the long run. Some argue that the technology isn't advanced but I know the tech is there because we are seeing smart companies move towards renewable supplies.", "title": "Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels", "pid": "6e782a7f-2019-04-18T13:11:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.7154998779297}, {"text": "Extend round 1.", "title": "Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels", "pid": "6e782a7f-2019-04-18T13:11:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.98825073242188}, {"text": "Hi everybody, I'm Adil Muhammad, Qatar and I'm glad debating this topic. Pro didn't tell us the roles, so I don't know whether the first round is just acceptance. That's why, I'm going to start rebuttal from the first round 1. Pro didn't tell us what is (or what is meant by, in this debate) 'Alternative energy'. 2. Pro said that it costs less money, do fossil fuels cost more or nuclear energy??? 3.Pro has the debate's topic: 'Can' and then starts debating 'Should' Character capacity very short.", "title": "Can alternative energy replace fossil fuels", "pid": "6e782a7f-2019-04-18T13:11:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.6416015625}, {"text": "If what you are saying is electric cars are too expensive to be worth the environmental problems that it tackles, I can only say that Electric cars are not the only alternative source of energy. In fact Electric cars have little to nothing to do with alternative energy sources. If what you are trying to say is Electric energy is not a plausible alternate source of energy i can rebuttal that Electric Energy is only one of the major alternative energy sources at our disposal. Your argument is invalid because it has nothing to do with the debate. Also, please cite your sources before you copy paste.", "title": "Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels.", "pid": "1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.4542236328125}, {"text": "This was my project for science and besides your arguments are weak. Source: BBC article: How environmentally friendly are electric cars? My arguments are not invalid because if you analyse any graphic of the amount of pollution that electric cars produce in countries(almost every were) that produce electricity based on burning coal you will see that the electric cars are more pollutants but they are way more expensive to keep so boarding the matter from that way electric cars are not an option, besides there are still deposits of oil to find.", "title": "Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels.", "pid": "1baa36a6-2019-04-18T16:31:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.12484741210938}, {"text": "Abundant solar energy can replace fossil fuels and slash emissions", "title": "Solar energy", "pid": "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00073-000", "bm25_score": 215.97166442871094}, {"text": "Global warming is driven by the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Solar energy emits none of these gases, and is abundant, so can dramatically slash greenhouse gas emissions and help reverse global warming.", "title": "Abundant solar energy can replace fossil fuels and slash emissions", "pid": "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00074-000", "bm25_score": 215.71737670898438}, {"text": "Wind is a renewable resource that relies on the energy of the wind to generate electricity, burning no fuel and contributing no greenhouse gases to the global warming problem. Because wind energy can produce a significant quantity of electricity, in the United States, up to 20% of US electricity demand, it can be a significant renewable replacement of dirty coal. This will make a major contribution to the fight against global warming.", "title": "Wind energy is a renewable resource than can replace coal.", "pid": "f9ecc418-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00041-000", "bm25_score": 215.4501953125}, {"text": "Nuclear is only clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels", "title": "Nuclear energy", "pid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00077-000", "bm25_score": 215.33958435058594}, {"text": "I think that fossil fuels are better than clean energy. 1.It cost to much many to get solar panels to get sunlight. Using fossils fuels you don't have to spend much money and you don't have to buy it one by one. 2.Renewable energy takes up all the energy below the earth. Using renewable energy you have to find energy beneath the earth which takes up our energy source. 3.Renewable energy is harder to link to make it work. For renewable energy, you have to go underground and get energy, then connect it to where it's suppose to be.", "title": "Clean/Renewable Energy is the ideal source of energy (Over fossil fuels)", "pid": "4911d42e-2019-04-18T12:51:15Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.95919799804688}, {"text": "Abundant wind energy can displace fossil fuels and slash emissions", "title": "Wind energy", "pid": "7785529c-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00053-000", "bm25_score": 214.87237548828125}, {"text": "Natural gas can replace fossil fuels that emit more greenhouse gases", "title": "Natural gas", "pid": "dee205c0-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00042-000", "bm25_score": 214.79989624023438}, {"text": "Wind energy is the best available energy because it will never run out. All other energy's will either run out or are way to expensive to start up and keep running. Some other energy's are bad for the environment and will make the world a worse place than it is and will be with using fossil fuels. Also, some people are too busy with work and handling kids that they don't have time to try to make a difference in the world and change what energy sources we are using most frequently.", "title": "Wind energy is the best available energy for now and in the future.", "pid": "3d677ded-2019-04-18T19:42:10Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.76170349121094}, {"text": "There is little doubt that the current mix of energy provision is simply unsustainable. Fossil fuels are simply too damaging to the environment and nuclear is just too expensive. Wind power is an established technology providing, for example, 21% of electricity in Denmark.[i] The research is already done and can be made available around the world. Once externalities are taken into account nuclear energy is the single most expensive way of producing a therm. Clean coal is, frankly, a myth and the trend for oil and gas is constantly upwards in term of price. Other renewables are embryonic technologies fraught with development costs whereas wind is an established technology already providing a significant share of the energy mix in several developed economies. [i] World Wind Energy Association, World Wind Energy Report 2010, April 2010, p.5", "title": "Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power", "pid": "7ae7b591-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 214.74569702148438}, {"text": "\"Natural Gas -- A Fossil Fuel\". Energy Information Administration. - \"Natural gas burns more cleanly than other fossil fuels. It has fewer emissions of sulfur, carbon, and nitrogen than coal or oil, and when it is burned, it leaves almost no ash particles. Being a clean fuel is one reason that the use of natural gas, especially for electricity generation, has grown so much and is expected to grow even more in the future.\"", "title": "Natural gas can replace fossil fuels that emit more greenhouse gases", "pid": "dee205c0-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00043-000", "bm25_score": 214.7308349609375}, {"text": "Sorry for the delay. I often do that.Argument:We will never run out of renewable resources, as they're always present, at least most of the time. I do concede that wind and solar energy aren't around 90% of the time. However, these aren't the only renewable resources. We have more reliable resources, such as water and geothermal energy. Hydroelectric Energy:By using hydroelectric dams, we can use the machanical energy of water to obtain power. The resovoirs made by these dams helps the environment by creating habitats for animals and plants. http://nationalgeographic.org...Geothermal Energy:Geothermal energy is heat energy from the Earth. This can be turned into electricity. The heat pumps associated with Geothermal energy is used to cool houses. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...We can also burn wood into charcoal, which is a renewable version of mined coal. We can rely on renewable resources to be around much longer than coal and oil, making them viable for the far future.", "title": "Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels", "pid": "31698916-2019-04-18T12:33:52Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.6698760986328}, {"text": "Renewable energy is not yet an adequate alternative to oil. While the transition is made to renewable energy in the long-run, other offshore oil and gas alternatives should be found in the short-to-medium run.", "title": "Offshore oil addresses energy shortages better than most renewables", "pid": "ffc14fd7-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00057-000", "bm25_score": 214.6222686767578}, {"text": "\"The future is green, the future is nuclear.\" Times Online. October 4, 2009: \"Professor David MacKay, the government’s chief scientific adviser on climate change, has said what many people have long believed. You cannot meet Britain’s future energy needs and reduced carbon emissions without a big expansion of nuclear power. [...] As we report today, he believes we should aim to be producing four times the amount of electricity from nuclear as now. Alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and wavepower will never provide more than a fraction of the country’s energy needs. Relying on gas, coal and oil, with an increasing proportion imported, does not square with Britain’s international climate commitments.\"", "title": "Nuclear is only clean energy source that can replace fossil fuels", "pid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00097-000", "bm25_score": 214.6112060546875}, {"text": "Your point is a valid one my friend. Unfortunately your idealism gets in the way of practicality. America, as it is, is currently going through an energy crisis. Our dependence on foreign oil has negatively affected both our foreign policy and our economy. We must break free of the vice that the middle east has put us in! To do so, we must find our energy hear, in America. There are several plausible and practical solutions. They range from drilling in ANWR to providing more subsidies for alternative fuels. Within that spectrum there are many other options. Coal is a good one. Clean coal technology is making coal much more environmentally friendly. Yes, I know it is a fossil fuel, but until alternative energy becomes more effective, it is a legitimate way to break free of oil in the short term. And the most effective way to get coal is mountain top removal. If we limit the number of mountains it can be done on, this will not ruin the beauty of the region. I agree, it is a sacrifice, but things like this occasionally have to be done if only to provide people with energy.", "title": "moutain top removal", "pid": "d7bf3b30-2019-04-18T20:00:36Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.6039276123047}, {"text": "Here I will argue for the presumption that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. I define the United States to mean the public as a whole and not just the government. Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels that can be made and used as fuels; renewable energy source. Fossil fuels can be defined as a non-renewable energy source that is formed by the decomposition of organic matter under a layer of sand and silt which produce the heat and pressure that change its chemical structure over a time period of millions of years. From these definitions, the primary inference is that the American people and government should use renewable energy sources more and non-renewable energy sources less. The presumption is that the United States uses fossil fuels more than alternative fuels such as fuels made from yellow grease, a used frying oil from deep fryers. The formation of fossil fuels was done within a process of millions of years as the plant and animal organic material was covered by layers of sand and silt and forced to decompose under such pressure and heat. Today we are using such natural resources faster than it can be reproduced. The real debate will start in round 2, once there is an understanding as to whether the opponent agrees or disagrees with the above definitions and presumption.", "title": "The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels.", "pid": "8fdcc598-2019-04-18T19:16:21Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.57911682128906}, {"text": "Hydrogen is the only answer as a long term fuel replacement to gasoline and JP4. Electric motors powered by a combination of stored energy, in batteries, and a fuel (hydrogen) can and will be able to replace in TOTAL the current and future consumption of Oil-based fuels like gasoline Ethanol and ALL plant based fuels will NOT work over the long term this is readily appparent the sooner that we start down the correct path, the sooner we have what we ALL 100% want - an energy economy completely run on carbon-less currency electrons and water, hydrogen and oxygen anyone want to argue with this ? feel free this is THE preeminent debate we need to have nationally", "title": "the proper versus current approach to \"alternative fuels\"", "pid": "cb08147e-2019-04-18T19:50:34Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.541259765625}, {"text": "yes I suppose I only had one argument. I do believe you had more convincing arguments. You have won, but just for the record I wasn't saying that nuclear energy is not one of the best alternatives to fossil fuels. I need to complete three arguments and this is one of the only ones that was open.", "title": "Nuclear Energy", "pid": "b4dd79cd-2019-04-18T17:27:57Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.5107879638672}, {"text": "Okay, first, I will start off by stating my arguments, and introduce my topic. I believe renewable energy is the ideal source of energy for the future for many reasons 1. Renewable energy will never run out As fossil fuels do run out, as they are non-renewable, renewable energy will not. They come in natural forms such as sun and wind which are things that will never run out. 2. Fossil fuels pollute earth and melt polar ice caps As shown in numerous studies, the use of fossil fuels has melted the polar caps greatly and have raised ocean levels several inches. 3. Easy to get As for fossil fuels, you have to go drilling deep down into earth, for renewable energy, it's as simple as getting sunlight.", "title": "Clean/Renewable Energy is the ideal source of energy (Over fossil fuels)", "pid": "4911d42e-2019-04-18T12:51:15Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.5030975341797}, {"text": "Of course there is an important role for greater energy efficiency. However, most alternatives to fossil fuels are simply not effective. They can also cause their own problems. Nuclear power creates unacceptable radioactive waste; hydro-electric power projects, such as the Three Gorges dam in China, leads to the flooding of vast areas and the destruction of the local environment; solar and wind power often require the covering of large areas of natural beauty with solar panels or turbines. Environmentalists often paint an idealistic view of renewable energy which is far from the less romantic reality.", "title": "Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout...", "pid": "ae945b47-2019-04-19T12:43:59Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.50128173828125}, {"text": "Ideally, renewables, the necessary fuel of the future, should be subsidized, and fossil fuels should not be. In this situation, the transition to renewables can be made much faster, thus more quickly eliminating the oil-dependencies that are currently used to justified oil subsidies.", "title": "Subsidizing clean energy and not oil will allow rapid transition.", "pid": "7983ff18-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00039-000", "bm25_score": 214.47207641601562}, {"text": "Natural gas is seen by many of its supporters as a cleaner alternative to gasoline and coal, but in the context of it acting as a segue fuel onto even cleaner alternatives. The supporters of the Broadwater LNG terminal in Long Island Sound make this case: \"Natural gas play a vital role in providing a bridge from traditional fossil fuels to a renewable energy future\".", "title": "Natural gas can smooth transition to renewable energy", "pid": "dee205c0-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00044-000", "bm25_score": 214.4437713623047}, {"text": "By 'best solution', I presume that you argue that it can provide the energy non-renewable sources currently provide, without the negative environmental effects or the fear of it running out. I support the use of renewable energy where possible, but believe that it is currently nonviable. Thus, I support the use of nuclear power and fossil fuels to provide our energy.", "title": "renewable energy is the best solution for energy worldwide.", "pid": "53b7edd-2019-04-18T15:25:15Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.41473388671875}, {"text": "As you said, yes propane is cheaper. However, it still gives off toxic fumes. Eventually, we will run out of propane gas, and then what? Go back to fossil fuels? Not exactly an option. If we change energy scourges, it will need to be a renewable resource such as wind, solar, or even hydroelectricity. May the best man win!", "title": "Pros and Cons of using Propane as a alternative fuel", "pid": "fc763f79-2019-04-18T11:38:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.38916015625}, {"text": "Another main reason why Renewable energy resources are more superior and efficient than fossil fuels and other non renewable resources is that there is no possible harm to our environment. While nuclear energy, oil, and gas usage releases profound amounts of carbon emissions, renewable energy resources releases very little to no carbon emissions. Renewable energy resources like solar power and wind power has been used more and more by large businesses and companies since it has costed them a lot less for electric and heat in comparison to oil and gas prices.", "title": "Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies.", "pid": "4c6aab06-2019-04-18T17:04:35Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.35516357421875}, {"text": "Natural gas will simply relieve demand pressures on coal and petroleum and, subsequently, decrease prices. This will only make it easier for people to buy and consume oil and coal. Natural gas will not, therefore, replace coal and petroleum. It will only add to the absolute amount of fossil fuels we are burning, and greenhouse gases we are emitting.", "title": "Natural gas will lower fossil fuel prices and increase consumption.", "pid": "dee205c0-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00047-000", "bm25_score": 214.2903289794922}, {"text": "\"Clean coal\" involves burning coal, but sequestering all or most of the subsequently emitted carbon. This makes nuclear energy, as a clean alternative to coal, unnecessary.", "title": "\"Clean coal\" makes nuclear energy an unnecessary \"replacement\".", "pid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00102-000", "bm25_score": 214.2855987548828}, {"text": "Okay, now i belive you took this out of actual reality. I understand your point and i do agree with you that totally converting to alternative fuels by 2010 is impossible. What i was saying is that we need to start making a jump towards these types of cars because our oil source is not very dependable and also its the MIDDLE EAST. I like how you are in agreement with the alternative energy and you have a 2009 camaro as your picture. No thats a joke. Well these fuels such as wind, solar, and ethynol can be used very soon. You have to realize we have E-85 available and we just are not making cars that can use it. If our big car companies would make more cars that could tolerate these fuels i would not have made this argument. But did you know that GM and Ford bought out the electric car because they knew it would sell but stopped selling it because they were losing money. Now is money more important than the environment. I think not. Just watch the movie \"Who killed the Electric Car\" and you will understand my point. Alternative Energy will help Americas future, and if this is what we need then why NOT DO IT?", "title": "Alternative Energy used by 2010", "pid": "e8b51f74-2019-04-18T20:01:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.27642822265625}, {"text": "Global warming is threatening our life, natural environment and modern civilization these days. Many countries and communities of the world are seriously tackling in developing new energy sources like solar, wind and atomic energies. However, I believe their efforts and endeavours are facing serious and difficult problems to promote for the introduction of new alternative energy sources replacing with fossile energies.", "title": "Difficulty in developing of alternative energy sources", "pid": "e91be287-2019-04-18T18:33:15Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.26181030273438}, {"text": "Natural gas is a significant contributor to electricity generation. Yet, because it is transportable, it could be better used in cars. Therefore, wind energy, by contributing to overall electricity generation, could help free up gas to be better applied to powering cars.", "title": "Wind power could free up natural gas to replace oil in cars.", "pid": "7785529c-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00055-000", "bm25_score": 214.23402404785156}, {"text": "There are many concerns surrounding nuclear energy, regarding the potential radiation hazards for nuclear-plant workers and locals as well as for the environment when radioactive nuclear waste is buried. There is pressure to continue to build nuclear plants because they can supply a significant amount of electricity and do so without producing greenhouse gases like coal. Yet, the above concerns remain. Tidal energy can act to replace nuclear-electricity generation, and so by-pass these concerns.", "title": "Tidal energy could replace unsafe/polluting nuclear energy.", "pid": "148bb110-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00097-000", "bm25_score": 214.2213592529297}, {"text": "I think that there should be an alternative to fossil fuel. Gasoline pollutes the planet and also its really expensive these days. Gasoline is a limited resource and therefore, we will have to swich to an alternative fuel sooner or later. Electricity is an unlimited resource and its also better for the enviroment than gasoline. Vegetable oil is also better for the enviroment than fossil fuel. If we used Vegetable oil for our vehicles then not only will the enviroment will be better but also, it would help farmers make more money and there would be more farmers which would help this country have more food production and less people starving.", "title": "An alternative to Gasoline", "pid": "de8ec542-2019-04-18T19:27:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.18951416015625}, {"text": "Very few people argue that corn ethanol is THE replacement for oil and the solution to global warming. Rather, they argue that it is merely a part of the equation, or that it is an element of a diversified portfolio in both reducing foreign dependencies on oil and solving the problem of global warming. To argue that corn ethanol can't fully replace oil is to miss this point.", "title": "Corn ethanol is merely a part of the equation in replacing oil.", "pid": "2d219ef-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00069-000", "bm25_score": 214.18783569335938}, {"text": "Thank you for this Debate.From the brief description, you say that Solar/Wind energy will never surpass the amount of energy created by fossil fuels (this is incorporating the comments section as well).I have evidence that proves this is not the case, And will discuss in further detail later - However will post the sources for ease and future reference now:[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://lasvegassun.com...[3]http://www.ubergizmo.com...[4]http://www.smithsonianmag.com...Looking forward to your response :)", "title": "Alternate energy", "pid": "a0c49422-2019-04-18T13:39:39Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.18356323242188}, {"text": "University of Arizona astronomer Roger Angel, who is studying global warming: \"The sunshade is no substitute for developing renewable energy, the only permanent solution.\" In general, only misperceptions can lead to conclusions that sunshades are \"replacing\" approaches to cutting emissions.", "title": "Solar shading need not \"replace\" clean energy", "pid": "e1435c7e-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00045-000", "bm25_score": 214.16525268554688}, {"text": "Patrick Moore. \"Going Nuclear A Green Makes the Case\". Washington Post. April 16th, 2006: \"Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple.\"", "title": "Nuclear energy is the primary alternative to dirty coal", "pid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00093-000", "bm25_score": 214.1517333984375}, {"text": "I thank whoever accepts this debate. As the pro side, I define nuclear power as power generated as a result of nuclear fission and fossil fuels as coal, natural gas, and oil. The job of my opponent is to provide a suitable alternative that is more viable than nuclear in substituting fossil fuels. My first argument is nuclear power's ease of location. A nuclear plant can be built anywhere on land (and possibly sea) which could provide power for more desolate places or places which have temperature extremes. While the sun may be shining for the day, there are many places where solar panels are not cost effective. Geothermal energy is self explanatory as it can only be done where there is sufficient warmth in the ground. Wind energy has to be put in rather desolate places that have seasonal temperatures as the cost of maintaining wind farms in a blizzard is tremendous. Hydro has to be near water and cannot be inland without rivers. Nuclear plants can be built anywhere and the energy can be generated at a rather low cost which will later tie into my second point. Nuclear power can be in all temperatures and can be provided to every place in the world. Even coal, oil and natural gas have to be reasonably to a mine or well or the transportation cost would be too high. As shown in the following website, the cost of uranium needed for nuclear does not really affect the price. Logically following, the location of the uranium that it uses does not have to close to the plant. . http://www.world-nuclear.org...", "title": "Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels", "pid": "3af9364a-2019-04-18T18:59:56Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.12648010253906}, {"text": "Oil development is unjustified because it further exacerbates the problems of consumption. The more we rely upon fossil fuels, the longer we delay the inevitable: the vital shift to renewable energy. Other action should be taken to limit fuel consumption, such as an increased use of hybrid cars, stricter emissions standards and government support for promising new technologies.", "title": "Consumption is inevitable. Proponents of renewable energy have not made clear how opening ANWR woul...", "pid": "69972f57-2019-04-19T12:47:59Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 214.1085205078125}, {"text": "Alternative energy research is the future of America. Subsidizing and providing government funding for alternative energy research will allow the United States to ease its dependency on oil, boost the American economy, reduce pollutants, and save money for the American consumers. This debate should not be restricted to alternative fuels, but also include alternative energies to power the country.", "title": "The United States should fund alternative energy research", "pid": "8da25347-2019-04-18T19:55:51Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.10342407226562}, {"text": "Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout the world without needing to burn fossil fuels. Renewable sources of energy - such as wind or solar power - are ripe for development, but have yet to see the levels of investment needed to make them truly effective. More efficient use of energy is also vital. Encouraging developments such as electric cars, or promoting better insulation of houses, could make a substantial difference in the long run. Moreover, after the initial costs, greater efficiency would actually be economically beneficial.", "title": "Technology has now reached the point where we can continue to develop standards of living throughout...", "pid": "ae945b47-2019-04-19T12:43:59Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.10247802734375}, {"text": "After the World War Second many developed countries have used fossile fuels to maintain stable economic activities. We have been dependent too much on those natural resources to make our life comfortable and convinient. Here, we have to recognize that ``fossile fuels (oil, coal and natural gas ) currently provide about 85percent of all the energy use both in U.S. and worldwide. These resources are being constantly depleted.``(www. renewable- energysources.com) Without oil, we can not drive and produce electricity. Using fossile energies has contributed to building mass-produced and mass-consumption Affluent Society since the end of the War for many countries of the world. These days newly emerging countries like China and India are catching up with the U.S. and Japan in the GDP(gross domestic product) based on the economic model of highly developed countries. Both countries are using fossile energies too much. On the other hand economy and industry which are dependent on fossile energies have produced global warming. And as I mentioned earlier, natural resources are decreasing every year. Shortage of those resources and global warming are threatening human survival and are contributing to making an impasse for attaining stable economic development. To coping with these serious problems facing us today many governments, local cities and communities are tackling with developing of new alternative energy sources. However, unfortunately there are number of hurdles to promote the project. What kinds of difficult factors lie ahead for developing of new energy sources like solar, wind and nuclear power? In round 3, I discuss them from the viewpoint of international political relations and social perspective.", "title": "Difficulty in developing of alternative energy sources", "pid": "e91be287-2019-04-18T18:33:15Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.10137939453125}, {"text": "Renewables always looked like being ‘too little, too late’ and that now appears to be the case. Carbon based energy sources remain, massively, the major players of global energy production and that looks set to continue to be the case. It is time to take a mature response to that reality and manage the problem rather than pretending that a magical solution is going to be produced in the form of technological breakthroughs in nuclear or other energy technologies. ", "title": "Increasing oil costs make this the best time to be focussing on alternative energies", "pid": "bdaef866-2019-04-15T20:24:47Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 214.05979919433594}, {"text": "\"Clean coal\" makes nuclear energy an unnecessary \"replacement\".", "title": "Nuclear energy", "pid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00072-000", "bm25_score": 214.02552795410156}, {"text": "Coal is the primary fuel for generating electricity around the world. Solar power cannot realistically produce enough energy anytime soon to replace this massive source of electricity. It is incapable, therefore, of making a serious dent in coal-electricity production and the related greenhouse gas emissions.", "title": "Solar energy cannot produce enough energy to replace coal.", "pid": "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00146-000", "bm25_score": 214.00112915039062}, {"text": "As fuels become more scarce their price will rise, alternatives will be developed and become cost-effective on their own. We do not need to waste time and money on expensive government funded early development programmes.", "title": "We should reduce our use of fossil fuels anyway", "pid": "212f2296-2019-04-19T12:47:07Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 213.97994995117188}, {"text": "Fossil fuels are not just dangerous because of the co2 released into the atmosphere causing climate change. When fossil fuels like gas and oil are spilled, destruction follows. Thousands of animals have been tortured and killed from an oil spill or leakage in their environment. This usually happens in oceans, but can also happen on land. Fossil fuels also release toxic chemicals that cause lung disease to humans. When these fine particle emissions are inhaled, they can enter the blood stream and can cause diseases or problems almost anywhere in the body. If Renewable sources of energy are utilized, there is no chance of harm to the environment or people. Exploring new renewable energy resources will not only benefit our environment and communities, but will also benefit generations to come because of new innovative ways of the mass production of energy. Our current rate of fossil fuel usage will eventually lead to an energy crisis. To overcome this crisis, renewable energy research and production will grow in awareness and the government will rely on this innovative new source to power our country and eventually our entire world. 1) http://www.ehow.com... 2) http://www.alternativeenergysecret.com... 3) http://www.alternative-energy-news.info...", "title": "Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies.", "pid": "4c6aab06-2019-04-18T17:04:35Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.97972106933594}, {"text": "Wind power could free up natural gas to replace oil in cars.", "title": "Wind energy", "pid": "7785529c-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00052-000", "bm25_score": 213.97821044921875}, {"text": "Oil subsidies essential until clean tech becomes viable alternative.", "title": "Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies", "pid": "7983ff18-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00025-000", "bm25_score": 213.97364807128906}, {"text": "Con's counter proposal is defective because it does not facilitate public policy debate. The reason why total costs should be disclosed is to get all the facts on the table to facilitate an honest debate. Had that been done, for example, with ethanol or wind power, we might have greatly improved the laws pouring large sums of the taxpayer's money into subsidies. On the other hand, we might have focused more effort into using solar power for demand peaking in the large cities of the American Southwest. Con's counter proposal is another mechanism for ensuring that none of the real issues are avoided. Con's case contains numerous irrelevancies. For example, whether or not global warming is, overall, favorable to human affairs is irrelevant because alternative energy source are sought to reduce foreign dependence on oil, and because it is inevitable that fossil fuels will run out. In addition, most utilities are tightly regulated by government, so there should be an ongoing discussion of the cost-effectiveness of alternatives. If there were no global warming and no foreign dependence on oil, we would still be concerned with obtaining energy at the lowest cost and with minimizing pollution. The resolution is affirmed.", "title": "Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs", "pid": "e2550a31-2019-04-18T19:24:02Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.95260620117188}, {"text": "I bet my opponent wishes that he had until 2040 to post his round. This is exactly the kind of thing we are preparing for by giving the automakers time to get prepared. This transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy is as important as the change form wood to coal and coal to oil. It is progress pure and simple. The United States simply cannot survive without implementing these new systems. It would be terribly irresponsible if the government did nothing about the situation Please vote in affirmation.", "title": "government should mandate that by 2040 all new cars/light trucks sold in US must run on alt fuels", "pid": "f8fc8c9e-2019-04-18T19:30:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.94912719726562}, {"text": "Renewable energy resources can produce more energy than fossil fuels and nuclear power since the process is continually replenished and is therefore recyclable.(1) There is plenty of space for hydro power, wind power, solar power, and geothermal power on our governments thousands of acres of unused land and and in our oceans. Also the energy that comes as a product is known as clean, compared to Fossil fuels and nuclear energy.(2) 1) http://nationalatlas.gov... 2) http://energy.gov...", "title": "Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies.", "pid": "4c6aab06-2019-04-18T17:04:35Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 213.9424285888672}, {"text": "Nuclear plants only produce electricity and can't replace oil and gas", "title": "Nuclear energy", "pid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00073-000", "bm25_score": 213.94155883789062}, {"text": "Due to the fact that fossil fuels are easily combustible and have a high calorific value, it's one of the most efficient energy sources in the world. [1] It has the highest energy output levels bIt's also the cheapest form of energy in the world as shown in the graph below. [2] Engines can be run on rather small amounts of gas. For example, cars can be taken tens of miles on a couple gallons, because the engine is powered by exploding gas farts in the cylinders. That's kind of a funny way of saying it, but really, gas ignites and powers machines very easily.2) Fossil fuels are highly reliable. This is what I mean. Every time you light a bucket of gas on fire, that thing ignites on fire. If you ignite gas in a cylinder, that gas will explode. If you put up a windmill Colorado Springs, you might get 1 kilowatt of energy per year. Since I'm using windmills as an example, I should point out that it's actually one of the least reliable forms of alternative energy known to man. You have to have the right wind speeds to operate with an 11 mile per gap to work with for effective energy production. [3] As far as other forms of energy go, we know solar energy would only work in the UK for three days out of the year, and Arizona would get nothing out of hydro energy. While it's possible that some of these alternative energies might work sometimes in these areas, it's impossible to say that we would have energy year round. Fossil fuels are the most reliable form of energy.3) Nuclear energy has large disadvantages. Nuclear energy is great as an energy substitute as far as energy output and cost go. However, it has a huge drawback, which is nuclear waste. Nuclear energy uses radioactive materials to boil water. But these radioactive materials eventually decay past the point of use. When this happens, we have to find a place to put it. If you start to use nuclear energy for everyone in the world, we would have plenty of power, but storing that waste would be a nightmare. If just a little plutonium leaks out of a storage tank due to natural wear on the storage unit and that plutonium gets into water, that piece of plutonium could easily poison a city. Just specks of plutonium can kill anyone who inhales or ingests them. [4]So the alternative energy sources so far are either deadly or unreliable and inefficient. Sources:[1] . http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...[2] . http://www.theenergycollective.com...[3] . http://www.wind-power-program.com...[4] . http://www.world-nuclear.org...", "title": "Should the world stop using Oil/gas", "pid": "9d6aeb41-2019-04-18T14:17:35Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.93844604492188}, {"text": "Natural gas is a good first step in cutting emissions, and can act as a bridge to cleaner alternatives. The supporters of the Broadwater LNG terminal in Long Island Sound make this case: \"Natural gas play a vital role in providing a bridge from traditional fossil fuels to a renewable energy future\".", "title": "Natural gas can help smooth the transition to renewable energy.", "pid": "e31bfa66-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00053-000", "bm25_score": 213.9327392578125}, {"text": "Solar energy cannot produce enough energy to replace coal.", "title": "Solar energy", "pid": "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.8875274658203}, {"text": "Solar electricity will not replace oil because it is electricity. Oil is not generally used to produce electricity and solar electricity would generally not replace the main kinds of modern uses of oil (ie. vehicles and transportation).", "title": "Solar electricity cannot significantly reduce dependencies on oil.", "pid": "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00136-000", "bm25_score": 213.88021850585938}, {"text": "Wind energy is a renewable resource than can replace coal.", "title": "Pickens US energy plan", "pid": "f9ecc418-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00024-000", "bm25_score": 213.87307739257812}, {"text": "Natural gas is considered to be the rising energy star of the 21st century. Oil sands will have a hard time competing with this. Natural gas is cheaper, more abundant, and is much cleaner. That it is cleaner will become particularly important as countries place a price on carbon.", "title": "Oil sands can't compete w/ cleaner, abundant, cheaper natural gas", "pid": "4d2e82ff-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00050-000", "bm25_score": 213.86068725585938}, {"text": "We live in a world in which the past is now blending with the present and possibly influencing the future. A world in which our most valuable resources are not being used and where our oil is thought to be depleted by year 2050. I am in strong affirmation that the United States must start using alternative energy such as wind, solar, ethynol, and electric type vehicles. We have to see that our Ozone layer is depeleting and our world as we know it will not be there for our children and our grandchildren if we do not start focusing on this topic. Corn is thought to produce a fuel that is cheaper and easier to make called E-85 and is already sold around the United States but we need to use it quick and stop using oil as our primary resource. The Nations with the most oil are our enimies at this moment and we must starting fighting this problem. Lewis Black once said \"We live in a world without a Ozone layer, and we have men, we have rockets, and we have siran wrap...FIX IT!!\"", "title": "Alternative Energy used by 2010", "pid": "e8b51f74-2019-04-18T20:01:33Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.8563995361328}, {"text": "The is no need for me to discuss points that are irrelevant to the topic. Con rambles about social stability, nuclear war, dynastic stability, and numerous other obvious irrelevancies. Since there are no claims relevant to the resolution, there is nothing to refute. Con concedes that his alternative does not facilitate public policy debate and avoids real issues. He says, \"I answer with a simple, so what?\" Since Con is participating in a public policy debate, he implicitly recognizes the value of such debates. therefore his argument is sophistry. I cite Con for bad conduct in accepting the debate challenge then wasting my time and the reader's time with irrelevant childish arguments. Moreover, Con killed the topic, which might have otherwise been accepted by someone who could explain why the practice of ignoring the total costs of alternative energy is so widely ignored. Even if one does not believe CO2 is responsible for climate change, we should be concerned with energy independence and with the inevitable depletion of fossil fuels. Therefore, the resolution should be affirmed to help develop practical alternatives.", "title": "Alternative energy methods should be proposed with total costs", "pid": "e2550a31-2019-04-18T19:24:02Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.83563232421875}, {"text": "A study by the Irish national grid stated that \"Producing electricity from wind reduces the consumption of fossil fuels and therefore leads to emissions savings\", and found reductions in CO2 emissions ranging from 0.33 to 0.59 tonnes of CO2 per MWh.[1]", "title": "Abundant wind energy can displace fossil fuels and slash emissions", "pid": "7785529c-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00054-000", "bm25_score": 213.82791137695312}, {"text": "various companies have shown that they could make alternative fuels cheaper than gasoline if there's wasn't such an uphill battle, or that catch 22, no demand cause no infrastructure and no infrastrcutre cause no demand.", "title": "government should intervene in the transition to alternative fuels", "pid": "57476c75-2019-04-18T16:05:05Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.82107543945312}, {"text": "Euan C. Blauvelt, research director of ABS Energy Research, an independent market research firm in London. - \"The environmental benefits of wind are not as great as its champions claim. You’ve still got to have backup sources of power, like coal-fired plants.\"[2]", "title": "Inconsistent wind energy has to be backed-up by fossil fuels", "pid": "7785529c-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00059-000", "bm25_score": 213.81256103515625}, {"text": "Thank you for this debate, I believe very strongly what I am about to say, and this is an issue that needs to be hammered out to get to the real problems. I am going to argue for the alternative energy source known as geothermal energy. It is obvious that fossil fuels are finite, and we as humans need to be responsible in creating a safe, reliable, and (if possible) limitless energy. Thank goodness there is such a resource. Why geothermal energy? 1) Geothermal energy is inexpensive and easy to obtain. My opponent makes the claim that GE can only be obtained in places where sufficient warmth is available. What he doesn't say is that place is EVERYWHERE. The US being the best country to take advantage of this(1). However, no matter where you are in the world, you can dig a hole. There are better areas than others to dig, of course, but the process to gain the energy is extremely cheap because all you need to do is make generators similar to those in nuclear power plants to get the steam. This means that we can peacefully extract resources in our own country without sending troops to other countries to extract oil in the Middle East. 2) Geothermal energy is virtually limitless. The Earth's core holds around 8,000 zeta joules of energy ripe for the taking. It takes .5 zeta joules of energy to power the rest of the world for eternity. Tapping into this beast of an energy supply is obviously in our benefit. Why not use our planets most powerful energy creating resource into our hands? Why not Nuclear Energy? 1) Nuclear energy is dangerous to obtain. The mining of uranium, as well as its refining and enrichment, and the production of plutonium produce radioactive isotopes that contaminate the surrounding area, including the groundwater, air, land, plants, and equipment. As a result, humans and the entire ecosystem are adversely and profoundly affected. Some of these radioactive isotopes are extraordinarily long-lived, remaining toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. Presently, we are only beginning to observe and experience the consequences of producing nuclear energy. If our goal is to preserve the environment and protect our future on Earth, then this seems like one of the worst ways to do it. 2) We cannot share nuclear energy technology other countries for risk of nuclear proliferation. Nuclear energy relies on the fact that some elements can be split (in a process called fission) and will release part of their energy as heat. Because it fissions easily, Uranium-235 (U-235) is one of the elements most commonly used to produce nuclear energy. It is generally used in a mixture with Uranium-238, and produces Plutonium-239 (Pu-239) as waste in the process. The technology for producing nuclear energy that is shared among nations, particularly the process that turns raw uranium into lowly-enriched uranium, can also be used to produce highly-enriched, weapons-grade uranium. We do not and cannot share this information with many nations because it is a great risk to security. This problem is completely absent in the drive for geothermal energy. In conclusion, we may need alternative sources of energy, but nuclear energy is not the way to obtain it. Geothermal energy is plentiful, cheap, and safe to get. Thank you 1-http://www.ucsusa.org...", "title": "Nuclear Power is the most viable substitute from fossil fuels", "pid": "3af9364a-2019-04-18T18:59:56Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.7976837158203}, {"text": "Despite the best intentions of major players in the energy market, renewable fuels have simply not been able to keep up with demand. It has a limited role in supplying electricity and virtually none in any other area. Although Nuclear is poor in the provision of non-electrical energy as well it has proved a more consistent form of energy in every arena than renewables. It has proved to be cleaner than any form of fossil fuels. With technological advances it is the obvious fuel of the future and, as a result deserves further funding and research.", "title": "There is no instance in which renewable energy has been able to provide a major share in the energy market", "pid": "5f3b3fcb-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 213.79176330566406}, {"text": "Nuclear energy is one of the most viable alternatives to oil, particularly because it is capable of supplying such massive amounts of energy. According to a Stanford study, fast breeder reactors (that convert Uranium into other nuclear fuels while generating energy) have the potential to generate energy for billions of years, thus they make nuclear energy sustainable while lowering our dependency on oil, thus increasing our energy security.", "title": "Nuclear power will help lower oil dependencies and risks.", "pid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00151-000", "bm25_score": 213.77903747558594}, {"text": "This is the round for opening statements. Sorry didn't realize I only made 3 rounds. We will combine the question asking in the comments and the answers and closing statements can be in round 3. Sorry for that. Intro: We all know about water wheels, solar panels, wind farms, etc . . Let's talk about fossil fuels and alternate energy. 1: Why fossil fuel is bad for the atmosphere. Tons of CO2 is burned every year. CO2now.org says, \"he 2014 average annual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (Mauna Loa Observatory) is 398.55 parts per million (ppm). The 2013 average is 396.48 ppm. For the past decade (2005-2014) the average annual increase is 2.1 ppm per year.\" 2: What are our alternatives. These alternative energies do us no harm. In fact outside Evanston, Wy we have tons of wind farms and it generates over 1/4 of our energy. 3: How these will help us. BBC news says, \"Ozone layer 'shows signs of recovery', say scientists. The Earth's protective ozone layer is starting to repair itself, according to a panel of United Nations scientists. The main reason behind its recovery, they say, is the fact that certain chemicals, such as those used in aerosol cans, were phased out in the 1980s.Sep 10, 2014\" This will help us by slowing emissions into the air and letting the ozone layer heal itself. Conclusion: Please vote for me.", "title": "Alternate energy", "pid": "a0c49403-2019-04-18T14:02:20Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.7737579345703}, {"text": "\"The case against nuclear power\". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: \"Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water and for industrial purposes. Nuclear power cannot replace that energy. And it’s a similar case for oil as it’s virtually all used for transport - nuclear power can’t take its place. [...] Indeed, 86% of our oil and gas consumption is for purposes other than producing electricity. So nuclear power, which can only generate electricity, is almost irrelevant.\"", "title": "Nuclear plants only produce electricity and can't replace oil and gas", "pid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00101-000", "bm25_score": 213.76087951660156}, {"text": "While none can truly replace fossil fuels, only one source is currently a contributor strong enough to supply a large portion of what fossil fuels power now, and that's nuclear energy. [[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6860191.ece]] Nuclear energy may well be the only possible candidate that produces anything nearly as close to what fossil fuel sources do now while being committed to significantly reducing carbon emissions. [[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/05/INGRBH0HFH1.DTL]] Currently the third largest source, nuclear energy supplies about a sixth of all electricity generation in the world, only slightly less than hydro power. [[http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/glbnrg.html]] Nuclear power plants are far more gross-land efficient than both fossil-fuel plants and hydro-electric plants and have much potential to expand throughout the world. Moreover, experts predict that nuclear energy will be a sustainable source for 30,000-60,000 years. It is also expected that energy security will be considerably reliable considering the widely available 16million metric tons of uranium. [[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last]] While being the only feasible large-scale alternative to fossil-fuels, nuclear energy is also an excellent method in curbing carbon emissions. In the US, nuclear energy provided about a fifth of all produced electricity, saving 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions yearly, an amount that matches the amount from all US passenger car exhaust. [[http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=204363]]. As a source with such potential, limiting expansion is simply putting a choke-hold on our future.", "title": "Nuclear energy is a crucial alternative energy source that is too valuable to be restricted.", "pid": "7729e8b4-2019-04-19T12:45:07Z-00028-000", "bm25_score": 213.7314910888672}, {"text": "In response to your challenge, I find that maybe using alcohol might be better due to the fact that we need a cleaner way to fuel our cars. As you are probably aware we already have hybrid cars which run on battery or gas in the vehicle. Hydrogen although part water is an ok idea in theory this burns faster than gas would and emit more hydrocarbons into the air we breathe.", "title": "What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen.", "pid": "c67a3d49-2019-04-18T20:03:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.72767639160156}, {"text": "No renewable energy is going to provide the sheer quantity and variety of energy needed to power a developed society. Wind suffers from being unreliable – producing either too little or too much – and as a result would be a bad choice to be the core technology. The basic staple of the energy supply needs to be predictable as well as clean. Wind may well have a useful role providing a surplus that can be tapped in to at times of high demand. However, it is simply not reliable enough to be the mainstay of the energy blend. It is worth noting that wind energy requires government subsidies which is simply not viable in the long term, people are unlikely to be keen on the idea of paying for their energy twice; once through their power bill and then again in their taxes[i]. [i] Industrial Wind Energy Group. 23 August 2008.", "title": "Wind energy provides a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power", "pid": "7ae7b591-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 213.7022247314453}, {"text": "The majority of the world's electricity is currently produced via fossil fuels. These are a finite resource and will run out shortly. Current (2005) high oil prices reflect both rapidly rising demand for energy across the globe, and the limited supply of fossil fuels to meet this need. Although estimates are very variable as to exactly how long fossil fuels will last it is possible that oil will be exhausted within 50 years and coal within 25 years. It is therefore a necessity to find a new source of energy; we must therefore start to convert to nuclear energy now (so there is not a major crisis when fossil fuels do run out) and invest in nuclear energy for the future.", "title": "The majority of the world's electricity is currently produced via fossil fuels. These are a finite ...", "pid": "991e76d8-2019-04-19T12:45:42Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.691650390625}, {"text": "Both Fossil Fuels and Renewable Resources have their pros and cons. But for this debate, I'll argue that renewable resources (solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc) have more advantages than Fossil Fuels.", "title": "Are Renewable Energy Sources Better than Fossil Fuels", "pid": "31698916-2019-04-18T12:33:52Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.68997192382812}, {"text": "Natural gas will simply relieve demand pressures on coal and petroleum and, subsequently, decrease prices. This will only make it easier for people to buy and consume oil and coal. Natural gas will not, therefore, replace coal and petroleum. It will only add to the absolute amount of fossil fuels we are burning, and greenhouse gases we are emitting.", "title": "Natural gas will decrease price of oil and coal and increase consumption.", "pid": "e31bfa66-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00060-000", "bm25_score": 213.6857147216797}, {"text": "The proposition lists a number of problems with alternative energy. It is perfectly true that alternative energy is not efficient enough to serve the energy needs of the world's population today. However, with investment all these methods could be made efficient enough to serve mankind. It is also true that initiation of alternative energy schemes, such as the Aswan dam, have caused problems. But the opposition are not advocating a blanket solution to every problem. Many dam projects, for example, could have been replaced by solar power had the technology been available, without the downside to the dams. In addition, there is almost always one renewable resource that a given country can exploit; tides for islands, the sun for equatorial countries, hot rocks for volcanic regions etc. and so any given country can in principle become self-sufficient with renewable energy. The global distribution of uranium is hugely uneven (much more so than fossil fuels) and the use of nuclear power therefore gives countries with uranium deposits disproportionate economic power. It is far from inconceivable that uranium could be subject to the same kind of monopoly that the OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) places on oil. Indeed, if the whole world went over to nuclear power, supplies of usable uranium ore would run out within a few short decades. This prevents countries from achieving self-sufficiency in energy production.", "title": "It is also imperative to look at the alternatives when assessing in what form of energy to invest. ...", "pid": "991e76d8-2019-04-19T12:45:42Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 213.6841278076172}, {"text": "Alternative clean fuels generated from solar power reduces dependence on oil", "title": "Solar energy", "pid": "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 213.6728973388672}, {"text": "I agree that electric engines cannot be used in military use but the electric engines are commonly used in private cars on the street. And although electric engines are more expensive than gas engines, the recharge fee is much cheaper. A research in 2013 said that transportation contributed more than half of the carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, and almost a quarter of the hydrocarbons emitted into our air. This air pollution carries significant risks for human health and the environment. Through clean vehicle and fuel technologies, we can significantly reduce air pollution from our cars and trucks by using electric engines, while cutting projected U.S. oil use in half within the next 20 years. This is the end of my debate. Hope you like this debate as I am.", "title": "Electric vehicles should replace traditional gas vehicles", "pid": "8b012d3e-2019-04-18T13:26:54Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.66912841796875}, {"text": "Firstly, I would like to clear up a mistake pro clearly made. Pro has said that \" fossil fuels destroy the UV rays in the Ozone layer\". This is incorrect. The emissions given off by fossil fuels are what cause the Ozone gas in the ozone layer to be destroyed. But this is not what the debate is about. I will provide other, emission-free sources of electricity that are better alternatives to Wind Turbines.Example One: Geothermal Power PlantsGeothermal Power Plants are excellent alternatives to Wind Turbines. They rely on constructive plate boundaries to heat up water sent down to the boundary. Advantages �It is almost infinite and does not emit CO2. �There are no by-products, and almost no waste. �It can be used to power whole cities. For example, Reykjavik, in Iceland, is powered mainly by Geothermal. �Power stations do not occupy much space, as they do not have any incinerating rooms.It is not a threat to ecosystems or animals. To round off, Geothermal energy is a far better alternative to Wind Power and I shall give other examples in later rounds. I urge the floor to side Opp.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...;", "title": "Pro/Con with the use of turbines", "pid": "16850e2-2019-04-18T15:59:27Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.64051818847656}, {"text": "So here are your arguments \"Subsidizing and providing government funding for alternative energy research will allow the United States to ease its dependency on oil, boost the American economy, reduce pollutants, and save money for the American consumers.\" 1. oil dependence 2. economy 3. pollution 4. save money To debate this, I will debate the method of finding alternative energy. METHOD You say we should use government subsidies and funding. I am assuming this goes into businesses. How bout we go through government agencies to try and find alternative energy. Like NASA must research solar power. The branch of our military that works on building nuclear weapons must research nuclear power. This method is better than through the private sector because the private sector is out for profit, quick solutions. While the government would not have any motives but the ends goal. This solution still stands on the con side because it counters pros method to the topic.", "title": "The United States should fund alternative energy research", "pid": "8da25347-2019-04-18T19:55:51Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.6400604248047}, {"text": "P1 \"In the United States, coal is used to generate more than half of all the electricity produced.\" Since renewable energy is insufficient, we need fossil fuels to meet energy needs of our society. http://www.api.org... P2. It is true that fossil fuels are not infinite. But, nuclear plant is not a good solution. On average, a nuclear power plant annually generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel, classified as high-level radioactive waste\" which causes tremendous harm to any living organism. http://science.howstuffworks.com... P3. The alternative is cost. According to the New York Times, Ivanpah solar plant, which located in California, will presumably costs 2 billion our tax money, and a large area of land. With that much amount of cost, it will only produces 3600 acres that is far from the state\"s demand of 52,000 megawatts. http://www.nytimes.com... C: The United States federal government should not substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.", "title": "The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in", "pid": "43533c49-2019-04-18T16:15:41Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.6353759765625}, {"text": "Subsidizing clean energy and not oil will allow rapid transition.", "title": "Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies", "pid": "7983ff18-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 213.63064575195312}, {"text": "All major technological revolutions (electrification, mass production, computerization etc.) have been accomplished by private companies without government subsidies. On the other hand, government attempts to run the economy almost invariably result in costly failures. There is no reason to believe that \"this time it will be different\".", "title": "government should intervene more with alternative fuel", "pid": "45c09d4e-2019-04-18T15:57:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.60696411132812}, {"text": "Biofuel technology may improve, but this is not guaranteed and it may require more use of genetic engineering than the public is willing to tolerate. Even if the industry does live up to its boosters’ optimistic promises, biofuels are still not the right focus of our energy policy. They may be a little better than fossil fuels, but they will never realistically replace them entirely, and their promotion takes attention away from more worthwhile approaches. Not only do biofuels let the auto industry continue with business much as usual, they also provide a cover for the fossil-fuel industry by prolonging the life of the oil economy. A much better approach would be to concentrate on reducing our use of energy more radically. This could be achieved through conservation measures, improved fuel efficiency standards, new types of engine, replacing much private vehicle use with public transport provision, better town planning, etc.", "title": "Biofuels already have a great deal to offer today, but prospects for the future are even more exciti...", "pid": "e7056476-2019-04-19T12:47:46Z-00019-000", "bm25_score": 213.60235595703125}, {"text": "Fossil fuels are not inherently required in mining Uranium and building nuclear plants. It just so happens that all modern machinery and vehicles involved in this process are powered by fossil fuels. Yet, these fossil-fuel-based machinery can be replaced by electric vehicles and machinery, possibly supplied by nuclear power plants themselves. In sum, nuclear energy is inherently clean. It is only the processes surrounding it that are dirty. This can and will change.", "title": "Nuclear energy has a carbon footprint, but it is negligible.", "pid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00094-000", "bm25_score": 213.6008758544922}, {"text": "1. Helps fight global Warming. Environmental Defense 2003. Our light trucks and cars contribute more to global warming than 190 other countries. 2. Nano-solar technology is a viable option, it runs at 80 % efficiency only way to be better is having your car be a nuclear power plant. 3. helps solve oil dependency - oil dependence as bad as WMDs ( Senator Dick Lugar) - Oil dependency = 1/3 of the US's account deficit harming the US economy - Oil dependency funds terrorists, 1 million of Velenzuela oil profits to Al quada from USA money - 15/19 9/ 11 hijackers received funds from our oil profits 4. mandate needed - Romm a senior fellow at American progress; no country has ever introduced a mass market of Alternative Fuel vehicles without a mandate/ - Tampa Tribune 2008, Free Market wont solve . The fickle nature of the market along with market fluctations hurts private invesments. We need alternative fuels to help combat global warming and oil dependency a mandate ensures completion.", "title": "2040 fed govt mandate all light trucks and cars in the US should be powered by alternative fuels", "pid": "80e2f8a0-2019-04-18T19:30:48Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.5851287841797}, {"text": "The pressure to invest in carbon-light forms of energies is starting to bear fruit as costs of oil make them financially viable. There are still enormous infrastructural costs but allowing carbon energy-based sectors to shift over to either shale gas or oil by taking the focus off prevention will mean that these incredibly polluting fuels are used – as the infrastructure is already in place and it is more financially palatable – rather than keeping up the pressure in favour of carbon reduction, energy efficiency and the growth of renewables. Germany and Denmark have proved that an effective renewables market can be the focus of a mature economy but that only happened with sustained political pressure. Scotland is moving in that direction as are some US states and other nations. Removing that pressure now would be a huge missed opportunity.", "title": "Increasing oil costs make this the best time to be focussing on alternative energies", "pid": "bdaef866-2019-04-15T20:24:47Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 213.57786560058594}, {"text": "If government wants to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, it can do it very effectively by raising taxes on their consumption. Letting government directly subsidize business companies will only create new opportunities for corruption and waste of taxpayers money. See Solyndra as an example. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "government should intervene more with alternative fuel", "pid": "45c09d4e-2019-04-18T15:57:17Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.55348205566406}, {"text": "I have mistakely forfeited one of my debates so I am not going to be mean about it. First off I will like to say that I am not against alternatives but there are none capable of replacing gas at this time. Gas is very economic whereas the alternatives are not. It isn't environmental friendly however. Many alternatives are less environmental friendly such as vegetable oil and ethanol because of the amount of energy and land necessary to make this source. When thinking green think far beyond CO2 alone. We should also think of the long term implications of the trade. I think multiple sources of energy is possible in the near future. In the future I believe that all homes and cars will be self powered without a need for energy companies. This future is not now. We shouldn't rush things let the technology necessary advance before making a massive switch.", "title": "An alternative to Gasoline", "pid": "de8ec542-2019-04-18T19:27:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.5419921875}, {"text": "Humanity as a species is working itself into complete destruction by the use of fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuel ends up polluting the Earth and contributes to negative global phenomenon such as global warming. Scientific research has shown that average yearly temperature increases in relation to the amount of carbon in our atmosphere (1). We need to move into using renewable energy sources that are efficient and effective so that we don't deplete the Earth of non-renewable resources and lose the ability to use machines due to the lack of those non-renewable resources. If we do not switch to renewable resources we will end up possibly ending our own existence. 1. https://climate.nasa.gov...", "title": "The world should be making a transition to renewable energy rather than using fossil fuels", "pid": "77d1660c-2019-04-18T11:26:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.53970336914062}, {"text": "Unlike what my opponent argues, there are many alternatives to fossil fuel. fossil fuel is just a way to draw energy from the earth. some of these alternatives are Nuclear fusion geothermal energy wind and solar power Going back to my first alternative, nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is a very effective way for one to create a mass amount of energy. The united states is a very complex nation so we must find a new and better alternative for our source of energy. an example of this complex method of drawing energy is as I mentioned earlier, Nuclear Fusion. Nuclear Fusion is generated through a Nuclear Reactor which does not contribute to any environmental plaque such as global warming, acid rain and air pollution. With our as knowledge of the composition of atomic structures, it would take us less than five years to create a nuclear fusion. The creation of Nuclear fusion will reduce the depiction rate of the ozone layer which Fossil fuels increase. If we keep on using this much amount of fossil fuel, we will end up like the citizens of Australia who are fused to were covered cloths and a face cap to protect them from the UV light which increase the chances and rate of skin cancer. One Nuclear reactor could power up half the united states meaning that we only need to make about two or three. We could find that not only will an alternative such as Nuclear Fusion be great for the environment but it will also meet our energy needs. Secondly we have geothermal energy which is basically a way to draw energy from the earth core. Surveys taken by utilities have found that homeowners using geothermal heat pumps rate them highly when compared to conventional systems. Figures indicate that more than 95 percent of all geothermal heat pump owners would recommend a similar system to their friends and family. No fuel is used to generate the power, which in return, means the running costs for the plants are very low as there are no costs for purchasing, transporting, or cleaning up of fuels you may consider purchasing to generate the power. this shows that geothermal energy is so much more effective than that of fossil fuel. lastly solar and wind power. In truth, many fossil and renewable energy sources ultimately come from solar energy. For all intents and purposes, this article refers to solar power as energy that is directly collected from the sun. Advantages: •Zero emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases •Easy to install •Virtually no energy costs once installed •The technology for solar power is constantly improving •Sunlight is widely available Wind Power This alternative energy resource makes use of wind turbines for the conversion of wind energy. Advantages: •No emissions, hence no greenhouse gas contributions •Though tall, wind turbines only require a small plot of land •The cost per watt is among the lowest of current energy options •Their ideal locations tend to be on farms and ranches, which is a benefit to rural economies we could find that all these alternative are both efficient and cost effective.", "title": "fossil fuel", "pid": "3d507ec5-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.53480529785156}, {"text": "So last argument, fossil fuels do have there negative effects, i.e. carbon emissions and oil spills, but so do nuclear power plants. A. Nuclear waste takes over 20,000 years to decompose, and it can't be avoided since it is the natural byproduct. B. Oil spills can be avoided and since we aren't attempting to greatly raise our level of fossil fuels, as well as not having a hard time producing our current requirements, the needs versus safety factor is not a factor. C. Carbon emissions are a gradual effect that is focused mostly in highly populated areas, but have less affects on areas where little to no oil/gasoline/natural gas is used. D. Where use is high, native animals aren't greatly affected, where as nuclear waste areas can't be inhabited within some area and it destroys most wild life in the immediate area. E. Fossil fuels are easier to acquire whereas nuclear elements such as Plutonium and Uranium need high levels of care and can't be relied on to drastically increase output without a sharp rise in death in those mining areas.", "title": "Nuclear energy is better than fossil fuels", "pid": "cb3a59ce-2019-04-18T13:56:11Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.51739501953125}, {"text": "Unlike oil, biofuels are renewable and sustainable. At present mankind is using up fossil fuel resources at an alarming rate, and often damaging the environment in order to extract them. If we go on relying on fossil fuels they will one day run out, and not only will our descendants no longer have viable energy reserves, but they will also have to cope with the ecological damage coal, oil and gas extraction have inflicted on the earth. Making fuel from crops provides a perfect, sustainable solution.", "title": "Unlike oil, biofuels are renewable and sustainable. At present mankind is using up fossil fuel reso...", "pid": "e7056476-2019-04-19T12:47:46Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 213.51535034179688}, {"text": "In response to that although I don't have a background in science, I still think that a hybrid car would be more efficient.Next Please. Water does not burn it is the additives in the hydrogen that burn which would cost much more than the regulation of the gas that is already being produced. Gas additives do not work due to the fact that hydrogen is part water and carbon dioxide. it is the carbons that would be emited into the air not water. Hydrogen would be more expensive to produce than water or gasoline produced today. This would not be cost efficient. To regulate gas would mean bringing down the prices we are paying at the pumps today. The solution to gas burning cars is to look for cost efficient ways to cut down on fuel costs. Next Please. Car Dealers have a device that can be put into the carbourator that can give the driver 50 to 100 mpg. The government does not want the general public to know about this, they would rather look for alternative fuels which would cost the public more money for the research and development of this.", "title": "What is the best alternate transportation fuel to replace gas -? I argue that it is hydrogen.", "pid": "c67a3d49-2019-04-18T20:03:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.51190185546875}, {"text": "While it is true that nuclear energy does compete with renewables, it should be noted that fossil fuels are equally competitors. In so far as fossil fuels contribute to global warming and nuclear energy does not, therefore, fossil fuels are the real enemy of renewables.", "title": "Fossil fuels, not nuclear, are the real enemies of renewables.", "pid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00089-000", "bm25_score": 213.50173950195312}]}
{"idx": 13, "qid": "14", "q_text": "Is sexual orientation determined at birth?", "qrels": {"84c30b93-2019-04-18T11:06:39Z-00001-000": 0, "843406fe-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00002-000": 2, "cae0ad5c-2019-04-18T15:17:55Z-00005-000": 2, "7ebeaeb5-2019-04-18T16:55:01Z-00001-000": 0, "7c3403c3-2019-04-18T19:06:43Z-00003-000": 0, "791017d-2019-04-18T12:57:16Z-00003-000": 1, "88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00004-000": 0, "8de3af5b-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00021-000": 0, "8f93a4a9-2019-04-18T12:16:13Z-00000-000": 2, "b37eee61-2019-04-18T15:46:57Z-00004-000": 1, "caecc1bf-2019-04-18T13:39:21Z-00003-000": 2, "a5d4169b-2019-04-18T12:54:45Z-00001-000": 1, "d5d8984a-2019-04-19T12:45:53Z-00002-000": 0, "d5d8984a-2019-04-19T12:45:53Z-00000-000": 0, "d5d8984a-2019-04-19T12:45:53Z-00007-000": 0, "d9e8fa08-2019-04-18T18:57:34Z-00000-000": 1, "dfb058ea-2019-04-18T18:50:06Z-00003-000": 1, "7839a8e-2019-04-18T13:02:10Z-00002-000": 0, "efd789b6-2019-04-18T11:19:53Z-00008-000": 0, "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00005-000": 0, "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00001-000": 2, "fbf5301a-2019-04-18T14:14:29Z-00000-000": 2, "caecc1bf-2019-04-18T13:39:21Z-00001-000": 1, "7839a8e-2019-04-18T13:02:10Z-00001-000": 0, "20b7e3cc-2019-04-18T16:40:52Z-00000-000": 0, "656658c-2019-04-18T14:51:24Z-00005-000": 0, "3e3bddfb-2019-04-18T17:02:13Z-00005-000": 0, "ae0d65af-2019-04-19T12:44:48Z-00008-000": 1, "606a81ac-2019-04-18T16:27:00Z-00003-000": 0, "afa49c39-2019-04-18T18:16:31Z-00003-000": 0, "1094bf3d-2019-04-18T18:54:58Z-00003-000": 1, "15445abc-2019-04-18T18:11:52Z-00007-000": 0, "1df4e73f-2019-04-15T20:23:01Z-00001-000": 0, "2c813efa-2019-04-18T17:59:04Z-00001-000": 0, "2ec642a5-2019-04-18T12:33:09Z-00007-000": 0, "764174d9-2019-04-18T17:33:33Z-00000-000": 0, "339641e9-2019-04-18T13:13:46Z-00002-000": 0, "3584cf5e-2019-04-18T12:25:29Z-00001-000": 1, "39fc7646-2019-04-18T18:14:10Z-00000-000": 0, "3e05191f-2019-04-18T16:44:52Z-00004-000": 0, "4660b6af-2019-04-18T18:44:20Z-00004-000": 0, "47fb69dc-2019-04-18T15:14:19Z-00004-000": 1, "a88b1104-2019-04-18T15:55:19Z-00005-000": 0, "4abdfa29-2019-04-18T13:33:10Z-00006-000": 2, "59391011-2019-04-18T16:44:19Z-00002-000": 2, "5cb36f7e-2019-04-18T15:03:42Z-00003-000": 0, "633489a6-2019-04-18T16:48:33Z-00002-000": 0, "3584cf5e-2019-04-18T12:25:29Z-00000-000": 2}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Sexual orientation IS determined at birth. How? You can easily see whether a baby has female or male genitals. A penis is for the males and a vagina is for the females. Simple.", "title": "Sexual orientation is determined at birth.", "pid": "3584cf5e-2019-04-18T12:25:29Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 221.97259521484375}, {"text": "Pro's argument about the female and male genitals seems to be a non-sequitur. Read what one is here.[1] The genitals have little to do with sexual orientation. While the genitals determine biological sex and biological sex correlates with sexual orientation, biological sex is not the cause of sexual orientation. If sexual orientation was determined at birth, then all identical twins would have the same sexual orientation. However, it is not the case that when one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual. As has been established by several studies on this matter, not 100% of twins have the same sexual orientation as the other, in fact it varies from as little as 20% of twins sharing the same sexual orientation, to as much as 60% in some studies.[3, pg 271] Source:[1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;[2] https://genepi.qimr.edu.au...;", "title": "Sexual orientation is determined at birth.", "pid": "3584cf5e-2019-04-18T12:25:29Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.6903076171875}, {"text": "People are born with their sexual orientation already determined, just like they are born tall or short, it may not be apparent at birth but it is there.", "title": "People are Born Gay", "pid": "dfb058ea-2019-04-18T18:50:06Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.69769287109375}, {"text": "Sexuality is determined at birth, but it may take a while for one to figure it out. As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are. They could even be bisexual. Here I speak from personal existence. I grew up in a conservative Christian household, so anything other than heterosexuality was frowned upon. I hit the teenage years when I begin to learn things about myself, and I began to question my sexuality. I simply realised, \"hey, I don't really like anyome\" and go to talking with some friends and I figured out that I'm asexual. Did I choose to be this way? No. Did my environment influence me? No. I was asexual at birth, but only recently realised it.", "title": "Sexiality Isn't a Choice", "pid": "caecc1bf-2019-04-18T13:39:21Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.72064208984375}, {"text": "Sexual orientation is something that people are born with.", "title": "Sexual Orientation is a choice.", "pid": "7839a8e-2019-04-18T13:02:10Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.69601440429688}, {"text": "Let's get stuck in: -Not Born with a personality- The personality at that stage of life is unlikely to make the conscious or even unconscious decision. When was the first time you have been aroused? When you were a baby? I highly doubt that. Therefore, at the start personality can't determine sexuality immediately. - More open and loving to sexual desires- I completely agree. I have the right to indulge my fetish. -Straight people think gay people are seduced into the lifestyle- A quite large generalization. Who's to say they aren't dragged kicking and screaming, finally accepting themselves. Something we aren't all born with is the self esteem to accept immediately. Study: https://americanvision.org...", "title": "born a way", "pid": "d2d4219f-2019-04-18T13:20:48Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.67869567871094}, {"text": "The only people who ever argue that you aren't born gay, but get 'seduced' into the lifestyle are people who say they are straight. Since they aren't gay, how do they have the first clue what is going on inside the head of a gay person? How did straight people become the experts on gayness? People can be born gay. I think a lot of new research has suggested that sexual orientation can be influenced by hormones the fetus is exposed to during pregnancy. Sexual attraction is something innate and something you cannot change, even if you wanted to. It's determined early in our development.", "title": "born a way", "pid": "d2d4219f-2019-04-18T13:20:48Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.11380004882812}, {"text": "I believe it is a combination. Many are born that way and others choose to be that way. Those that are born that way were an accident of nature. The same as many other deformity's like being born with one arm, blindness, etc. If you love someone you try to mend their handicap, not accept it as normal. Those that choose it are just sick.", "title": "Sexual orientation", "pid": "13176601-2019-04-18T17:19:14Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.87594604492188}, {"text": "I mean its soooo obvious. ITS SO OBVIOUS. what you said about the man with the brain of a woman, that's a disorder, its not genetic. There is no confirmed or discovered gene that determines who YOU decide to be. Its somebody choosing their own lifestyle, genetics for the 5000th time cannot possibly effect sexuality. the parents of the offspring that is a homosexual, in this case, are straight, and their entire line of ancestors are straight. How come none of them are homo or some other sexual. Oh that's right, BECAUSE YOU CANT PASS DOWN A \"POSSIBLE HOMO TRAIT OR GENE\" DOWN TO OFFSPRING. because there isn't one and if it is, don't you think they would have found that out by now?", "title": "There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics.", "pid": "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.78726196289062}, {"text": "Assigning children the title \"male\" or \"female\" at birth only harms them in the long run. For transgender children, assigning them a gender at birth only leads to pain and confusion. They don't understand why they don't feel like the gender they were assigned and feel like there's something wrong with them. For cisgender children, having genders from the start reinforces gender stereotypes (pink rooms for girls, blue for boys, etc.) It also harms transgender people by putting forth the idea that cisgender is normal, while transgender is not (much in the same way that homosexual \"coming out\" does. i.e. You're assumed to be heterosexual or cisgendered until you specifically state otherwise, instead of them both being seen as possible options.) In this debate, we are debating gender, not sex. Sex: The biological makeup of an individual's reproductive anatomy or secondary sex characteristics Gender: Social roles based on the sex of the person or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness. Transgender: A person who's sex (or gender assigned at birth) does not match their true gender Cisgender: A person who's sex (or gender assigned at birth) does match their true gender", "title": "Assigning children a gender at birth is harmful and restrictive", "pid": "b37eee61-2019-04-18T15:46:57Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.75306701660156}, {"text": "Please Note: I'm NOT attempting to offend anyone, nor am I against those who are other than heterosexual. I wish the best of luck to me and my opponent. Sexuality in my honest opinion isn't wired into one's brain at a very young age, nor do I believe one is automatically heterosexual when born. I believe it was taught someway, somehow weather through society or media. I seen people go from straight to gay vice versa, I've heard many say biologically it's naturally weird into one's brain, but honestly I find that false due to the fact a child doesn't yet have the knowledge on the meaning of sexuality. When children view television, magazines, movies, cartoons, etc. It's influencing children in some kind of way.", "title": "Sexiality Isn't a Choice", "pid": "caecc1bf-2019-04-18T13:39:21Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.67271423339844}, {"text": "Since it is only a one round debate, I'll just give it all I got. I have done some researching and studying regardings this topic and here I will post my findings and prove that you are indeed born gay. Scientific researchers specializing in human sexuality have shown that homosexuality is genetic (and that people are born gay). I am unaware of any study that has ever suggested that sexual orientation is a choice. Scientific research from October 2004 that was replicated in June 2008 stated that scientists have found that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation. A lead researcher said \"You have all this antagonism against homosexuality because they say it's against nature because it doesn't lead to reproduction. We found out this is not true because homosexuality is just one of the consequences of strategies for making females more fecund\" and that their findings offered \"a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals. \" A 2005 study reported genetic scans showing a clustering of the same genetic pattern among gay men on three chromosomes - chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother. A study published in Human Genetics in February 2006 examined X chromosome inactivation in mothers of gay sons and mothers whose sons were not gay. Researchers found extreme differences between women who had gay sons and women who did not. A study from 2006 said that researchers have known for years that a man's likelihood of being gay rises with the number of older biological brothers, but the new study found that the so-called \"fraternal birth order effect\" persists even if gay men were raised away from their biological families & that \"the research suggests that the development of sexual orientation is influenced before birth. \"Seeing the overwhelming evidence, I hope that the audience agrees with me! Thank you.", "title": "Your not born gay", "pid": "67148c4d-2019-04-18T18:48:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.62509155273438}, {"text": "\"You've informed me it's determined at birth, but you also say it takes one a while to began to realize who they are.\" This is silly statement. One does not normally realise their sexuality immediately. It's set in stone at birth, but it may take a while to figure it out. Thank you for debating me. This was a good one.", "title": "Sexiality Isn't a Choice", "pid": "caecc1bf-2019-04-18T13:39:21Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.58624267578125}, {"text": "I propose people are born definitively one sex or the other, not misdiagnosed at birth assuming a full term pregnancy. To clarify further, any person can be scientifically proved either make or female.", "title": "People aren't born the wrong sex, or transgender.", "pid": "9080d203-2019-04-18T11:26:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.49429321289062}, {"text": "Just posting to avoid forfeiture as, as I said previously, I won't argument further as Pro won't be able to respond.I hope everyone's having a good enough week.", "title": "If homosexuals really are born that way, we should work out a way to kill them at birth.", "pid": "8edaa98b-2019-04-18T16:04:42Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.36746215820312}, {"text": "The relevance of causes of sexual orientation to policy is dubious", "title": "Gay adoption", "pid": "8de3af5b-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 214.2866668701172}, {"text": "Have a nice day.", "title": "If homosexuals really are born that way, we should work out a way to kill them at birth.", "pid": "8edaa98b-2019-04-18T16:04:42Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.2667236328125}, {"text": "Children raised by same-sex parents are not more likely to have same-sex orientations themselves.", "title": "Gay adoption", "pid": "8de3af5b-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00024-000", "bm25_score": 214.2356719970703}, {"text": ". American Psychological Association (Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children) \"There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children\"; and \"research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.\"", "title": "The sexuality of parents has no effects on a child's future life", "pid": "8de3af5b-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00041-000", "bm25_score": 214.20614624023438}, {"text": "I will be on the Con side (against), the harmful/restrictiveness of assigning a gender to a new born. Pro brings up a great point about Transgender and Cisgender, and how they're genetic makeup, or even they're personaly preference may cause them to believe they are assigned to the wrong gender. Men may believe they are women, vice versa. Those born with a different genetic make-up having both male and female sexual organs may feel different then what their parents decided. However, being assigned a gender is in no way harmful or restrictive to the respective child. -Only 6 states in the US restrict birth certificates from being ammened for gender changes. -25 states allow birth certificates to be ammended for gender reassignment without the need of a sexual reassignment surgery. . http://en.wikipedia.org...Therefore, if someone feels they are the wrong gender, they have every right (in 44 out of 50 states) to lawfully change their gender and be recognized as the gender they see fit. Feeling or being different than others is not harmful. It is simply how you were made. People can either accept the gender they were assigned and live life to the fullest, or choose to change their gender, legally, and live life to the fullest. The US has made great strides in accomodating those who may not be, or feel, simply male or female.", "title": "Assigning children a gender at birth is harmful and restrictive", "pid": "b37eee61-2019-04-18T15:46:57Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.15542602539062}, {"text": "My opponent has not made any separate points, therefore, no rebuttals from me. My conclusion: APA states: \"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles....\"[1] VOTE CON Good luck Pro [1]http://www.onenewsnow.com...", "title": "Homosexuality is Genetic", "pid": "45198ce6-2019-04-18T18:35:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.1423797607422}, {"text": "Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality", "title": "Gay adoption", "pid": "8de3af5b-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 214.12420654296875}, {"text": "sexual orientation is not limited to the attraction felt to a specific gender, granted these forces are never stagnant and cant be measured however they can be scoped on to a scale of sorts by intensity and direction. sexual orientation can point to other spectrum like age. it is most common for people to have an attraction to adults aged 20 - 40 just as it is common to be attracted to the opposite gender. however it isn't common but accepted that there are a few people who's orientation point higher or lower than the average, some people are attracted to younger people gender regardless from the ages of 6 - 13 and some people like older people 50 - 70. sexual orientation can point at different levels of different spectra such as gender, age, inter species, intellect, masculinity, femininity and desire. these cannot be decided upon, they occur based on subconscious decisions by past experiences and not conscious decision making, or genetic inheritance.", "title": "Sexual Orientation is a choice.", "pid": "7839a8e-2019-04-18T13:02:10Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.11659240722656}, {"text": "The sexuality of parents has no effects on a child's future life", "title": "Gay adoption", "pid": "8de3af5b-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00026-000", "bm25_score": 214.11045837402344}, {"text": "You've informed me it's determined at birth, but you also say it takes one a while to began to realize who they are. I'm not able to process that through my head correctly, one because determined means strongly felt and mostly likely not to change it. So, say one's into women and all of sudden one figures themselves out due to whatever the reasoning may be, you mean to inform me that one isn't changing their mind or ways? You began to question your sexuality, right? But you also said \"I simply realized hey I don't really like anyone\" You're making a change. You said \"As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are.\" No, that's one changing their ways.", "title": "Sexiality Isn't a Choice", "pid": "caecc1bf-2019-04-18T13:39:21Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.04684448242188}, {"text": "Um. .. ..", "title": "Sexual Orientation is a choice.", "pid": "7839a8e-2019-04-18T13:02:10Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.04640197753906}, {"text": "First I would like to point out that Con's position is not based on evidence or reason but on a gut feeling he has or a misinterpretation of anecdotal experiences he's had. Sexual orientation deals with preference and attraction which don't bend at will but are conditioned through a combination of genetics and environment. As a sort of tongue and cheek demonstration that sexual orientation doesn't change at our whim I would ask our audience to force themselves to find this thing attractive(of course applying to people that don't find it attractive) [IMG]. http://www.funnypica.com...[/IMG] . http://www.funnypica.com... In a study it was found that 52% of cases in which an identical twin was homosexual, the other was also a homosexual. You may say, yes but that's because they're raised in the same environment, but the same study showed that only 22% of cases in which a fraternal twin was homosexual the other was homosexual. This is clear evidence that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality. . http://www.nytimes.com... Studies have shown that the long arm of x chromosome Xq28 increases the odds that a male will be homosexual. . http://www.nature.com...", "title": "There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics.", "pid": "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.0328826904297}, {"text": "Being born gay means that you at birth are attracted to the same sex, which, is not true. Being gay is about how you perceived life and your ethics and codes that you now live by.", "title": "born gay", "pid": "21910622-2019-04-18T13:51:05Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.02691650390625}, {"text": "In my personal opinion, I am neither pro-homosexuality or anti-sexuality, I do however believe in the fact that individuals are not able to change their identity in order to conform to the traditional agenda. Scientifically, we have not yet identified a certain link between brain structure or genetic make-up in relation to a person being homosexual. Although in a quarterly biology review, a group of scientists from NIMBioS discovered a link in epigenetics and homosexuality which supported the theory that sex-specific epimarks in the early developmental portion of fetal development that spur atypical amount of testosterone or estrogen to develop. These abnormal levels of either of these hormones cause a man to be more feminine or a women to be more masculine, which is what society typically labels as \"gay\" or \"lesbian.\" In short, there is a very strong biological reason for one being homosexual, that reputes the claim that they make the choice to be heterosexual or homosexual. Needless to say, a fetus that is only a few weeks along cannot make a decision whether or not it will be homosexual. Source: http://www.eurekalert.org...", "title": "are people born gay", "pid": "9828e7fb-2019-04-18T17:04:41Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.02684020996094}, {"text": "I believe that sexual orientation DOES originate from biology that is, it depends upon biological factors such as genes and hormones. I think the burden of proof is shared here.", "title": "Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology", "pid": "2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.95077514648438}, {"text": "Really, genetics? okay well first off, homosexuals has NOTHING to do with genetics no matter how much evidence there is. A straight guy can easily go homosexual or any other sexual by his choice. Choosing which role you want to play as has nothing to do with DNA and it doesn't run thru the family.", "title": "There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics.", "pid": "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.94566345214844}, {"text": "This is long.", "title": "If homosexuals really are born that way, we should work out a way to kill them at birth.", "pid": "8edaa98b-2019-04-18T16:04:42Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.9177703857422}, {"text": "Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and their upbringing will not be affect their sexuality. Attempting to suppress this genetic predisposition has resulted in great misery for many people. Rather, we should accept this and look to embrace all gay people fully – which must include celebrating gay role models, especially as responsible parents.", "title": "Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and the...", "pid": "2bb90bda-2019-04-19T12:47:20Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 213.89744567871094}, {"text": "People claim they are born gay I think it's absolute BS! If that's the case I can be a pedophile and be sexually attracted to children and use the same cop-out that I was born this way and have a genetic disposition to be attracted to minors!", "title": "There's no such thing as being born GAY!", "pid": "59391011-2019-04-18T16:44:19Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.89285278320312}, {"text": ". http://www.youtube.com...", "title": "If homosexuals really are born that way, we should work out a way to kill them at birth.", "pid": "8edaa98b-2019-04-18T16:04:42Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.85089111328125}, {"text": "Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and the...", "title": "Adoption of Children by Same Sex Couples", "pid": "2bb90bda-2019-04-19T12:47:20Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.84759521484375}, {"text": "I disagree that people can be \"born homosexual\" because it doesn't make sense for a baby to have feelings towards their same gender at their time period. Its imposable to be born as anything. If people are homosexual maybe its because of their experiences in their life but it makes no sense for a person to be born as a homosexual.", "title": "People can be born Homosexual.", "pid": "ea863988-2019-04-18T15:13:12Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.81887817382812}, {"text": "All sexual orientations are determined by a complex interaction of traits, with no single gene acting as the \"signal\" for whether you like members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, or both. Therefore, essentially your environment plays a role in deciding what sex(es) you end up being attracted too. For example, lets say I'm a gay male, I can choose to date, have sex, etc. with women (doesn't mean I'll like it) but, nonetheless I can choose to do it. On the other hand, I can't choose to be attracted to them because I'm gay, no matter how hard I try, I can't choose to be unattracted to men.", "title": "Homosexuality is not a choice", "pid": "e815f813-2019-04-18T13:09:13Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.79989624023438}, {"text": "After reading popular opinion, I feel like I'm arguing the tough side here, but I WILL PREVAIL. Before I continue the debate I want to make sure everyone that might read this debate understands that I have nothing against homo-sexual people, I simply am participating in this debate out of opinion. On to the debate. I believe that sexual orientation is a choice, because of three key points: the way people are raised, what they experience in life, and what they choose to become. My first point is the ways we are raised. Every experience that we go through, affects the choices we make throughout life. From the moment we are born things start changing us. One of the ways I believe sexual orientation is chosen, is through the orientation of the parents. If you are raised by to gay parents, I am sure from the moment you are adopted they will teach you that being gay/lesbian is perfectly fine, If not even normal. Another example is if you have very lenient parents. I don't mean to say that strict parents wouldn't let their children be gay, but let's say you were raised with only one parent who had to work long hours. You would be very free to make a lot of your own choices, including sexual orientation. If you are raised and grow up with gay friends and/or family you are very likely to possibly wonder about what being gay/lesbian is like. Another example is life experiences. Many people that are \"born\" straight may feel confused if they grow up seeing mostly straight people, then go out on their own and see gay couples. They may \"experiment\" with the same gender and ultimately chose to switch orientation. As we see laws and rules regarding homo-sexuality change around the world, many people may feel like they would be more accepted if they changed sexual orientation. I understand my opponents point about trying to change my sexual orientation. I am straight , and when I thought about this I realized that I would not be able to. However, I make the point that had I been raised in a different situation I may have felt confused growing up and changed orientation. My last point for this round is the ultimate decision. What sexual orientation you chose is one of the largest choices in your life. It decides how you will act socially around other genders, and your own. If you get married, sexual orientation decides who you will possibly spend the rest of your life with. I believe that there is one moment in each of our lives when we decide what sexual orientation we are. This may occur during the anytime, but is usually during the first half of our lives. Our parents may have personal opinions, and try to raise us a certain way. This usually succeeds, because we are taught during a young very impressionable time in our lives. Our parents are the only ones around during these early years and their opinions matter the most to us during that time. I urge my opponent and others who may read this to look at their opinions and decide whether some of them may have come from your parents, because I know a lot of them have for me personally. In conclusion for this round I believe that sexual orientation is a choice. Whether this choice is made by our parents in the way they raise us, or by us after confusing life experiences depends on your personal life. Back to my opponent now.", "title": "Sexual Orientation is a choice", "pid": "88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.7870330810547}, {"text": "Well most people are born with arms and legs and a brain, for most people with these ligaments or a muscle in their head, it is up to them to determine how they will use it. Unless there is a birth defect in them that handicaps the child at birth or later on in life then that I guess one would say is an act of the deity to punish his or hers parents. These deities did not tell them anything, man wrote the Bible, Koran, and etc. How can we trust mans word if it lies constantly, we cant, we just cant. Take everything people say with a grain of salt because the underlying fact in this is that man lies and can write anything in a fancy way and say \"god made me do it\" same thing in regards to if man kills someone. It cannot be an act of god if he says \"god made me do it\" god (or deities) harming his own children. The creator (god) does not have to be removed. Just the church's of these gods need to conform a little. I am know catholic but I sure as heck think the pope is heading in a right direction in his new papacy. God is good, to an extant that everyone is equal just close minded people who run religion like to brain wash people into thinking that it is wrong.", "title": "Rights for All sexual orientations", "pid": "aa0c78ce-2019-04-18T17:05:36Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.63108825683594}, {"text": "While some exceptions occur with homosexuality the social norm in nature is that babies are taken care of by mother and father. To legally allow adoption by gay couples is to encourage what is an unnatural upbringing.", "title": "Adoption of Children by Same Sex Couples", "pid": "1c1cd50-2019-04-18T18:24:05Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 213.6045379638672}, {"text": "are you also saying that your not born with a personality??? none of my family members or friends are trans or gay and I have always been gay. Yes it's in the genes Most homosexual people are in fact born that way, others may pick to be gay or have things that occur during their life that takes them that direction sexually. There is so much proof that people are born gay these days that people that do not believe it really just have their heads stuck in the sand, we need to be more open and loving to everyone's sexual desires as long as they are legal. Only straight people don't think so. The only people who ever argue that you aren't born gay, but get 'seduced' into the lifestyle are people who say they are straight. Since they aren't gay.", "title": "born a way", "pid": "d2d4219f-2019-04-18T13:20:48Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.5999755859375}, {"text": "Discrimination is present in every race.However, general acceptance of those who are transgendered is a huge step which soceity is taking.You have stated that Transgender is considered the \"Other\" gender in today's society, and that this is a problem.You are also stating birth certificates are to be left blank, and to let the child decide (at adulthood I can only assume) Despite having the ability to change.You cannot elave a birth certificate blank. That would then cause even more confusion to those who need to verify you by your birth certificate. So you are essentially posing the idea that an \"Other\" slot be put on birth certificates. or a \"To Be defined later\" option (which is essentially 'other')This unforuntately contradicts itself. They don't want to be considered the \"Other gender\" to the cisgender, but they want to be able to be listed as another form of \"Other\" on their birth certificate. Thank you for the debate", "title": "Assigning children a gender at birth is harmful and restrictive", "pid": "b37eee61-2019-04-18T15:46:57Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.57168579101562}, {"text": "Though I agree that it should not matter how we are oriented, whether from birth or from choice, and that our access to equal rights should not be contingent on us being 'born this way,' I do believe people are born gay for this reason. If it was a choice I'm sure people would opt out. There choice to do so but statistics say people do have a choice and some peoples choice would have not chosen this for their own reasons.", "title": "Born gay part 2", "pid": "4b0ccd12-2019-04-18T13:50:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.56741333007812}, {"text": "Also the report in the Chicago-sun Times excludes \"ALL\" GAY people and uses the term \"SOME\" which leaves out a number of exempt Homosexuals with no scientific, genetic or biological explanation for being GAY.\" I have another study to prove my point, as even though the specific page does use generalizing words, others do not. A review of current research shows that there is no evidence supporting a social cause for homosexuality [1]. There are multiple studies, both with animals and humans, demonstrating the causative relationship with the pre-natal testosterone during a critical stage in \"defeminization\". [2] Since sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which can result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation. There is more evidence that the orientation of a person occurs before they are born than afterwards. In addition, another study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable. Just like the analogy that is used in my evidence, it is simply like being left handed. It was viewed as being possessed by evil. Now, scientifically, we know that is not true. The developing male fetus receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation. [3] In 1972, a study was done by Dr. Ward, who found that androstendione in male pregnancies would prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain. [4] The brain makes its gender commitment very early in development and, once committed to either male or female, it cannot change. These are all studies and examples that sexual orientation is, in fact, proved to be ingrained within a person before birth. \"Second you specifically stated verbatim that \"No families or ancestors were GAY because IT WAS NOT COMMON.\" I would like to point out this was taken out of context, as I did conclude to say that it was not common for people to express if they were homosexuals because it was inherently looked down upon. I did not intend for my point to be taken out of context and that it was uncommon in the sense that people were not. I intended for that to mean it was uncommon because of society, it was not something someone willingly came out to say. \"Being GAY is none other than an example of \"HERD BEHAVIOR\" it is not genetic, biological, psychological or hereditary. As society shifted from old-school values and conservative traditions we entered into an era where the world and the lifestyles of people evolved and drastically changed as they always do. You also stated that homosexuality was looked down upon but the problem with that statement is that it neither proves or disproves whether family members or ancestors were or were not GAY... All that proves is that it was less liked by society so that is not even worth commenting on.\" My multiple sources of evidence off of my first point proves that sexual orientation is not because of herd behavior. It is because of the brains development. My statement about how homosexuality was looked down upon proves that even if people were gay, there would be no way to know. Even if we did disregard that comment, the evidence proves people are born gay. If we do or do not know if ancestors were gay, it really does not matter. Looking at current evidence and data, it is hereditary and biologically, and would negate your statements otherwise. This is definite proof. \"Also these \"Same-sex\" behaviors expressed in animals by researchers, zoologists, and scientists alike have determined it to be demonstrations of platonic courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting; also the motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied which leads us back to the merry-go-round of constant guessing and justification but no definitive proof of anything.\" I need sources. I cannot assume your sources are reliable. I need actual evidence and sources. However, all of the same- sex behaviors you mention and what they demonstrate fully prove my point. It is ingrained in their minds. Also, my opponent has contradicted a previous argument of saying most instead of all, when my opponent did it themselves, by saying \"...most species have not been fully studied...\" Without a quantified amount, I cannot trust this statement as being reliable. Looking back at the previous round, a close species to humans, bonobos, have been studied and have same- sex behaviors. This is not guessing. This is solid and proved evidence. \"First you said verbatim that \"there is no way to prove someone went from being gay to straight, and was scientifically proved to be a homosexual. You cannot prove that someone decides to be gay and go straight on their own free will.\" If you cannot prove that someone is specifically homosexual then neither can you prove what makes a person homosexual.\" Again, this was taken out of context and misunderstood. I was talking about a previous argument made, about people changing their sexual preference. Relating sexual preference to what I said, it makes sense that no one would be able to prove if someone was actually meant to be gay or meant to be straight by the methods we have today. It does not contradict my point at all. If we had that evidence today, this would not even be a debate today. However, on newly watched studies with children I provided earlier, that is how we can prove if someone is gay. Someone cannot simply look at someone and assume if the person is homosexual. It takes a long- term study. This is the point I was trying to make. Lastly, homosexuality is about pride because homosexuality is a topic not all people are comfortable with. Even with contradicting religions and churches going against gays, it is about pride to stop gay stereotypes. Heterosexuality does not need parades or support because it is a relationship that is common. \"There are sooooo many GAY people that it would have to mean that every single person in the entire world would literally have to carry this inborn trait. To say people are born GAY you would have to affirm sympathy for pedophiles and grant them the same clemency and extenuation not limited to but including scam artists, thieves, rapists, bigots...\" I am very confused about this statement. First, again, my opponent is contradicting themselves again. My opponents argumentation was I am using words like most, but my opponent is saying statements that are using generalizing terms. Since you state there are so many gay people, every person would need to carry this trait. I would like evidence for this statement. Right now, my opponent cannot prove this, as my opponent gave no quantified amount of how many homosexual people are in the world. In regards to your second statement, I am shocked. It is unreasonable to compare homosexuals being born the way they are to relate pedophiles and scam artists to the same cause. There is no way you can justify this. Actually, you could never justify that statement even if you tried. You are going into a different issue. Lets keep in mind that we are talking about sexual orientation, and not actual choices and poor decisions people choose to make, like scamming or being a rapist. I have tried to be as civilized and respectful as I can possibly be. I expect the same respect towards the gay community in return. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://www.rrcstaff.com... [4] http://www.viewzone.com...", "title": "There's no such thing as being born GAY!", "pid": "59391011-2019-04-18T16:44:19Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.55186462402344}, {"text": "But not because of their sexual preferency and a long dream that they had about having a family, raising a child not become real just because they are gay. Still they have the same rights and sometimes the gay parents raise in a better way the children!", "title": "Gay adoption", "pid": "7ebeaeb5-2019-04-18T16:55:01Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.54071044921875}, {"text": "See Debate: Homosexuality Sample argument: Homosexuals are born gay, have no choice Ted Olson. \"The conservative case for gay marriage.\" Newsweek. January 12, 2010: \"Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed.\"", "title": "Homosexuals are born gay, have no choice", "pid": "d2f4b1cd-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00188-000", "bm25_score": 213.53363037109375}, {"text": "I do not think being gay is as simple as a choice, but I believe that when you're a child you are still trying to form connections and gather facts about the world. During this time you form your basic fundamental traits, although some genes do make some traits prominent than others, but you form what you think is socially acceptable, and you aren't even close to figuring things out about sexuality. I believe that during this time when you are so open to what you're parents tell you and what facts you are gathering, later in life you may develop certain personality traits that may make you homosexual, due to the basic fundamental connections you have formed as a child.", "title": "Born gay part 2", "pid": "4b0ccd12-2019-04-18T13:50:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.5325164794922}, {"text": "First, Before I start my argument I need to define certain words. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Gender identity can correlate with assigned sex at birth, Or can differ from it. Sexual orientation is a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, Homosexual, Or bisexual. Genital is a sexual organ. I will now present my argument. Argument From Genitals to multiple gender identities. P1. A society states that a gender comes from a person's genitalia. P2. There are two different genitalia. P3. So, There must be at least two genders. P4. However, A person can have one genitalia, No genitalia, Or both genitalia. P5. So, There are at least four genders. P6. However, A person can change their genitalia to another. P6. So, There are at least eight genders. P7. If P3, P4, Or P3 and P4 are ture, Then there must be more than two genders. C. There more than two genders.", "title": "transgender is not a gender/sex, Only 2 genders", "pid": "ce52abfa-2019-04-18T11:15:14Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.51475524902344}, {"text": "I will be arguing that there is strong evidence that genetics play a huge role in the sexual orientation of homosexuals. Burden of proof will be on me.", "title": "There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics.", "pid": "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.50375366210938}, {"text": "I understand my opponent had some difficulties so I will end with my round 3 argument and then a closing statement. -Round 3- \"As we see laws and rules regarding homo-sexuality change around the world, many people may feel like they would be more accepted if they changed sexual orientation.\" Do you think that this could be because they were afraid of being persecuted before hand? In Iran the threat of hanging may lessen homosexual activity, but there are still plenty of gays. (Some are forced into a sex-change because, curiously, transsexualism is more acceptable to the State.) There is a tribe in the New Guinea highlands called the 'sambia', where the practice (until recently) was for younger boys to be isolated from all female company and to fellate older boys in order to ingest their virility. The early teens were spent performing fellatio and the later teens being fellated. If any cultural pressure was going to create homosexuality surely this would be it - only it didn't. Come adulthood, most Sambia males emerged as married heterosexuals - with only around 5% of \"backsliders\" continuing to seek boys to fellate them (Herdt, 1981). This is much the same as the proportion of gay males in Western society. \"Another example is life experiences. Many people that are \"born\" straight may feel confused if they grow up seeing mostly straight people, then go out on their own and see gay couples.\" One of the first clues that people are born rather than made gay is that sex role behaviour, interests, toy and play preferences that relate to adult sex orientation can be observed from the earliest years. Some girls are described as \"tomboys\" and boys identified as 'sissies' when very young, usually by the age of 3. This is technically known as childhood gender nonconformity and it is strongly predictive of homosexuality in adulthood (Lippa, 2008). About 75% of CGN children grow up to be gay or lesbian. This would seem to place the origins of sex orientation much earlier than any supposed incidents of seduction and contagion in the early teens. There are actually differences in the anatomy of the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Where there are characteristic differences between male and female brains, these are often reversed in gay men and women. For example, LeVay (1991) found that a hypothalamic nucleus concerned with sexual behaviour (INAH-3), was smaller in gay men than straight men (indeed, more like that of women). Part of the conduit linking the left and right sides of the brain (the corpus callosum) is larger in homosexual men and straight women (Witelson et al, 2008). The brains of straight men and lesbians are larger in the right hemisphere than the left, but in gay men and straight women the two sides are symmetrical.). The amygdala, a mid-brain area important for emotional learning seems to be wired for a greater fight-flight response in straight men and lesbians than gay men and straight women (Savic & Lindstrom, 2008). Ponsetti et al (2007) found less gray matter in the perirhinal cortex in lesbians compared with straight women but no comparable differences between gay and straight men. [1] In regards to my opponents point that our parents have an affect on sexual orientation, I'd just like to place this link here to be observed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... I personally have a slight doubt that this father never gave off the opinion that he accepted homosexuality. it is clear that sex orientation is embedded within a bio-psychological context that goes beyond the simple question of who or what turns us on. It is a fundamental part of our nature that is not easily tilted by social events during development. Being raised by homosexual parents does not alter a child 's sexuality and those who fear their son can be initiated into homosexuality by an encounter with a paedophile priest or scoutmaster may sleep easily. [2] Recognition of the inborn nature of sexual orientation may underlie increasing acceptance of homosexuality in Western countries. [1] http://www.gresham.ac.uk...... [2] Wilson, G.D. & Rahman, Q. Born Gay: The psychobiology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen, 2005. -Closing- I'd like to thank my opponent for the debate, this is a topic I dwell over quite often. I believe that sexual orientation IS NOT a choice. The evidence I have provided will hopefully sway some of you (the voters) in my direction. Thanks for reading/voting!", "title": "Sexual Orientation is a choice", "pid": "88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.50100708007812}, {"text": "I was walking down a sidewalk and found myself behind a boy who dressed like a girl and holding hands with a girl who was dressed like a girl. Obviously for me to make any assumptions (which i guess I already have.. sorry!) about that particular situation is wrong, but it did spark this question in my mind: If a person who was born a male and has a sex change to female has sexual relations with a person who was born female and is still female, who if anyone, is gay? I believe that the female is gay because she is not having sex with a partner with a penis, but the boy who now is female is in fact straight because he was born a male, therefore he is having sex with the opposite organ of which he was born to. Thought are appreciated though!", "title": "the validity of transsexuality and identification", "pid": "179cfb4e-2019-04-18T12:15:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.48143005371094}, {"text": "\"Affidavit - United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts\" Michael Lamb, Ph.D. 2009", "title": "Children raised by same-sex parents are not more likely to have same-sex orientations themselves.", "pid": "8de3af5b-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00043-000", "bm25_score": 213.47784423828125}, {"text": "I'd kind of agree with that. My theory is that gays are born gay. I think that maybe you can decide that you're gay if you're questioning but for the most part they are born with it. Haha this is more like a conversation not a debate!", "title": "Gay Rights.", "pid": "924a24b2-2019-04-18T17:55:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.4241485595703}, {"text": "\"As we see laws and rules regarding homo-sexuality change around the world, many people may feel like they would be more accepted if they changed sexual orientation.\" Do you think that this could be because they were afraid of being persecuted before hand? In Iran the threat of hanging may lessen homosexual activity, but there are still plenty of gays. (Some are forced into a sex-change because, curiously, transsexualism is more acceptable to the State.) There is a tribe in the New Guinea highlands called the 'sambia', where the practice (until recently) was for younger boys to be isolated from all female company and to fellate older boys in order to ingest their virility. The early teens were spent performing fellatio and the later teens being fellated. If any cultural pressure was going to create homosexuality surely this would be it - only it didn't. Come adulthood, most Sambia males emerged as married heterosexuals - with only around 5% of \"backsliders\" continuing to seek boys to fellate them (Herdt, 1981). This is much the same as the proportion of gay males in Western society. \"Another example is life experiences. Many people that are \"born\" straight may feel confused if they grow up seeing mostly straight people, then go out on their own and see gay couples.\" One of the first clues that people are born rather than made gay is that sex role behaviour, interests, toy and play preferences that relate to adult sex orientation can be observed from the earliest years. Some girls are described as \"tomboys\" and boys identified as 'sissies' when very young, usually by the age of 3. This is technically known as childhood gender nonconformity and it is strongly predictive of homosexuality in adulthood (Lippa, 2008). About 75% of CGN children grow up to be gay or lesbian. This would seem to place the origins of sex orientation much earlier than any supposed incidents of seduction and contagion in the early teens. There are actually differences in the anatomy of the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Where there are characteristic differences between male and female brains, these are often reversed in gay men and women. For example, LeVay (1991) found that a hypothalamic nucleus concerned with sexual behaviour (INAH-3), was smaller in gay men than straight men (indeed, more like that of women). Part of the conduit linking the left and right sides of the brain (the corpus callosum) is larger in homosexual men and straight women (Witelson et al, 2008). The brains of straight men and lesbians are larger in the right hemisphere than the left, but in gay men and straight women the two sides are symmetrical.). The amygdala, a mid-brain area important for emotional learning seems to be wired for a greater fight-flight response in straight men and lesbians than gay men and straight women (Savic & Lindstrom, 2008). Ponsetti et al (2007) found less gray matter in the perirhinal cortex in lesbians compared with straight women but no comparable differences between gay and straight men. [1] In regards to my opponents point that our parents have an affect on sexual orientation, I'd just like to place this link here to be observed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I personally have a slight doubt that this father never gave off the opinion that he accepted homosexuality. it is clear that sex orientation is embedded within a bio-psychological context that goes beyond the simple question of who or what turns us on. It is a fundamental part of our nature that is not easily tilted by social events during development. Being raised by homosexual parents does not alter a child 's sexuality and those who fear their son can be initiated into homosexuality by an encounter with a paedophile priest or scoutmaster may sleep easily. [2] Recognition of the inborn nature of sexual orientation may underlie increasing acceptance of homosexuality in Western countries. [1] http://www.gresham.ac.uk... [2] Wilson, G.D. & Rahman, Q. Born Gay: The psychobiology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen, 2005.", "title": "Sexual Orientation is a choice", "pid": "88021be-2019-04-18T17:47:30Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.40884399414062}, {"text": "I believe my point may have been misunderstood: Sexual orientation doesn't originate ONLY from biology. Sexual orientation is a multivariable dynamic process. Of course there are some biological factors that influence sexual orientation, such as: - Genetics - Epigenetics (prenatal androgen exposure) - Brain structures Biology has a great influence on sexual orientation. But not everything is as it seems. 1) A study from Denmark proves that the environment increases or decreases the proportion of heterosexual and homosexual weddings. What did this study find? - Demography: People in cities are more likely to marry a same-sex partner and less likely to marry heterosexually. - Family issues - Having no brothers http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2) Younger men from the Sambia tribe fellate other adult men as a rite of passage. 3) The greeks were equally comfortable with the same-sex and that helped the formation of more \"men on men\" action. And finally this one, which i think isn't that good but can raise an interesting topic: 4) Homophobia is for some a latent homosexuality. By now all i can say is that homophobia correlates with homosexual arousal. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Are the people in 4 homosexual? Is homosexuality defined by conduct or is it enough if we consider physiological response? I believe sexual orientation is a social construct. So it doesn't really matter how you identify yourself, what matters is whether or not you are taking every aspect of yourself into account, or maybe just letting it be.", "title": "Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology", "pid": "2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.4032440185547}, {"text": "Twin StudiesMy opponent claims that because identical twins share the same DNA, they should both have the same sex orientation, but they don't. Therefore, he claims, it must be environmental. This has a number of problems to it. First, making a point against the notion: \"Homosexuals are born that way\" does not automatically prove your argument. For example, I could say \"Because identical twins don't have the same sexuality, it can't be genes, it must be flying dinosaurs.\", and it would still follow the same logic you have used. Second, people who have gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for these types of scientific studies, which can cause the results to become skewed.I agree, sexual orientation is not entirely due to DNA. That does not mean, however, that it is automatically environmental. Hormones play a major part in determining gender as well as sexual orientation, namely, the hormones the baby is exposed to in the womb. When in the womb, all babies are female, and in order to become male require hormones, namely testosterone. It is entirely possible that in the case of twins, one twin is exposed to less testosterone than the other. This is how you get fraternal twins. If for whatever reason onebaby was exposed to less testosterone than the other but both came out as male, the one who received less testosterone is more likely to be gay. The flip side applies for girls. Gay ParentsMy opponent claims through this study that gay parents are more likely to have homosexual kids than straight parents do, and therefore the gay parents must somehow influencing their kid to also become gay. There are also a number or issues with this conclusion. First, again, gay people are more likely to volunteer for/agree to these kinds of studies, again making the test pool skewed. Second, it is also entirely possible that the child is biologically related to one of the parents, and that \"homosexual gene\" (to kind of over-simplify it) may have been passed down to the child.Reorientation TherapyThe way reorientation therapy works is that they give the \"patient\" a positive stimulus when they have lustful thoughts for the opposite sex and negative stimulus for when they have lustful thoughts for the same sex. They also may fill them up with estrogen/testosterone in an attempt to make them find the opposite sex more attractive. However, it has been shown time and time again that this does not work. The first and main reason is that homosexuality is not psychosis. Again, if my opponent is saying that homosexuality is mutable, he is also implying that it is some sort of disease. Homosexuality is NOT a disease, if it was a disease, psychologists or doctors would be easily be able to discern them from straight people. But they can't, as seen in a study of I can't recall the name but it was mentioned in a This American Life's episode 81 words. I will however, provide a similar study below.A recent APA task force did a study on this and found in their 2009 report that the participants in their study went through gay conversion therapy and came out negligibly more attracted to the opposite sex and remained just as attracted to the same sex. On the other hand, what did change was the patients state of mental health, as the side effects of such therapy's were loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality and anxiety.A lot of these studies that my opponent mentioned have a number of issues. From 1960 to 2007 only 83 studies confirm my opponents case, of which most had biases such as a court ordering that compelled them to take the therapy or a very small, low budget test pool. Also, a lot of footnotes here, did you just copy and paste this stuff? Because if you did, please stop, I will not debate with a website.Animals \"There is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation. There are no known animals who have *long term* homosexual relationships. What occurs in animals is not directly applicable to what occurs in humans.\"This statement has a number of issues. First, there are known animals who have long term homosexual relationships, a lot actually, namely geese and duck (who mate for life), dwarf chimpanzees (all of which, that's right, all, are bisexual), swans (also mate for life), domestic cats (mate for life), and lions (mate for life), to name a few. Second, my opponent forgets that humans are also animals. What applies to animals may also apply to humans, we are not suddenly above anything animal relate just because we are humans. This is why we do drug tests on mice; they 80% related to humans.I forgot to put sources last time, I put them here this time. Sorry!http://listverse.com...http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...http://www.livescience.com...http://www.frc.org...http://www.bestmedicaldegrees.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.wehonews.com...http://www.thisamericanlife.org...", "title": "Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way'", "pid": "cae0ad5c-2019-04-18T15:17:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.3753662109375}, {"text": "I feel that yes people are born a certain way and shouldn't be judged by that, it is not a choice they made, it's how they are. acceding to pink news, \"Yes, we have a choice in life, to be ourselves or to conform to someone else\"s idea of normality, but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these, is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we were born with.\" and for me, I was born this way, God chose this path for me to take. according to CARM \"HomoSEXuality is a behavior, an action. It is not the same thing as a genetic condition, such as skin color, height, or gender. Homosexual intercourse (is there homosexuality without it?) is a behavior and is, therefore, something people choose to do. Actions are what people c", "title": "born a way", "pid": "d2d4219f-2019-04-18T13:20:48Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.36582946777344}, {"text": "Before I begin, I want to say I am fiercely PRO-LGBT AND HUMAN RIGHTS. Because of this I am going to ignore your first argument, and other arguments except for the second because that does not seem to go into the terms of being gay is NOT bad sort of thing. What is choice ? Choice - an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities When I was young and navive, I want to be left-handed because I was convinced that left-handed people were smarter (which is obviously not true in all cases). But, I was born right-handed, however that doesn't mean I don't have a choice. So, even though I was right-handed doesn't mean I couldn't be left-handed. Because really wanted to be left-handed. But couldn't sadly speaking. I could always fake it untiI make it. Applying, my brief anecdote to my own sexual orientation, I could want to homosexual and I could fool myself into thinking, I am gay, but I wouldn't be gay. Because I simply wasn't born that way. However that doesn't mean I don't have a choice in the matter. Just like people that don't have a choice in their sex, but do have a choice in their gender identity. We all have a choice in what we could be and who we are. This is called freedom. Or If you are simply implying that choice is the freedom to choose what we want to be or be who we are, then that's for the next round. Please clarify and be as specific as you can. I do so love a good round of wits! 😀😀😀", "title": "Sexual orientation is not a choice", "pid": "3bc0ea4-2019-04-18T15:39:06Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.35403442382812}, {"text": "A child’s primary role models are his or her parents. Bringing a heterosexual child up in a gay household gives them a distorted view of a minority sexuality, just as a girl brought up by two men would fail to benefit from a feminine influence.", "title": "Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and the...", "pid": "2bb90bda-2019-04-19T12:47:20Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 213.32908630371094}, {"text": "Seriously? For real. Are you serious? Obviously being a homosexual is a choice. No one is born gay. You said ones sexual orientation is based on their parents. You are right That doesn't mean that it is not a choice. It is their parents choice thast they make their kid gay. As for the kid. As young as 12, they know that being gay is a very controversal thing, and their parents have no right to tell them whether or not they can dig Women, or Shlongs. I am keeping this short, so heres a summary. 1. The parents decide if the parents are gay 2. The kid can decide his own sexuality 3. The parents choice doesnt matter 4. And it doesnt matter because this isnt only about children, but gayness in general 5. That being said, I know plenty of gay people who decided to be gay on their own accord.", "title": "Being gay is not a choice made by the individual.", "pid": "4e4efcc0-2019-04-18T17:45:10Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 213.29452514648438}, {"text": "Con In recent years we have witnessed a lot of arguments over the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general. However I feel like people are not paying enough attention to the real debate at hand are people born gay? main debate points to discuss A)Society dictates how the majority of people interact with one another sexually and non sexually. B)at birth a child does not understand the difference between male and female nor the complexity of a modern day relationship. C)before a children reaches puberty there are no distinctive exterior differences between males and females, except the way they dress and the image they portray. the \"image\" is also dictated by society for example if a group of 6 year olds all cut there hair short and dressed in the same clothes could you tell the difference. D)the world would be a better place if we accepted the fact that being gay is a choice E)homosexuality is a freak idea created by society because the whole basis of it is on the principles of gender stereotypes if a boy likes the color pink for example it does not mean that he is gay. Note I am not anti-gay in my opinion it is your choice however, I am against the way our society currently views homosexuals, they are not accepting them but they are making an excuse for there homosexuality by saying that people are born gay. This is a bad thing for are society because it makes being gay seem like an abnormal condition that mutates a gene. In my opinion I think it would be better if we just agree that it is an individuals choice to be gay. This would be better for society because people would over time become more accepting of homosexuals, just as people have become more tolerant for the most part of other religious groups. Forcing people to accept homosexuals by using the excuse that they are born that way and that you must accept them is not a solution.", "title": "people are born gay", "pid": "83991908-2019-04-18T17:04:39Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.28506469726562}, {"text": "\"Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States : A social science perspective.\" American Psychologist. 2006 \"The relevance of this question to policy is dubious because homosexuality is neither an illness nor a disability, and the mental health professions do not regard a homosexual or bisexual orientation as harmful, undesirable, or requiring intervention or prevention.\"", "title": "The relevance of causes of sexual orientation to policy is dubious", "pid": "8de3af5b-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00044-000", "bm25_score": 213.27679443359375}, {"text": "(both human and in other races), and their upbringing will not be affect their sexuality. Attempting to suppress this genetic predisposition has resulted in great misery for many people. Rather, we should accept this and look to embrace all gay people fully – which must include celebrating gay role models, especially as responsible parents.", "title": "Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality", "pid": "8de3af5b-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00045-000", "bm25_score": 213.27285766601562}, {"text": "First off, I don't see how any of my arguments are in the terms of \"being gay is not bad sort of thing\". I keep reading through my 1st, 3rd, and 4th arguments trying to figure out where you get this idea, and I can't find it. Please point it out in your next argument. What you're saying is that it is possible for it to be a choice, and yes it absolutely is. If I wanted to, I could begin pursuing men and give up women. Now that's not what I want, but I can do it. Like when I said I don't like deviled eggs; I could eat them if I wanted to, I just wouldn't enjoy it. I'm sure that there is at least somebody out there who chose to be homosexual, but just because choosing who you sleep with it possible doesn't mean you were born attracted to that gender. It's possible for me to begin sleeping with dogs, although I wouldn't enjoy it. That doesn't mean I was attracted to dogs, it just means I made a choice for whatever reason. Choice-an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities Yes, who you sleep with is a choice. But that doesn't mean when you were born, you were faced with that choice. I don't see any reason to believe it is a choice, and no reason has been presented to me, only the obvious possibility that people can sleep with who they please.", "title": "Sexual orientation is not a choice", "pid": "3bc0ea4-2019-04-18T15:39:06Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.24600219726562}, {"text": "It is true that often times traits can be passed over from generation to generation, which would explain why they have similar mannerisms. However this does not provide an argument for homosexuality being a choice because society dictates are idea of the difference between feminine traits and masculine traits; society also dictates the idea of the roles men and woman play in society. For example what are you taught at young age? that pink, purple, light green etc. are feminine colors and blue, red, green are masculine colors. In other words society and the world around you dictates your traits and what you consider masculine and feminine.", "title": "people are born gay", "pid": "83991908-2019-04-18T17:04:39Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.24270629882812}, {"text": "First and for most before I start this argument I will state that I am NOT going to cite sources or back up material for a lot of information that I use for several different reasons; either it is common knowledge, common sense, or the information in my argument can easily be verified and looked up at any time on any search engine. It is not rocket science but any information I use can be searched and confirmed on your own time. First I will start by saying that there is no definitive proof that lower levels of testosterone effect sexual orientation. You never mentioned the female hormone estrogen which some females are born with lower levels of but are not Lesbians. You stated verbatim that \"The developing male fetus receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation,\" yet there are lots of heterosexual men born with lower levels of testosterone so if what you are saying is accurate then these men should be GAY. On the same note as stated in Wikipedia testosterone is a steroid hormone not a sexual orientation hormone and it plays a key role in males in the development of their reproductive organs as well as promoting secondary sexual characteristics such as increased muscle, bone mass, and the growth of body hair. Also falling in love is scientifically proven to lower levels of testosterone in males and increase testosterone in females which means that testosterone levels have intermittent highs and lows throughout the lifetime of a human being. It is our natural affinity to constantly go through hormonal changes all throughout life so why would something that is permanently innate in human development \"SUDDENLY\" have an affect on sexual orientation even if it happens prematurely during birth? Also on Wikipedia nowhere does it say TESTOSTERONE has \"ANYTHING\" to do with gender attraction nor in Human Biology which I took in college. The course covers over several chapters of detailed research and scientific information on different hormones, their effects on the body, and what they mean to our anatomy but there is not ONE reputable source that definitively confirms and proves without a doubt your claims about Testosterone having anything to do with sexual orientation; it is all speculation and not fact. Then you said, \"The developing MALE FETUS receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation.\" So I guess only males are born GAY??? And females get to choose... yes I see your logic! Second I love hypocrisy in debate it's great because I love how you said \"In addition, another study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable,\" then you said \"Just like the analogy that is used in my evidence, it is simply like being left handed.\" How is this statement any different from my pedophilia, scam artist, thief analogy? But I will get back to that later in the argument now is not the time lol! I want to address the fact that you said a study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable... how so? I would have loved to know which study this was and how they were able to prove something like that and what was the deciding factor that proved it, but as expected you couldn't offer anything more than just an enigmatic statement. You also stated verbatim that... \"A study was done by Dr. Ward, who found that androstendione in male pregnancies would prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain. The brain makes its gender commitment very early in development and, once committed to either male or female, it cannot change. These are all studies and examples that sexual orientation is, in fact, proved to be ingrained within a person before birth.\" \"Androstenedione\" as it is correctly spelled is the common precursor of male and female sex hormones as also stated in Wikipedia. It does lots of things in the human body but nowhere does it say that it has ANYTHING to do with sexual orientation or gender commitment however there is speculation that it may have estrogenic side-effects but that has yet to be proven because no one has ever had a high enough intake. Second Androstenedione was manufactured as a dietary supplement, often called andro for short. Andro was legal and able to be purchased over the counter, and, as a consequence, it was in common use in Major League Baseball throughout the 1990s by record-breaking sluggers like Mark McGwire. The International Olympic Committee in 1997 banned Androstenedione and placed it under the category of \"androgenic-anabolic steroids\" and for this reason it is banned by MLB, the NFL, USOC, NCA, and by the NBA. If Androstenedione has the ability to \"prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain,\" as you've stated then why have none of these athletes who habitually have taken this supplement have displayed any homosexual-like behavior or characteristics in any way what-so-ever?? Odd don't you think? And you use this estranged person called Dr. Ward? I looked him up and couldn't find a Dr. Ward only someone named Dr. Ward F. Odenwald if that's who you're talking about who did his research on HOMOSEXUALITY in 1995!! I was 9 years old!! Which was almost 20 years ago! So his research is null-and-void and means nothing because everything he \"THOUGHT\" he proved has yet to come to fruition! His so-called GAY discovery Androstenedione which was banned 2 years AFTER his research has not had the effect that he claimed it has on MALES and almost 20 years later and counting no athlete who took Androstenedione on a regular basis as a supplement has yet to experience changes in their sexual orientation. You also stated that sexual orientation was in-grained at birth yet you told me in the last argument that you cannot prove that someone who was GAY actually turned straight... that statement is a contradiction yet people do it all the time and YOU KNOW IT! In-grained my AZZ! I've had friends who were GAY and turned STRAIGHT and when asked about their decision to become heterosexual they said at one point they were attracted to the same gender and now they're JUST NOT!! I'm a female and I was attracted to other females for almost 6 years and now I'M NOT!! I'm attracted to guys and have been dating them ever since! People change their sexual preference all the time not to mention I CHOSE my sex partners thus choosing my orientation and was not in-grained with it. It is a personal choice just as simple as one day wanting Cheese cake and the next day Apple Pie! Lastly I'm going to skip arguing a lot of the stuff you said because it's pointless and I've already won so I will conclude this round by replying with a rebuttal to a statement that you made when you said... \"It is unreasonable to compare homosexuals being born the way they are to relate pedophiles and scam artists to the same cause. There is no way you can justify this. You are going into a different issue. Lets keep in mind that we are talking about sexual orientation, and not ACTUAL CHOICES and POOR DECISIONS people choose to make, like scamming or being a rapist.\" My response to that is no it is not unreasonable because the basis of my argument is that there is no such thing as people being born gay... it is a personal choice! I am not going into a different direction by naming people that live these other various lifestyles because this has everything to do with my argument because being GAY is ALSO a lifestyle and it is a lifestyle choice. And you consider people who live as pedophiles, scam artists, rapists and so forth to be \"ACTUAL CHOICES\" and \"POOR DECISIONS\" yet being a guy and WANTING to suck another guy's wiener is not? LMAO Get out of here! There are STRAIGHT men who even do this for the money and solely for the money so get the heck out of here but in your biased logic it can't be an ACTUAL CHOICE or male prostitution it's an \"epi-mark\" no wait it's too much \"Androstenedione\" at birth, no no it's \"lack of Testosterone\"!! Wait it's in the \"BRAIN\"!! HAHA Which one is it?? Pick one! LMAO!!", "title": "There's no such thing as being born GAY!", "pid": "59391011-2019-04-18T16:44:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.23353576660156}, {"text": "Hello. == Definitions == Homosexuality: In this debate, we will be specifically be focusing on orientation. Same-sex behavior is different as it is often distinguishable from orientation. Thus, homosexuality will be defined as \"an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of . . . the same sex or gender.\" -- http://en.wikipedia.org... 'Born that way': The theory argues homosexuality is inborn. Homosexuals are born that way, and their orientation is immutable. Genetics, epigenetics, or antibodies in the womb cause homosexuality and cannot change through therapy or different environments. --> I will be arguing homosexuality is caused by multiple things. Genes have *some* effect, but the effect is moderate to weak (less than 50%). Environmental factors are the main reason homosexual tendencies develop. I am NOT arguing it is an (intentional) choice. No one chooses these factors: they just happen. I will also argue change is possible, and therefore mutable. == Structure == R1: Pro accepts and presents case R2: Con presents case, Pro rebuts R3: Rebuttals/defense for both R4: Rebuttals/defense for Con, Pro writes \"no round as agreed\". I have made this impossible to accept. Accepting without permission = forfeit. No trolling, semantics, stuff like that. gl", "title": "Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way'", "pid": "cae0ad5c-2019-04-18T15:17:55Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.205810546875}, {"text": "I don't really understand your argument. are you saying that sexuality just can't be as easily defined as race? If so, you kind of can. You can be straight, meaning you are attracted to the opposite sex, gay, meaning you are attracted to the same sex, bisexual, meaning you're attracted to both sexes, or gender fluid, basically meaning other. could you please clarify your position?", "title": "Nobody Can Determines Someone's Sexuality.", "pid": "b4960ddc-2019-04-18T14:43:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.18699645996094}, {"text": "Hi, I will be arguing that homosexuals are \"born that way\"When my opponent says that homosexuals are not \"born that way\", he is implying that such a sexual orientation is artificial in one way or another. He says that \"Environmental factors are the main reason homosexual tendencies develop\". Now if this were true, we would see a certain demographic of homosexual people. For example, if exposure to, say, pine trees gives people a higher chance of being gay, then we would see people who live near pine trees or are otherwise regularly exposed to pine trees would be statistically \"more gay\" than people who aren't very much involved with pine trees. My point is, all gay people would have something in common environmentally, be it where they live or how they were raised, etc. However, we don't see that. There are homosexuals from an enormous range of demographics, such as from poor gays to rich gays to Chinese gays to American gays to famous gays to celebrity gays to atheist gays and to religious gays. If homosexuality was not inborn but was affected by environmental factors, there wouldn't be homosexuals with such a diverse array of backgrounds. All homosexuals do have something in common with each other, however, and that is their chromosomes. Scientists tested 400 gay men and found that homosexuality can be associated with at least two chromosomes, which affect a man's sexual orientation. In 1993 Dean Hamer studied the family history of 100 gay men and found that homosexuality tended to be inherited. More than 10% of brothers of gay men were also gay (compared to 3% of the population), and uncles and male cousins on the mother's side also had a higher chance of being gay. Hamer, upon analyzing the X-chromosome, found that 33 out of 40 gay brothers had similar marks on a certain region on the chromosome. That is not to say that homosexuality is entirely genetics, it also involves other factors such as the amount of hormones the baby was exposed to in the womb.If homosexuality was affected by environmental factors, lesbians would be the same in every way biologically to straight women, and gay men would also be in every way biologically the same as straight men. However, this is not the case. Testosterone is commonly associated to spatial reasoning. When put under a spatial reasoning test, gay men tended to do worse than straight men, and lesbians tended to do better than straight women. Gay men are 31% more likely to be left handed than straight men, and lesbians are 91% more likely to be left handed than straight women. The more older brothers a male has, the higher chance that male has of being gay. This is because after giving birth to a male, the mother's body may resist the production of another male baby and can change the sexual orientation of that baby. The way this happens was explained above throughout the chromosome region. In gay men and heterosexual women, the two sides of the brain were about the same size, while in gay women and heterosexual men, the right side of the brain was slightly larger. What does this all suggest? Gay men share traits with straight women, and gay women share traits with straight men. As such, homosexuality cannot be a product of the environment.When my opponent says that homosexuality is mutable, he implies one of three things: 1. Homosexuality is a choice 2. Homosexuality is a disease. 3. Homosexuality is evolutionarily advantageous.My opponent clearly states that he is not arguing that homosexuality is a choice, so #1 is out. Homosexuality is definitely not evolutionarily advantageous, as homosexuals can't mate, so #3 is out. What we are left with is #2, which says homosexuality is a disease. Now this may be a little provocative, and I hope not to insult anyone, but this is what I have deduced from my opponent's claim that homosexuality is mutable. This was my thought process:-Opponent claims homosexuality is mutable, or can be changed-Other things that are also mutable in terms of humans are choices, diseases (both biological and psychological), and some evolutionary adaptations.-Opponent clearly states that he is not arguing homosexuality is a choice. Cross choice out-Homosexuality is not evolutionary advantageous, as homosexuals can't mate. Cross that out-Disease is left. -Ergo, the statement \"homosexuality is a mutable\" implies that homosexuality is a disease.Now I don't know if Pro meant to imply this, and I'm sorry if he didn't, but homosexuality is clearly not a disease as proven by the above evidence. Gay conversion therapy exists, but these programs have a 3% percent \"success\" rate, and these success tended to be religiously correlated, whether it be the \"cured\" converts to a religion that disallow homosexuality or he/she is already involved in a religion that disallows homosexuality.To extended the diversity argument, over 1500 species have been found to have homosexual tendencies. Now these animals range from dwarf monkeys to lions to bison to geese to penguins and to dolphins. Now all of these animals live in completely different parts of the globe. How would it be possible that homosexual tendencies can be found in 1500 species from all over the globe if environmental factors are responsible for it?", "title": "Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way'", "pid": "cae0ad5c-2019-04-18T15:17:55Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 213.18206787109375}, {"text": "Gay parents \"tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents,\" said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. \"That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement.\" And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents. \"There's no doubt whatsoever from the research that children with two lesbian parents are growing up to be just as well-adjusted and successful\" as children with a male and a female parent,\" Stacey told LiveScience. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "title": "Homosexual adoption", "pid": "f64a59a-2019-04-18T16:47:53Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.1682891845703}, {"text": "In recent years we have witnessed a lot of arguments over the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general. However I feel like people are not paying enough attention to the real debate at hand are people born gay? main debate points to discuss A)Society dictates how the majority of people interact with one another sexually and non sexually. B)at birth a child does not understand the difference between male and female nor the complexity of a modern day relationship. C)before a children reaches puberty there are no distinctive exterior differences between males and females, except the way they dress and the image they portray. the \"image\" is also dictated by society for example if a group of 6 year olds all cut there hair short and dressed in the same clothes could you tell the difference. D)the world would be a better place if we accepted the fact that being gay is a choice E)homosexuality is a freak idea created by society because the whole basis of it is on the principles of gender stereotypes if a boy likes the color pink for example it does not mean that he is gay. Note I am not anti-gay in my opinion it is your choice however, I am against the way our society currently views homosexuals, they are not accepting them but they are making an excuse for there homosexuality by saying that people are born gay. This is a bad thing for are society because it makes being gay seem like an abnormal condition that mutates a gene. In my opinion I think it would be better if we just agree that it is an individuals choice to be gay. This would be better for society because people would over time become more accepting of homosexuals, just as people have become more tolerant for the most part of other religious groups. Forcing people to accept homosexuals by using the excuse that they are born that way and that you must accept them is not a solution.", "title": "are people born gay", "pid": "9828e7fb-2019-04-18T17:04:41Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.13595581054688}, {"text": "You admitted that sexual preference was only 40% based on genes and that how you are raised accounts for the other 60%. However, this argument can go in my way. Just because you are raised in a certain way doesn't mean that you believe a certain thing. You can be raised by straight parents and decide that you are gay without having a gene. Take my friend's sister for example, I know she was straight for a while as when my friend and I were younger, she would always talk about how great her boyfriend was and she went through two or three boyfriends. However, she then decided that she was going to be gay. Your sources help with your gene based side but people do have the choice. You also mentioned only men, and not once did you mention women.", "title": "It is a choice to be gay or straight.", "pid": "62827e8d-2019-04-18T16:10:15Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.0669708251953}, {"text": "By born gay I don't mean that people are born with a sex drive, that develops later in life. \"What you ARE born with is a predisposition to what you will be attracted to when you begin your sexual awakening. \" \" \"American Medical Association Official Website:\" http://www.apa.org... (You'll want to read each section of this article on homosexuality divided into the drop boxes) \"Here is an article from Cornell University : https://confluence.cornell.edu... \" here is the article released by The American Psychoanalytical Association Official Website:\" http://www.apsa.org... \"is a link to The American Pediatric Associaton Official Website's article on Homosexuality:\" http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... \"of these sources say that homosexuality is not a choice. \"It is something you are born with. \"Can I see your links now? \" Take or leave the one from Cornell University or any other University. \"Similar conclusions have been found by Yale, Oxford, and several other Ivey League Schools. \"Those articles are also publicly available. \"The American Psychological Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association and the American Pediatric Association Trump any University statement anyway. So many world leading doctors, scientists, biologists and psychologists say being gay is not a choice. (Let's hope I can get a decent opponent this time)", "title": "people are born gay", "pid": "83991946-2019-04-18T13:42:47Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.0591583251953}, {"text": "I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic disorder, rather it's a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association has deemed sexual orientation to be fluid, or changeable throughout a person's lifetime. Sexual desire is not genetic, it is in the mind.", "title": "homosexuality is a genetic disorder", "pid": "77a5df9b-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.056640625}, {"text": "Thanks for clearing that up, I was a little confused. In response to your points, I would like to address a major concern in that you brought up in your second argument. According the the American Psychological Association, \"many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. [1]\" The key here is that it is widely accepted that the vast majority of the population do not choose their sexual orientation, whether that be heterosexual or homosexual. Instead of accepting that it is a choice, which it is not, a better focus of accepting homosexuality would be to educate both sexualities on prejudice and discrimination. The psychological effects of accusing someone of choosing their identity could lead to depression, social anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Instead, great efforts could be made to celebrate the homosexual community and combat prejudice. A great example of this would be the ruling that the students at Baylor University decided that the inclusion of homosexual acts in the misconduct policy should be removed. [2] Society has not created the way everyone views homosexuality, because not everyone views it the same way. In the past few years, homosexuality has become increasingly accepted and supported by people of all different faiths, religions, and ethnicities. If more people are accepting homosexuals, it would not have any direct correlation to the number of homosexuals, except for any individuals that may feel less threatened by coming out. Initially, it may appear that there would be a higher number of homosexual individuals, however, that number would only increase do to the fact that if society is accepting of homosexuality, they wouldn't feel the need to hide their true identity. Sources: [1] http://www.apa.org... [2] http://www.usatoday.com...", "title": "are people born gay", "pid": "9828e7fb-2019-04-18T17:04:41Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.04238891601562}, {"text": "\"There is no evidence that anyone within the LGBTQ+ community would make lesser parents than any heterosexual\". I completely agree, but the issue isn't really that they would make lesser parents. It's not a matter of a gay father being a worse father than a straight father, but rather the fact that there isn't any mother. From an evolutionist or religious standpoint, humans were either created or evolved to have a mother and a father, each with their own unique traits. When it comes to homosexual parents, there is no balance of these traits. You either have 2 females, which tend to be emotional and caring without any of the traits of a father, or the other way around. It's not that they would make bad mothers, it's that you need more than just mothers. Not to mention, it's unfair to the child to be forced to have homosexual parents, and, in a society that discriminates against homosexuals, the child could be made fun of or bullied for it, which is unfair to them. Children deserve to have the balance of male and female, rather than leaning too heavily towards the emotional female traits, or the more serious, staid male traits.", "title": "Gay adoption", "pid": "7ebeaf31-2019-04-18T11:43:11Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.02474975585938}, {"text": "Homosexuals are born gay, have no choice", "title": "Gay marriage", "pid": "d2f4b1cd-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.02194213867188}, {"text": "Thank you for my first debate. Secondly, I'm assuming my opponent is giving arguments for sexuality as opposed to the general alternative. Sexuality is a choice because we start out with a clean slate. Are we born murders/lawyers? No. As we grow, there will always be influences around us ranging from parents to friends to associates. These are effects on our personality, that cannot be predetermined at the womb or birth. By ignoring influences such as these, we suggest our fate is predetermined but then, nothing would really change, we couldn't be saved, hope would be minute. Human nature would most likely win etc. \"Choices can be made in the present, nature is background or recessive\" the philosopher said to the biologist. I'd argue so.", "title": "born a way", "pid": "d2d4219f-2019-04-18T13:20:48Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.01852416992188}, {"text": "The argument is extremely relevant. Depending on the artificiality of how gender is determined at birth for intersex people, how they self-identify may not conform with how they were \"gendered\". For many of these people being asked to declare a gender so as to judge their qualification for a opposite gendered marriage is unfair. With the legalization of same sex marriage, gender is no longer an element in the marital equation, therefore sparing intersexed and transgendered individuals the trouble of choosing and declaring a gender to get married.", "title": "Rebuttal: More than gay rights", "pid": "2a364f04-2019-04-19T12:44:39Z-00041-000", "bm25_score": 213.01080322265625}, {"text": "I wanna start off by saying thank you for accepting.Now I will start going into depth about how homosexuals can make great parents. My first argument stated they are more open minded and tolerant of others. This is a true fact because homosexuals know what it feels like to be descrimnated against because of there sexual orientation. They teach there children to be excepting of others because they know how it feels to be looked at diffrent. Children of homosexuals often tend to make friends better than children of heterosexuals. My second argument stated that they are very motivated. According to guttmacher institute about half of u.s pregnancies are unplanned, and half of those unplanned pregnancies end in birth rather than abortion. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying parents of unplanned children aren't good parents because they can be however some are in dire circumstances. Studies show two-thirds of unplanned births were paid for by Medicare or other low income insurance programs. This is where homosexual parents motivation come in to play. In contrast homosexual parents have to plan there children before having them whether it be adoption or artificial insemination. Homosexuals on average tend to be more commited and motivated because they choose to be parents. My final argument stated that they express them selves however they please. What I mean by that is that they don't conform to gender rolls in society. Judith Stacey, a professor of contemporary gender studies found that children of lesbian parents showed greater interest in both masculine and feminine qualities unlike children raised in heterosexual households. She also found that girls of lesbian parents had higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female. She found that boys of lesbian households were less aggressive and violent and more nurturing and affectionate towards others. That is the end of my arguments until further notice. I look forward to hearing your arguments. (1)http://www.narth.com...", "title": "Homosexuals make great parents", "pid": "7f918657-2019-04-18T17:16:35Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.00796508789062}, {"text": "People are born gay. I believe that guys are born with a certain chromosome that lets them believe that they are gay and are suppose to be gay such as suppose to be a girl or boy.", "title": "born gay", "pid": "21910622-2019-04-18T13:51:05Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.00592041015625}, {"text": "Children raised by homosexuals may become more tolerant individuals.", "title": "Gay adoption", "pid": "8de3af5b-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.99423217773438}, {"text": "Thanks for responding.Rebuttal/DefenseAddressing my opponent's remark on religion, I'll say it again, it is irrelevant and futile in this debate because the United States has a seperation of Church and State that is protected under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net...). But then agaoin, my opponent made no reasonable rebuttal to refute my argument which states that gay adopion is against the Bible. The Bible only prohibits gay sex. Again, please disregard any religious arguments.Next, my opponent tries to rebut my argument that LGBT parents have no influence on children, which is true. My opponent's reponse is by sending a link to an opinion article of an unpolular website and not even care to argue what's being said there. You need to elaborate what you cite in an online debate. Bottomline, there's nothing to refute if there's no official argument, please extend.Oh, and since my opponent is being to mean and wants Wikipedia articles disregarded, I'll back up my argument by showing genuine and official documents published by the APA:**http://www.apa.org...In here, the APA officially states that, \"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.\"This basically trashes the ludicrous claim that having gay parents can make you gay.**http://www.apa.org...APA stated that \"there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children\"Finally, my opponent never really convincingly rebutted my argument on preventing bullying and depression and continues to claim that we ban LGBT adoption because it's the only way. He didn't explain why thoroughly enough. CON also argues that homosexuals cannot produce offspring naturally and therefore shouldn't have children. Weak arguments needs improvements.Once again, I ask the readers to please extend my previous arguments since they weren't adequately refuted by CON. Thanks.", "title": "Adoption of Children by Same Sex Couples", "pid": "1c1cd50-2019-04-18T18:24:05Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.97354125976562}, {"text": "Let me ask a clarifying question. By \"predisposition\" do you mean that they have a certain likelihood to be gay, or do you mean it's more or less CERTAIN that they'll be gay? To make it more concrete, say a child is born. Would it make sense to you to say that the child might end up either straight or gay, but the odds are 70% towards gay? (weak version) Or do you mean it more like the child is pretty much 100% going to go straight or gay, and which one is already determined? (strong version) If you take the weak version position, you might want to reset the debate. I don't intend to dispute that. If you take the strong version position, then it'll be a pleasure to debate you.", "title": "people are born gay", "pid": "83991946-2019-04-18T13:42:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.97183227539062}, {"text": "The evidence you had was a theory, not a proven fact. I mean its like saying that a person who is a comidian, his reason for doing so is in his genetics. It's in our instintics that every one of us, yes including the other sexuals, was to be paired with the opposite sex. If it is indeed in the genetics the why would the genetic makeup of a gay man not have the qualities of a woman. He can't reproduce if he is only attracted to men so why would his DNA make him a guy? The thing is, it doesn't make since for a GENETICALLY homosexual not be able to reproduce with other GENETICALLY homosexuals.", "title": "There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics.", "pid": "f8070fca-2019-04-18T17:34:05Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.9702911376953}, {"text": "It seems I have eaten more than I could chew. Great points there, here is my rebuttal 1. Right to adoption At law Adoption refers to the act by which an adult formally becomes the guardian of a child and incurs the rights and responsibilities of a parent. -So legally speaking any person irregardless of sexual orientation has the right to adopt, provided they meet the legal requirements. Denying a person based on sexual orientation or giving preference to others based on sexual orientation is a form of discrimination which is against the UN Universal Bill of Rights. Thats my reasoning on how it is the right of a gay couple to adopt. In society we cannot choose our parents, so in effect a child has no right to choose their parents since there are no legal provisions to make this possible. 2. Environment There is no scientific proof to prove that there is any negative effect on a child if they are raised in a gay family, there is evidence to support the fact that a gay family setup will result in all children being gay, since the very essence of sexual orientation is the fact that a person is born as is. Until the day there is peer reviewed research that proves that there is a problem with a child being raised in a same sex marriage then we should not discriminate, which beings my next point. 3. Fairness/Level playing field/Discrimination What I am saying we should level the playing, a qualifying same sex married couple should have the same chance of adopting a child as a mixed sex couple. 4. Rights of a child As I mentioned earlier on a child cannot choose its parents, so it follows that in any setting such a right to choose what environment they grow up in is not enforceable as it does not and cannot exist. 5. Moral issues When you say natural family, you imply that being gay is unnatural which is unfounded except in religious jargon. Morality is subjective, which is why we cannot create laws based on moral standards. I hope I have addressed you points adequately, thank you", "title": "Homosexual adoption", "pid": "f64a59a-2019-04-18T16:47:53Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.96554565429688}, {"text": "I am grateful that you respect my opinion as I do yours. Hopefully our differences won't affect that. My point is that homosexuality is not normal. My biggest problem is with the gay agenda. I don't believe it should be promoted as a normal life style. Because it clearly is not. Having said that does not mean anyone should be denied the right to love whom they want as long as it is \"mutual\". But there are consequences when we try to normalize something that is primarily based on an abnormal sexual preference. In the case of same sex interaction you cannot have offspring. When it comes to marriage the argument is why can't I legally marry the one I love. I submit that the reason that the state got involved with marriage in the first place was because of offspring. It's a contract between a man and a woman that puts children first and their love secondary. And it is my opinion (but not just mine) children need a mother and a father. If you are gay maybe you cannot see that. Yes gay couples are capable of loving children too. But the need for a mother and a father trump that argument. Also the sexual nature of that kind of union is not healthy for nurturing children. In their attempt to normalize Homosexuality the gay agenda has forced it's belief on The Boy Scouts of America. Something I feel was completely unnecessary. It's supposed to be a free country. The idea that their political motivation was more important than preserving the values that the scouts held is indicative of who they are. To be clear, I am talking about the those that belong to the gay organizations that promote these political ideals. To me this just strengthens my belief that homosexuality should not be treated as normal.", "title": "Sexual orientation", "pid": "13176601-2019-04-18T17:19:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.93145751953125}, {"text": "Thanks for your response. I’ll make this quick and simple. Rebuttal It seems that my opponent’s R1 argument was solely based on weak assumptions, appealing to religion and his irrational personal belief of what the outcome may be (which is flawed). One of CON’s claim is his belief that (the Judeo-Christian) God created people to be with the opposite gender, to keep up with traditional family values. Fact is, it’s not simple nor is it fair. If we would be using the obsolete teachings of the Bible as an argument, there is no verse which prohibits LGBT adoption, and isn’t it God’s and Jesus’ teaching to forgive and love your neighbor? But of course, religious Scripture is irrelevant and futile to this debate and it should be disregarded. CON then argued that having a father & mother creates an impact since it serves different purposes or influences to a kid’s life, meaning that heterosexual parents have better parenting skills than same-sex parents. So what? We live in a society where children need love, compassion and care first. Parents are role models of the children, regardless of sexual orientation. CON’s next argument is that children are more likely to be gay when they have gay parents. My opponent did not cite a source to adequately support this claim, but it doesn’t matter, because LGBT parents have absolutely no effect on influencing or changing the sexual orientation of the child, there is no scientifical evidence to support it, and this is according to the American Psychological Association. They further stated that the development and well-being of children of same sex couples have no relation whatsoever to the parents (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://debatepedia.idebate.org...). Next issue is that the child of an LGBT couple may result to being bullied and depressed because of their parents’ sexual orientation. This is not a valid argument. I will argue that the solution to solving this problem is to enforce more laws against hate crime and bullying. The parents are not to blame if the child’s the victim. It should be the school’s fault and the responsibility of the state and the system to improve enforcing anti-Bullying laws. Case Equality This is obviously a matter of having equal opportunity and promoting LGBT rights. Certain countries have allowed adoption because it’s becoming recognized and acceptable by society. Progress is happening, and the traditional family structure is no longer the only acceptable structure. And I agree, it should be more liberalized for society’s sake. Not allowing gay couples to adopt is like a form of discrimination, a hate towards sexual orientation, it is homophobia, it is bigotry. It has to stop. Heterosexual Parents vs. Homosexual Parents According to psychologist Abbie Goldberg, gays are likely to become better parents than the average heterosexual couple, because they are more motivated and committed on the role because they chose to become parents. LGBT couples rarely become parents by accident, unlike the high unwanted pregnancy rate among straights (http://www.livescience.com...). American gay dads are found to be more fit parents than straight dads, according to the opinion of the American Psychological Association (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Compare two loving well-educated homosexual men with an abusive 46 year-old male redneck and a dumb 19 year-old whore. Which couple is more competent? What makes an LGBT couple less desirable parents than a kid who’s only being raised by a single mom working at the minimum wage? Or being in foster care or raised by incompetent relatives? Depression & Bullying - Who’s to blame? Sociologist Brian Powell argued that the parents’ gender has got nothing to do on the disadvantage of kids raised by LGBT parents (http://www.livescience.com...). Which means, and as I said, if the child is depressed and being bullied, it shouldn’t be the parents’ fault. We need to fix society and their poor reaction to LGBTs. Schools need to be more liberal on issues like this and the government should protect the children being victimized by the hatred. That’s all for now, I’ll expand some contentions later on.", "title": "Adoption of Children by Same Sex Couples", "pid": "1c1cd50-2019-04-18T18:24:05Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.9158935546875}, {"text": "1.Since the source you mention leads me to the general website I've tried to find the latest article on gay gene(https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org...) it claims it cannot be said there exists a gay gene as it has not been proven however it does say 'it is tempting to claim that this study is concrete proof that sexual orientation is entirely genetic. To say so would be simplistic and, well, wrong. But it does constitute evidence that homosexuality has a biological basis.' 2. The source mentioned(TrueOrigin) makes claims about the 'twins study' that if there was a gay gene both twins would always be gay and since that is not the case it does not exist however genes can be 'inactive' (http://medicalxpress.com...) so it is therefore still possible for both twins to have a possible 'gay gene' but have it simply be inactive.", "title": "Homosexuality is a Choice", "pid": "54ffb74a-2019-04-18T12:40:19Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.9117431640625}, {"text": "\"Natural\" label doesn't imply a preferable choice.", "title": "Gay adoption", "pid": "8de3af5b-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00028-000", "bm25_score": 212.89842224121094}, {"text": "It is very hard to find reliable statistics on gender identity, I will concede that, however it is not up for argument that the amount of people who identify as heterosexual, is different between generations and demographics, as well as over time. Why do people of different demographics and ages identify differently? Are genetics mutating more rapidly? Are babies exposed to more toxins in the womb, than before? I argue the change in the percentage of population identifying as heterosexual is because of the effects of peoples upbringings, environment, and education. All attributes of nurture. To address your question of why I used sexuality in my contention, it is because gender identity and sexuality are different, however mutually inclusive. Thus if gender identity is primarily determined by nature, then sexuality would surely be to. In your last contention, you go on to state \"The problem with this concept of gender identity is that it promotes the idea that you are what you feel, and that you can be anything you think you are.\" However this, and your whole contention have no relevance to the debate. One does not have to concede that nature is more of a determinant in gender identity, to agree that just because one identifies as a certain gender, does not mean they are that gender. This debate is not on the validity of ones identification, but on the causes of why they choose to identify by that. Many teenagers choose to identify as a different gender or sexuality because it is cool, or they have had sexual abuse happen to them in the past, or they are just confused. All of these reasons, and any other ones, are primarily caused by nurture rather than nature.", "title": "Gender Identity is determined primarily by nurture, rather than nature.", "pid": "4855ee40-2019-04-18T11:58:57Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.88099670410156}, {"text": "Yes, we have a choice in life to be ourselves but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these, is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we were born with.", "title": "born gay", "pid": "21910622-2019-04-18T13:51:05Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.876220703125}, {"text": "First I would like to begin my final statement by saying I have enjoyed this debate and think that you put up a good counter argument, and ultimately I think it is up to the voter to decide who had a better argument. I would like to make it clear to the voters to leave any bias or personal opinions out of there decision and to read both arguments and make a decision on who had a better argument. In conclusion, I think people are gay by choice to an extent, that being I believe that the environment you are raised in and what you are taught to believe from a young age will play a role in which sexual orientation you choose. However no person is forced to be gay, there are many cases in which people who have said they are gay later say they are straight also if you say people are born with sexual preference you would also be saying that people are born interested in certain fetishes or kinks which is impossible because these are things created by society. Similar to how you could say people are not born Catholic or Jewish they are raised in families and in an environment which makes them that way. By being raised to believe something you generally are more inclined to lean in that direction when choosing between other religions. Think about how difficult it is for someone immigrating to another country to accept that countries customs, when people are brought up to believe something it is difficult to embrace change. However it is never impossible to choose to be part of a different culture or group of people it is always an individuals choice. When a baby is born do you think at birth a girl is going to be interested in purses, clothes, dolls etc. and all the other things that are society has come to associate with a female. People are born with a blank slate, they are not born evil or good nor are they born gay or straight this is something society created. Society also created the institution of marriage and they defined the difference between a masculine and feminine. In Ancient Greece men had sex with each other and were taught at an early age that this was normal men had sex with other men because they viewed woman as slaves and in there society to have sex with a man was almost a holy event. When a child is born they do not understand the difference between a boy or girl all they know is what they are told and what they see, hear and smell by that I mean what they view as normal is what society teaches them to be normal. You mentioned how family members sometimes share traits, This is because they are part of the same family and the same distinct blood line. Also there is no proof to show that there traits are simply coincidently similar and therefore this is not a viable argument. \"taste buds\"? the food all tastes the same regardless, weather you enjoy the taste or not is something that varies from person to person. The reason it varies is because the way food tastes is all about mind set if I had not eaten for days and I was giving a food which I normally hate to me it would probably taste like the greatest thing ever. From a young age we are taught that candy taste good and vegetables and fruit are terrible the reason for this is mind set. When you are very young every cartoon depicts vegetables as being a terrible tasting menace that is truly vomit worthy, for example I hardly ever ate vegetables at a young age simply because I assumed it tasted terrible. Also the reason people are so unique is because all people are raised in very different environments and have different experiences which make them unique. Imaging a white board which represents to newborns minds now 2 lines are being drawn in the same direction one green one red for everything that they do differently the line bends and swerves now imaging how distant those lines would be by the age of 1 think of how different there lives may have been up to that point. People are not born unique it is there life experiences that make them that way all people are born with a blank slate. For this reason I think it is truly a matter of coincidence in which someone ends up choosing to be homosexual or whatever sexual orientation they choose. If when we where born we where immersed in a world where being bisexual was normal don't you think must people would be bi and see nothing odd about that? I thank you on being a good competitor and wish you good luck!", "title": "people are born gay", "pid": "83991908-2019-04-18T17:04:39Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.87062072753906}, {"text": "1. My opponent in Round 2 mentioned some environmental and physical conditions under which people's sexual orientation is affected. What I tried to prove through queer animals is that the factors mentioned for sexual orientation in case of humans are absolutely absent in animal world. Therefore all animals should have similar sexual orientations as they grow up under similar condition unlike humans. Parents of animals do not have divorces, some of them dont live in cities and some in forests and yet there are a range of sexual orientations in animals. 2. The sexual fluidity as mentioned by opponent seems as if he has assumed that sexual fluidity is change in sexual orientation. No! http://www.scienceofrelationships.com... Sexual fluidity is not a change in sexual orientation. Sexual fluidity does not imply that a person is homosexual for a given period of time and then turns heterosexual for a certain period of time. It also does not equal to bisexuality. Kindly donot confuse fluidity with bisexuality. 3. The fact that conversion therapy does not work is itself a proof that environment is not a factor. If I were depressed due to something bad happening to me (a physical factor) I could be cured by therapy but sexual orientation is not.", "title": "Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology", "pid": "2771aba0-2019-04-18T15:29:45Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.86001586914062}, {"text": "What should be done in order to change adoption policies in the United States to included same-sex couples? While many states have already conformed to the norms of today's lifestyles, there are still some states (like Utah and Mississippi) who have outlawed homosexual couples from adopting. The best way to fix this is to make sure the screening process isn't gender biased. For example, it shouldn't matter if it is a heterosexual couple trying to apply or a homosexual couple. As long as the couple has a stable environment for the child and can pass the regular screening process they should be able to adopt children who are looking for a family. Many children nowadays don't even see the problem with having parents who are the same sex, as long as they feel like they are loved and cared for!", "title": "Adoption by same sex couples", "pid": "6556fed7-2019-04-18T14:57:59Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.8302764892578}, {"text": "Being born gay is not an instinct. You are not born with the thought of loving your mother, for example. You love her because of the fact that she cares for you when you are hurt, calms you when you are angry. Love is acquired first through the process of friendship, and as you develop a strong trust and bond between yourself, then you begin to love. Any type of love is formed this way, whether it is gay love or straight love. Love is an acquired behavior, not an instinct, as love cannot be taught. If two people of the same sex meet each other and after getting to know each other slowly develop feelings for each other, then they begin to feel love. You can't fall in love with a person of the same sex once you meet them, which further supports my argument that love is an acquired behavior.", "title": "Resolved: Being gay is a learned behavior", "pid": "bc080164-2019-04-18T19:29:39Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.82928466796875}, {"text": "What your stating that if homosexuals were to adopt it would mean welcoming a random baby into their home. But the child would still be welcomed into a random home, as they had already been put up for adoption in the first place. Having a children doesn't matter if you're gay or straight. You can still have a child no matter what, even heterosexuals can't have kids forcing them to adopt or have a someone else have a baby for them. They won't have a biological union with their kids, but should it matter because they would love and nature the child the same.", "title": "Gay marriage", "pid": "339641e9-2019-04-18T13:13:46Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.82614135742188}, {"text": "According to the 2007 medical journal article entitled ,, Neurological control of human sexual behavior insights from lesion studies which published in the journal of neurology,neurosurgery,and psychiatry : Kolarsky and colleagues54 examined the relationships between \"sexual deviation\", age of lesion onset and localisation of lesion (temporal vs extratemporal). The authors defined two diagnostic categories: (1) \"sexual deviation\", involving a deviation of sexual object (for example, paedophilia). Homosexuality was included in this category, which would now be considered inappropriate, and (2) \"sexual disturbances other than deviations\", including orgasm in response to stimuli unrelated to the subject's sexual preference, hypersexuality and hyposexuality See. . http://www.conservapedia.com...", "title": "Homosexuality is natural", "pid": "e50c78b0-2019-04-18T13:11:06Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.82325744628906}, {"text": "I'm in a bit busy right now so I'll start with rubuttals. The short answer to the identical twin question is that while there is a very strong genetic heritability component (the 11% and 14% are probably the lowest estimates of it I've heard; some place it at 50% while others place it in between) identical twins do not share the same prenatal environment. Each exists in their own amniotic sac and the environment within each one can be quite different. Even minor changes in difference can change the ways in which the genes activate, causing epigenetic differences in traits. This point can't be stressed enough: there is no consistent correlation between post-natal childhood factors, like lacking a father-figure or sexual abuse, and being gay. Moreover, the attempts at gay conversion are utterly abysmal. Here's from one review of the available studies: \"From the available data, four studies reported a \"success\" rate during conversion therapy of 0.4%, 0.0%, 0.5 and 0.04%. That is, conversion therapy has a failure rate in excess of 99.5% during each study.\" http://www.religioustolerance.org...", "title": "homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with", "pid": "4abdfa29-2019-04-18T13:33:10Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.8090057373047}]}
{"idx": 14, "qid": "15", "q_text": "Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?", "qrels": {"ac53643e-2019-04-18T15:28:13Z-00007-000": 1, "a4afe1af-2019-04-18T18:01:04Z-00003-000": 2, "aeeb3794-2019-04-18T17:18:40Z-00000-000": 2, "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00003-000": 2, "b4a4f60-2019-04-18T16:19:38Z-00005-000": 1, "fe528ead-2019-04-18T19:20:31Z-00003-000": 0, "fe528ead-2019-04-18T19:20:31Z-00002-000": 2, "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00055-000": 1, "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00195-000": 1, "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00091-000": 1, "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00192-000": 2, "fd2bc663-2019-04-18T16:15:18Z-00002-000": 2, "aefcf694-2019-04-18T17:34:55Z-00002-000": 2, "f6daa834-2019-04-18T16:04:36Z-00002-000": 2, "efcd9117-2019-04-18T16:37:47Z-00004-000": 2, "ec5a2259-2019-04-18T18:03:25Z-00001-000": 0, "e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00042-000": 2, "e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00027-000": 2, "b8d48ad7-2019-04-18T18:50:39Z-00001-000": 2, "b5e9eaa8-2019-04-18T15:24:16Z-00000-000": 0, "b5e9eaa8-2019-04-18T15:24:16Z-00003-000": 0, "efcd9117-2019-04-18T16:37:47Z-00000-000": 0, "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00003-000": 1, "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00003-000": 0, "90912fb0-2019-04-18T13:22:21Z-00005-000": 0, "96b3dd5b-2019-04-18T13:08:56Z-00001-000": 2, "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00001-000": 0, "7d9ba78f-2019-04-18T15:13:31Z-00001-000": 0, "638d406b-2019-04-18T16:47:38Z-00005-000": 0, "61bcbdef-2019-04-18T13:29:29Z-00003-000": 2, "61bc36ea-2019-04-18T12:14:22Z-00001-000": 2, "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00005-000": 0, "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00000-000": 2, "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00004-000": 0, "908ed2cb-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00008-000": 2, "1fba06e8-2019-04-18T18:19:54Z-00003-000": 0, "2f5fdbe4-2019-04-18T13:01:15Z-00001-000": 1, "2025817a-2019-04-18T14:44:11Z-00003-000": 1, "1aed8015-2019-04-18T14:17:32Z-00004-000": 2, "11ace9a4-2019-04-18T19:11:45Z-00005-000": 0, "f9f87c6a-2019-04-19T12:44:53Z-00048-000": 0, "21c326f7-2019-04-18T16:30:38Z-00002-000": 0, "908ed2cb-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00005-000": 2}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "I believe that animals should be used for scientific and commercial purposes( animal testing). Con must argue against.Acceptance first", "title": "Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing.", "pid": "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 221.2136688232422}, {"text": "I will argue that animals should not be used for scientific/commercial testing. I am rather on the fence on this topic myself so the results of the debate are of significant interest to me. I presume this will be a debate on ethics, correct me if not.", "title": "Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing.", "pid": "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 220.74578857421875}, {"text": "No,the debate is not only about ethics. All arguments are accepted because we want to reach a conclusion and we cannot take into consideration only the ethical side. Of course,we will talk about morality as the main reason why people oppose to animal testing is because they think that it is not right to use innocent animals to test drugs and other substances. Ok, to start with, I would like to mention what animal testing offers*: Improving the health and well-being of people. Improving the health and welfare of entertainment, recreational, sport, and service animals, and of animals used to provide therapeutic support. Improving the health, welfare and productivity of farm animals and other production animals Finding better ways to preserve, protect and manage a range of animal species (especially endangered and native animals) to maintain a balance that is ecologically stable and well adapted to the Australian environment. Developing more humane and effective pest control methods to protect endangered animals and plants from the species that threatens them and to prevent damage to the environment. Broadening the foundations of biological science,including our knowledge and understanding of life processes in all animal species. I think that we should use animals for scientific or commercial testing because: 1)Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments: The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. [1] Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics. The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012. \"Without animal research polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year\",said Albert Sabin,developer of the Polio vaccine. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury,childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis,and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes,and anesthetics. Chris Abee,Director of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility,states that \"we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees,\"and says that the use of chimps is\"our best hope\" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C,a disease that kills 15,000 people every year in the United States. [2]2)There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system: Whenever possible,researchers do use non-animal models for research. Computer models, tissue and cell cultures,and a number of other non-animal related research methods are used today in biomedical research. However, animal testing remains a necessity. For example, blindness cannot be studied in bacteria and it is not possible to study the affects of high blood pressure in tissue cultures. The living system is extremely complex. The nervous system, blood and brain chemistry, gland and organ secretions, and immunological responses are all interrelated, making it impossible to explore,explain,or predict the course of diseases or the effects of possible treatments without observing and testing the entire living system of a living organism. In the meantime,scientists continue to look for ways to reduce the number of animals needed to obtain valid results,refine experimental techniques,and replace animals with other research methods whenever feasible. [1]3)Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing: The same methods that have been developed to prevent and treat diseases in human have improved thelives of countless animals. More than 80 medicines and vaccines developed for humans are now used totreat animals. Animal research has helped develop many animal vaccines to fight diseases such as rabiesand distemper in dogs and cats,feline leukemia,infectious hepatitis virus,tetanus,and has assisted in thedevelopment of treatments for heartworm. In addition,animal research has helped preserve nearly extinct species such as the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil due to new reproductive techniques being applied to endangered species[1]. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing. 4)Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment: In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1965. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size,temperature,access to clean food and water,and others),the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians. All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Humane treatment is enforced by each facility's IACUC, and most major research institutions' programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). All institutions receiving funding from the US Public Health Service(PHS)must comply with the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. [3]Furthermore, animal researchers treat animals humanely both for the animals' sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. According to the journal Nature Genetics, because \"stressed or crowded animals produce unreliable research results, and many phenotypes are only accessible in contented animals in enriched environments, it is in the best interests of the researchers not to cut corners or to neglect welfare issues. \"[7] 5)The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the United States endorse animal testing: A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% \"agreed that the use of animals in research is essential. \"[4]The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society,National Association for Biomedical Research,American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research.6)Relatively few animals are used in research, which is a small price to pay for advancing medical progress: People in the United States eat 9 billion chickens and 150 million cattle,pigs and sheep annually,yet we only use around 26 million animals for research,95% of which are rodents,birds and fish. We eat more than 1,800 times the number of pigs than the number used in research,and we consume more than 340 chickens for every research animal. [5]Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK-more than the total number of animals used in medical research every year. The UK consumes over 300 times more fish each year than the total number of all animals used in medical research every year[6] But why don't we use humans instead of animals? : This is something that almost of all us have questioned about. If we can use people instead of animals and have the same results why don't we try it? Some people believe that this is because we don't want to harm our species and we prefer to exploit animals as we are more powerful. But the answer is not that simple. First of all,animals have a shorter life circle than humans,so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan,or across several generations,which would be infeasible using human subjects. The more research that can be done in the shorter amount of time means that new drugs can be produced more rapidly. In addition,scientists can easily control the environment around animals(diet,temperature,lighting),which would be difficult to do with humans. Moreover,animal testing,particularly with rats and mice is very cheap in addition to testing with human beings who would probably need to be highly compensated. Finally,rats and mice breed very quickly which means that supplies can be replenished qickly. All the above contribute to a sucessful and effective research. Moreover,this claim is not right. Drugs are tested on humans,too. Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings. They cannot do that. Instead,they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people. Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous. If a drug passes the animal test it's tested on a small human group before large scale clinical trials. \"(primates) are used only when no alternative approach can provide the answers to questions about such conditions as Alzheimer's, stroke, Parkinson's, spinal injury, hormone disorders and vaccines for HIV\" Colin Blakemore,former CEO of the Medical Rsearch Council [6] SOURCES:*. http://www.adelaide.edu.au... [1]. http://ca-biomed.org...[2]http://www.khou.com... [3. http://www.aphis.usda.gov...[4]http://www.nature.com...[5]http://speakingofresearch.com...; [6]. http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk... [7]. http://www.nature.com...", "title": "Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing.", "pid": "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.93775939941406}, {"text": "Because it is not possible to develop drugs or perform many different sorts of important scientific investigation without animal research. You wouldn't test on humans so the next best thing is animals, and i only think it alright to test on rats not endangered species.", "title": "should animals be used for scientific research", "pid": "ec5a2259-2019-04-18T18:03:25Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.8521728515625}, {"text": "Thanks Pro. I. Plagiarism I don't have much to add on this, 95% of my opponent's previous round was copy pasted verbatim. I don't see such as acceptable behaviour, and most higher education institutions of state that text copied verbatim should at least have it enclosed in quotation marks and large quantities of such are discredited. One amusing thing to note is none of Pro's last round was plagiarised. Whether or not that is due to being 'called out' on her first round, or a kind fulfilment of my request is a matter of speculation. I'll leave voters to decide the rest as this is now non topical. II. Burden of Proof Please note this debate affirms two things: 1. Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes 2. Animal testing for commercial purposes Remember, the burden of proof is on Pro, and she has yet to affirm the second contention, which is required for her to fulfil her burden of proof. Commercial purposes include food & cosmetics, and I made the assertion, and I maintain that these are simply not defensible. So immediately, Pro has clearly not done enough to win this debate. The defence of medical progress doesn't allow Pro to smuggle in the defence of commercial testing, even if her defence was valid and sound (and it's not). III. Animal Rights This is basically what the entire debate reduces down to. Pro has cited many reasons why the fruits of animal research has (at least pharmaceutically) benefitted us. I never denied this, the fruits of said research has positively impacted the well being of the human species. That much is obvious. That alone however does not affirm the resolution, that we SHOULD be using ANIMALS for this purpose. I have argued for a number of things so far: 1. By devaluing animal rights, we allow for the proliferation of negative rights 2. We value consent as a human right, and it is irrational to not expect this of animals 3. We have other, more ethical options, such as in vitro testing and human testing The most important one I will affirm is #1, and Pro's own sources back up my statements, with an already appalling treatment of livestock, with genocide levels of slaughters occurring on a weekly basis. This type of behaviour would not occur if we did not provide a special case for negative animal rights, when there is no rational reason to do in place of humans. Clear examples of this inconsistency are seen in laws and social acceptance regarding human cannibalism, beastiality, slavery and hunting. Pro has provided no reason why we should value Humans over animals, and I argue to do so is to commit the fallacy of special pleading. \"As I've already said, we don't conduct animal testing because we want to devalue animals' rights. Conrary, the fact that we have strict laws that protect animals' well-being, the fact that we use alternative research methods whenever possible and the fact that there is no other way to protect us and animals from viruses show the oppoiste! \" But there are other ways, and even if there were not, it would not make it ethical, and acceptable. Remarkably Pro follows up with the following statement: \"I never said that animals should be tortured and exploited because they are not as powerful as humans, but we ,firstly, have to think about our own species. We have to find a way to face some viruses so that we'll not be extinct. \" A few points: 1. The human species has existed for tens of thousands of years, and has yet to go extinct 2. No reasoning was provided to prioritise 'thinking of our own species', moreover why is human extinction such a bad thing? It just begs the question and assumes humans are intrinsically valuable. I argue that affirming such is absurd. Pro also appeals to the fact that animals kill each other, and would be brutal in our own shoes. My response is, so what? This is known as a \"tu torque fallacy\", and is irrelevant to this debate. Just because they would do it too doesn't make it right or just. Sheep will follow each other a cliff to their deaths, would it be right for us to do the same 'in their shoes'. Of course not! Pro fails to adequately address my points that we use humans in clinical trials anyway, so use of them in more stages is perfectly logical. Literally the only argument in Pro's (plagiarised) opening round that might carry some merit is that animals have a quicker life cycle. This is fine, but then we have a large population of humans to select from, so a high turnover rate is easily debunked by a large 'stock' of humans. There are almost certainly enough humans to do adequate testing upon, and they can also be bred for testing if absolutely needed, but we don't even need to go this far. Pro affirms that we do have good measures in place to minimise the need to use animals, to which I have the following points: Excellent, Pro affirms that animal testing is undesirable The fact that 'we're trying really hard' doesn't have any impact on the is/ought question that this debate addresses. The fact that we are trying our best to minimise homicides doesn't mean it's right for those homocides that do occur to take place. It is a red herring. Another point Pro makes is that medical research has improved the well being of some animals, to which I assert that the price paid in liberties is not compensated by a few animals not going extinct. In fact I fail to see why Pro values animals not going extinct, and I would argue that any animals that were saved from extinction where probably out in that position due to human influences anyway. IV. Conclusion In conclusion, I have affirmed two things: Animal Testing for commercial purposes is indefensible Animal testing for pharmaceutical purposes is unnecessary and immoral As such I hold that the resolution is negated.", "title": "Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing.", "pid": "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.69203186035156}, {"text": "Greetings, I understand you completely, hurting animals in cruel and sick ways is something we do not tolerate in our society yet when it happens in laboratories it's suddenly justified. However, one must understand why testing on animals is a necessary evil. The strongest point I have to make is the health and safety of human users of new medicine, body products, and other chemicals which could potentially be dangerous when in contact with human metabolism. If we did not test our products on other live beings some side-effects could not be spotted and that could lead to a death of human users which is something that companies cannot allow to happen both for moral and financial reasons. Furthermore, human life is worth more than that of an animal, all live is equal but it's personal qualities that have worth in our world and human qualities surpass animal ones. Animal experiments are only justified if they provide a benefit that is unable to be gained by any other way.", "title": "Be it resolved that, Animals should be used for testing.", "pid": "89e6a139-2019-04-18T12:40:16Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.64410400390625}, {"text": "Okay, luckily I am back and can continue. my opponent argued that scientists test animal to see how the mind works. You do not have to test animals to see how the mind works. you can simply watch and study them. (not the same thing as testing). my opponent also argued that farmers are constantly testing different methods of raising animals to produce the highest yield for meat and dairy products. That is true, but the farmers are testing different methods of raising the animals, not actually testing the animals. all new medicines are required to be tested by animals. First they must show that the drug is safe, therefore, animals wont get hurt if their tested with medicines that are safe to be tested. http://www.drhadwentrust.org... Thank you I look forward to hearing from you.", "title": "animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses", "pid": "3eced554-2019-04-18T19:30:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.6438446044922}, {"text": "I feel that Animal Testing, when done humanely, can provide scientists with a number of results that can ultimately affect the lives of countless people. I agree that cruelly testing superfluous products such as cosmetics (not saying cosmetics aren't important, just when it comes to testing on animals) but life-altering medications and products need subjects. However, if human subjects can be found and tested on legally, then by all means, use them. But, no, I do not believe animal testing should be banned.", "title": "animal testing should be banned", "pid": "b57b83e8-2019-04-18T11:57:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.57949829101562}, {"text": "Animal testing should not be banned. The use of animal testing is the only reason that we as humans have been able to make so many medical breakthroughs. We have horses to thank for the tetanus shot, and rats, mice, and monkeys for the polio vaccine. Rats are also to thank for one of the most effective breast cancer treatments in use today. Humans are the most advanced species on the planet; we are superior to all of the other animals, which is also taught in Christianity. If we cannot test on animals, then we must test on humans. However, that makes no sense at all, for human lives are more important than animal lives. Testing humans on their deathbeds would not work, because their body is not in an acceptable state for testing. Therefore, our only option is to test medicinal drugs and other products on animals.", "title": "animal testing be banned", "pid": "85178f24-2019-04-18T15:22:54Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.57618713378906}, {"text": "I would like to start with something to ponder throughout the entire debate; which is more valuable, the life of a human being, or that of an animal such as a primate or mouse. I would also like to clarify that I am against animal testing in the cosmetic industry, and that I am arguing for the biomedical field. I myself have worked in a lab setting (primarily as an intern during my summers as a med student) and can say first hand that the use of animals in testing medical and biomedical inventions is critical to the forward motion of the biomedical field. But don't take my word for it, a poll conducted by the science journal Natura in 2011 of 1,000 biomedical scientists found that \"more than 90% agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.\" The cost animal life is absolutely justified in the thousands of human lives that could be saved with the knowledge gained from animal testing. Source(s): http://www.prnewswire.com...", "title": "Animal testing should be banned", "pid": "59a01dfa-2019-04-18T16:44:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.5382080078125}, {"text": "Thank you for acknowledging my argument. Animals in cosmetics research is used to prove the cosmetic products are safe for consumers. There are viable alternatives to animal testing when developing cosmetics even though the United States is largely behind in adopting them. The European Union has already banned animal testing with cosmetics and the UK has made significant progress. With America's strict consumer safety laws it is unlikely that we will adopt alternatives in the near future.", "title": "Testing on animals is wrong!", "pid": "638d406b-2019-04-18T16:47:38Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.532958984375}, {"text": "Animal testing is right when used for medical purposes such as testing new drugs used only for medical purposes. Animal testing is a debate topic that is always challenged however, should it be allowed if human lives depend on it. Animal testing has been at the heart of every medical break through for the past decade. But, is it right?", "title": "Animal testing is right when required for medical purposes.", "pid": "2f5fdbe4-2019-04-18T13:01:15Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.50164794921875}, {"text": "The results obtained from animal testing are used to check whether a particular medicine or cosmetic product would have any side-effects on human beings. The body systems of animals are different from those of human beings. Aspirin is widely used for the treatment of fever, pain, inflammation, etc. in human beings. However, this very medicine proves to be toxic for mice. Most experiments are conducted on animals which cannot be a reliable source for predicting results on human beings. http://www.buzzle.com... Not only the effects but its very costly to upkeep these animals. There are many other methods you could use. Animals have hyeart beats just like us, why make them suffer?", "title": "Animal testing should be banned.", "pid": "da630f8a-2019-04-18T15:36:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.47369384765625}, {"text": "Argument: Should animal testing be used in the field of cosmetics? By cosmetics I mean household products such as shampoo,conditioner,soap, makeup, skincare etc. This does not include the use of animal testing for drugs, only cosmetics. My position: Animal testing should not be used in the field of cosmetic testing in the U.S. due to the cruelty the animals experience, the millions of animals that are killed each year in the tests, and because of modern technological advances that allow for products to be tested without the use of animals. Definitions Cruelty: text book definition 2", "title": "Animal Testing for Cosmetics", "pid": "901f612c-2019-04-18T12:44:04Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.45672607421875}, {"text": "First let me start off by defining myself: animal testing: the use of non human animals in research for purposes of determining the safety of substances. medicinal: used for the cure of bodily disorders. \"Sara\" is a little girl. Her mother has cancer, and she will die soon. there is a scientist who thinks he has the cure for cancer. He can do one of three things. He can either a) give it to the mother and risk the chance of the medicine killing her or severely hurting her. b) test it on some animals and see if there are any side effects. c) throw it away and forget it. ---which one seems like the most intelligent answer? It is better to kill a hundred rats to save millions of lives. According to http://altweb.jhsph.edu... Without animal testing, we might have never found the cure for polio, and insulin for diabetic people. there are also many other cures that we have found from animal testing. we are currently animal testing to find the cure for HIV/AIDS. There are also strict rules and guidelines that the scientists have to follow in order to take care of their lab animals, according to http://www.ncabr.org... thank you and I look forward to debating this topic.", "title": "animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses", "pid": "3eced554-2019-04-18T19:30:38Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.4486083984375}, {"text": "First, I thank clajen for giving me a chance to debate this topic. To start, animal tests are really helpful for the development of scientific studies. Animal tests are the experiment that the humans do for such medical development and scientific development. Animals are comfortable, fest, and easy for the humans to do experiments since they have similar body structure like the humans. For example, chimpanzees share 99%of their DNA with the humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to the humans. That may save the time of the experiment. Animal tests may give much help to the life time of the humans. Humans have life cycle, and these animal experiments may expand the humans' life cycles. It is because it deveops the medical curing system for the humans.Animal tests creates the products to be better and safe. Also, science became more and more important these days because of environmental problems and the development of technology. So, improving the science will be helpful. Also, animal tests may even benefit the animals themselves. If vaccines were not developed by animal testings, the animals might have died from some diseases. Animal testing benefits the health of the animals and the medical cares for them", "title": "animal testing should be banned", "pid": "fd98a1f9-2019-04-18T16:36:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.41941833496094}, {"text": "Animals can be used for medicinal research as they are lesser than humans and it would be moral to test on animals, as they, as such, less than human.", "title": "Animals should be used for testing", "pid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 217.40316772460938}, {"text": "Computers have been known to fail, and animals are only ineffective from the use of non-mammalian species.", "title": "Animals should be used for testing", "pid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.3818359375}, {"text": "Millions of animals are tortured everyday because of cosmetic companies. Their legs and other bones are broken to test painkillers.. etc... it should be illegal for cosmetic companies to test on animals. Alot of great companies don't test on animals, so it shows you there is another way. Please help stop animal testing.", "title": "animal testing", "pid": "908f4e4f-2019-04-18T18:40:43Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 217.35707092285156}, {"text": "Animal testing has proven to be uneffective and a complete waste of taxpayers money. Most of the time, The test performed on rats and other animals did not relate to human trials at all. In one dramatic case, A test worked perfectly on animals and was authorised for human testing. That test ended up with all of those people in hospital with emergency treatment. I propose an alternative. Instead of testing on animals, Test on humans. If you want a product that works on humans, Test a product on humans. The more dangerous products will be tested on death row inmates. If the product works, Then that is a big leap forward for that product being distributed. If it failed, Then nothing of high value was lost since that person was going to die anyway.", "title": "Animal testing", "pid": "fe5319d0-2019-04-18T11:11:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.33131408691406}, {"text": "Scientists are finding ways to use pig parts to use for humans when there is a low amount of parts. They are allowed to use the pig parts because they are almost identical to ours. i think it is good, because without animal testing there would be no medical evidence on whats good or bad! i know some people and most people think its rude for scientists to do that..but its also a job for them and lot of times everything works out okay! (:", "title": "animal testing", "pid": "e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00030-000", "bm25_score": 217.3105926513672}, {"text": "Animals do not have the same rights as humans do, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. If we granted animals rights, all humans would have to become vegetarians and hunting would be outlawed. While animal testing is not pretty, a 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% \"agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.\" A small amount of animals are used for progression in advancing medical technology when you consider that just the U.S. alone consumes 9 billion chickens a year, while only 26 million animals are used for animal research. Wouldn't it be considered a waste if we didn't use animals for research to help progress in Medical Technology?", "title": "Animals should be used for Medical Research", "pid": "efcd9117-2019-04-18T16:37:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.2920684814453}, {"text": "Because of animal testing, mostly ones done on mice the survival rates of cancer patients have increased. Nearly every Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine since the early 1900's has relied on animal data for their research. Modern anaesthetics, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin and insulin all relied on animal research in their development. Modern surgical techniques including hip replacement surgery, kidney transplants, heart transplants and blood transfusions were all perfected in animals. Animal testing has also benefited the animals as well. All veterinary research has relied on the use of animal research. Animals suffer from similar diseases to humans including cancers, TB, flu and asthma. The point is that because of animal testing, our medicine has advanced greatly, ant tho some my argue mice our nothing like humans so why should testing on them benefit us, the truth is we share 95% of our genes with a mouse, making them an effective model for the human body.", "title": "Animal testing should be banned.", "pid": "da630f8a-2019-04-18T15:36:58Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.26182556152344}, {"text": "Good day, The resolution before us today is Be it resolved that animals should be used for testing. As the only speaker on our team I strongly disagree, Here are a few reasons why. 1. Animals can hurt and feel just as we can how would you like to be covered in chemichales and used for horrible expirements. 2. Animals are a valuable part of our environment and wthout them we will surely decline in environmental help. 3. We are doing it for our own luxury We are tourturing many animals for hand creams,Bath and body products,and many other items for our own convenience. This is unjust and unhumane. 4. We treat animals as if we are less than them. We are all equal in fact humans share 30% of our DNA with lettuce weare all interconnected without bee's which are considered animals pollinate flowers. Without that we would have no food. Torturing an animal is unhumane and unjust. Believeing that this is ok shows how truely corrupted our society actually is. And that is why we strongly oppose", "title": "Be it resolved that, Animals should be used for testing.", "pid": "89e6a139-2019-04-18T12:40:16Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.2365264892578}, {"text": "You are half-right. Testing is needed, but it doesn't have to be animal testing. Again, there are computer simulations and other alternate testing methods which work about as well as animal testing, and don't require the ineffective use of animals. I'm far from being with PETA, but if there is an alternate method, it should be used.", "title": "Animals should be used for testing", "pid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.227294921875}, {"text": "Animals have been repeatedly used for testing such as in biomedical research before applying to humans. Proponents of animal testing would probably say that animal testing enabled the development of numerous life-saving treatments. However, I am of the view that animal testing is inhumane and can also yield irrelevant results. Therefore, animal testing should not continue.", "title": "This house believes that animal testing should continue.", "pid": "171633f7-2019-04-18T12:17:13Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.21597290039062}, {"text": "This includes testing in the medical field, cosmetics, toxicology testing, and psychological research involving animals.", "title": "Animal Testing should be banned", "pid": "c0429f6c-2019-04-18T15:12:05Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.2127685546875}, {"text": "Should animal testing exist or not? When animals' protectors say absolutely no, other people, such as scientists say yes. It is hard to decide who is right and who is wrong. Using animals for humans' purposes started from the earliest times. Natalie Kustcher, (2010), explains, experiments on anmals existed even in antique times, Greeks and Roman used them for vivisection. After World War II the amount of medical experiments on animals increased enormously. Animals were used for lots of purposes: for medicine, biology, education and training of doctors, for developing new vaccines and drugs, also they were used for cosmetics. This situation caused many debates and controversies. Especially now, when we have various organizations which protect animals, this issue has become a hot topic for discussion. From one point of view people understand that we should care about animals. They say that testing drugs and other things, for human benefits is unethical. From another point of view people like doctors and scientist claim, that animal testing is a very important activity for science, medicine and whole humanity. If to compare who is better to be used to conduct an experiment, of course people will choose animals instead of themselves, even though they realize that animals are also important creatures in our life. However, testing animals for new medicine showed most accurate results. Millions of experiments, which gave different results, were conducted by a great number of scientists. What is interesting, the results of drug testing on animals are recognized as the most accurate. Of course there are some alternative methods which can only predict the reaction, but cannot guarantee human safety. In this case results got from animal researches are the most reliable. Jaime Harvey, (n. d.), gives an example of a successful testing Parkinson's disease on animals, which is have already saved millions of people's lives. Whereas computers cannot give accurate and reliable results. According to Jaime Harvey, (n. d.), animal testing plays a big and important role in medical development in the last two centuries. The proportion of successful results from animal testing is more than 70 %. Due to testing drugs on animals, now we have antibiotics and vaccines that have saved many people. Dr Jane Goodall . (as cited by Simon Festing ) says that, people got used to take all conveniences from life and forget, that all those depend on medical researches on animals. Antibiotics and anesthetics are possible now due to animal testing. As an example the polio vaccine alone saved many lives. In addition, the remedy that now saves thousands of women with breast cancer was developed through testing on mice. Moreover, nowadays treatment and control of diseases and sufferings are possible through animal research. Over 70% of Nobel prizes in medicine on inventing new drugs have involved the use of animals. Even such known and useful drug like aspirin, which controls pain, was created based on animal testing. For instance, before using animals for testing drugs, there was such bad illness like the Thalidomide. This disease infect pregnant women and in the 50's babies were born whether without legs or hands. The treatment for this illness was successfully tested on rats so today it is not a problem . Additionally we must take into account such fact that inventing of useful drugs like insulin, Tetanus vaccines, AIDS treatment are possible owing to experiments on animals. (Jaime Harvey, n. d.).All we know such illness like diabet. And as we know the cure to this disease, especially insulin was invented due to testing on dogs. So nowadays testing drugs on animals has become so usual that people forgot about origin of most remedies. Tanks to animals, currently, we have drugs to treat people and it makes possible to save millions of lives every day, every hour, every second.", "title": "Animal testing should be banned", "pid": "59a01d40-2019-04-18T18:41:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.19732666015625}, {"text": "Okay, I agree with everything my opponent said about supporting medical research. However, I also think animal researching should be justified in testing for purposes beyond medical research. I will be attacking the resolutions use of the word \"only\". First, some definitions medical-of or pertaining to the science or practice of medicine medicine is any substance or substances used in treating disease or illness; medicament; remedy. testing- A basis for evaluation or judgment:: all Definitions from dictionary.com unabridged. Now, I argue animal testing should be allowed for non medicinal uses such as psychology, agricultural and genetic testing. 1-Scientists constantly test animal psychology to better understand how the mind works. This testing has greatly increased our scientific knowledge. Large amounts of information on the mind has been developed from animal testing [1] 2- Farmers are constantly testing different methods of raising animals to produce the highest yield for meat and dairy products. This testing has increased the amount of meat and dairy products we can get from animals, resulting in farmers making more money and people having to pay less for food. This positively benefits society as it helps solve world hunger. The less people have to pay for food the more they can eat. 3- Genetic manipulation- This links back to the basis of my opponents case. Its better to risk a 100 rats than a million humans. Scientists are testing various genetic manipulations in animals to see how it effects them. Animals are very similar genetically to humans. This testing could provide invaluable data for future manipulation of humans. Furthermore, even testing for products no meant for humans is beneficial. Farmers could test genetic manipulation on cows, for example, to produce higher meat and dairy product yields. 1-http://www.psychology.org...", "title": "animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses", "pid": "3eced554-2019-04-18T19:30:38Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.1902313232422}, {"text": "Animals are not necessarily helping us because they have no choice to participate in the testings. Again, we are in an period of time where we have improved our technology and our lab work to create synthetic materials that could be used to test chemicals on. What also poses the issues of animal use if the way that they are being treated, and whether or not their living conditions are inhumane. Many animals that are being tested are placed in conditions that are unhealthy and will harm them, whether or not the testing itself is physically or mentally harmful.", "title": "The Use of Animals within Scientific Research", "pid": "28e0a6b5-2019-04-18T15:07:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.1795654296875}, {"text": "Do all animals have the same rights as humans? Some but not all, animal rights activists believe animals have inherent legal and moral rights, just as humans do. According to this viewpoint it is unethical to use animals for any purpose, whether for pets, research, recreation, clothing, or as food. Animal use in testing is a huge controversial issue. Some believe animals have the same rights as humans and should for no reason be used as test subjects for research. Others, including members of medical and scientific communities say it is unethical not to use animals in research because animal experiments can lead to medical discoveries that improve the health and well-being of both humans and animals. Human health will not improve without animal experimentation. There is of course two sides to this issue. Worldwide, animals are used in numerous experiments which inflict pain and suffering to the animal. The first testing of animals started over one hundred years ago. Since then, animal testing has been a source of emotional conflict for humans. In 1966, the Animal Welfare Act took place. This was the start of the animal rights movement. Over the years, animal activists have become increasingly vocal and/or destructive. The ways in which animal activists try to get their message across to the public varies greatly. Some conduct letter-writing campaigns, others attack laboratories and harass scientists. One of these groups is the PETA founded in 1980 by Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk. PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The group works on a wide range of issues such as biochemical testing, cosmetic testing, dissection, factory farming, neglect and abuse to animals in pet stores, and through hunting and trapping, and the wearing of fur, and non-leather footwear. The PETA is not known to be a violent group. Instead it often pulls public stunts. For example three members dressed in rabbit suits and chained themselves to a flagpole in front of Gillette head quarters in Boston, Mass. to protest the company\"s use of animals in product testing. The stunt was an embarrassment to the company. While PETA may be the most visible animal rights group, it is by no means alone. There are dozens of \"rights\" groups who pursue a more far-reaching agenda. One of these groups is the ALF, Animal Liberation Front. This group emerged in the United States in the late 1970\"s and has claimed responsibility for destroying or damaging more than one hundred labs and farms around the nation. In a world of animal testing there are a wide range of tests. These tests are done for multiple purposes, from finding a cure for a disease to testing the harshness of a shampoo or floor cleaner. Many activists claim that animal testing is not only unethical but also often scientifically unproductive. \"There have been some medical advances of course but the pay off is slight. When you\"re doing billions of animal experiments, it would be a miracle if there weren\"t some developments,\" says George Cave an animal activist. When Dr. Hamm was told what George Cave said, Hamm came back with a strong argument. He discussed how childhood leukemia, used to be a death sentence but now those kids get to go home. He also discussed Hodgkin\"s disease and how it is now a treatable cancer when ten years ago it was also a death sentence. Another argument he stated was how we can treat some types of liver cancer today and the research that got us there was done on animals because it had to be. There are no other alternatives exist that could give us this progress. One species that humans tend to use often in testing because they are most like ourselves is the chimpanzee. They are used in different experiments. Because chimpanzees are more like humans than any other species they are popular subjects for the development of vaccines for prevention of hepatitis B, hepatitis C and onchocerciasis. Chimpanzees are the only nonhuman animal species susceptible to these infections (Prince 115). Animal Activists are against the use of chimpanzees b/c of the decline in the chimpanzee population. In approximately the past ten years the chimpanzee population of Gabon, containing some of the best habitats, was reduced by twenty percent. There is an estimate between four thousand and five thousand chimpanzees that exist worldwide in medical institutions, zoological exhibits, roadside menageries, and entertainment compounds.", "title": "animals should stop being used as testing subjects", "pid": "2025817a-2019-04-18T14:44:11Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.1759796142578}, {"text": "Many animal welfare groups stand strongly against animal testing claiming that they have rights just like our own, but would any of them actually lay down their life for their pet or favourite zoo animal? And if we did ban animal testing how else would we test our vaccinations and countless other crucial experiments?", "title": "Animals should be used for testing", "pid": "7ef1e9dc-2019-04-18T18:28:00Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.17417907714844}, {"text": "Contenton IV: Animals generally benefit from advances made in animal testing IVA: Animal testing has improved understanding of animals and their welfare. What is often overlooked in this debate is the subject of veterinary medicine. It is in the interests of animals themselves that experiments be done on animals to test medicines and surgical procedures for using on animals themselves, not just on humans. Animal experimentation can be in the interests of animals as well as of humans. Heart worm medication was devised from research on animals and has to day helped in saving the lives of many dogs. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind as to why cats live longer and remain healthier are better understood. Contention V: Animal testing actually helps in testing whether products are environmentally friendly. VA: No organisation can commission animal testing without being sensitive to understandable concerns about the issue in society. However, all responsible businesses have to ensure that their products are safe for their employees, customers, the wider public and the environment. New product developments have delivered many benefits to society, but they must be demonstrated to be safe. In the case of oil and chemical products, the use of animals for testing is required where there is no other way of establishing their safety. Although new testing methods have significantly reduced the number of animals used, animals are still needed for some safety testing. Contention VI: The use of animals in cosmetic testing is appropriate. VIA: The Food and Drug Administration approves of animal testing in the case of cosmetics. The FD&C Act does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, nor does the Act subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval. However, the agency has consistently advised cosmetic manufacturers to employ whatever testing is appropriate and effective for substantiating the safety of their products. It remains the responsibility of the manufacturer to substantiate the safety of both ingredients and finished cosmetic products prior to marketing.Animal testing by manufacturers seeking to market new products may be used to establish product safety.", "title": "It morally acceptable to experiment on animals for human purposes", "pid": "d1a53c21-2019-04-18T19:17:41Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.16976928710938}, {"text": "I will present my arguments for animal testing and why it should be allowed for medical research. (Not cosmetic research. ) Argument 1: Many animal testing opponents say that it is cruel to animals that take part. Indeed it is in some cases, but no more so than the wild. An animal in the wild can die of disease, predators, habitat destruction, or a huge number of other ways. An animal in a lab may die, but when it does it has helped scientific progress and potentially saved human lives. Animals in labs suffer no more cruelty than the wild has to offer. Argument 2: All drugs intended to help animals have to go through animal testing. Treatments for common pet sicknesses have gone through animal testing as well as human drugs. Without animal research, the treatments that help animals would likely have not been created. The animals used in these sorts of tests benefited their kind through their use in research. Argument 3: Alternatives to animal testing exist, but are not yet reliable. The problem with using cells is obvious. Most bodily functions have different cells for their tasks. If we look at one cell we are only looking at one potentially affected area. Also, it fails to show how cells can react with other bodily mechanisms as part of a whole animal. Computer simulations are iffy because they rely on our knowledge of the animal and the substances in the drug. What is not coded into the computerized test is unable to be observed. Also, many alternatives are vastly more expensive or time-consuming than animal testing. I await my opponent’s response Sources: PETA . http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk...", "title": "Animal Testing should continue for medical research", "pid": "64a6fa7-2019-04-18T18:00:16Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.16845703125}, {"text": "There are both practical and moral arguments for animal testing. On the practical side; Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB. Antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments rely on animal tests. Other testing methods aren't advanced enough. Scientists claim there are no differences in lab animals and humans that cannot be factored into tests. Operations on animals helped to develop organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques. Moral arguments include; Human life has greater intrinsic value than animal life. Legislation protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment. Millions of animals are killed for food every year - if anything, medical research is a more worthy death. Few animals feel any pain as they are killed before they have the chance to suffer.", "title": "Animal Experimentation for the benefit of humans.", "pid": "19c1b3ad-2019-04-18T18:53:56Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.156494140625}, {"text": "People say that animal testing is okay because it helps us. But it doesn't really help us anymore. The inner workings of a rat and a human may be similar, but they are no means identical. When it comes to drug discovery and development, these limitations can jeopardize every segment of the pharmaceutical pipeline, from synthesis to prescription. Side effects are missed, and millions of dollars are wasted. Even if a new chemical entity is deemed safe at the animal stage, it still only has 8 percent chance of being approved form human use. Also, the ultimate crash test dummy has been invented by military scientists and will eventually replace live testing on animals such as pigs which are regularly blown up and dismembered in the search for more lethal mutations hundreds of scientists are making medicines from chemicals found in sea plants and animals. Once scientists find useful chemicals, they can often copy them in a lab without killing any animals. Plus,less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals. According to the former scientific executive of Huntington Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree \"5% of the time.\" Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%", "title": "Animal Testing", "pid": "61bcb9f0-2019-04-18T15:36:32Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.1385040283203}, {"text": "Granted, the affirmative can provide multiple reasons why animal testing is beneficial and should be around it is important to remember the negative consequences of animal testing must be acknowledged. The purpose of animal testing is to apply products to animals before testing them on humans. While this can be important for the safety of the human subject the results for the animal subjects can be horrifying. While there is good reason for this testing it is important to note that research via animal testing can be misleading. Dr. Ray Greek supports this assertion in a recent news article saying, \"...research with animals is misleading.\" A few examples include: drugs that would not have harmed humans did harm mice and were consequently not put on the market, researchers working with monkey models of HIV tested a vaccine on the monkeys and subsequently gave the vaccine to humans who were harmed as a result. The harms of animal testing (as proven by the previous two examples) can go both ways. Furthermore, many positive changes have not occurred due to animal testing. The National Cancer Institute has stated that society may have lost cures for cancer because of animal testing. The whole moral debate aside, the entire medical field could have been revolutionized, but animal testing stood in the way. Ultimately it doesn't matter how you approach the topic. Whether from a moral or practical stand point, animal testing ought not be affirmed. Because of all that has and has not happened as a result of animal testing, I urge you to vote negative. Thank you http://www.opposingviews.com...", "title": "Animal testing should not be allowed.", "pid": "2bce8c52-2019-04-18T19:09:45Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.13253784179688}, {"text": "I believe that animal testing is unjustified because of the cruelty of these testings. Most of the animals ends up their lives by being injected unsafe medicines into their body, and only a few percentage of them get a 'special privilege' of being euthanized. For instance, the commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 2010 97,123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits, 33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters. Moreover, some of the 'endangered' species designated by the CITES are used for animal testing, just for fast results and inexpensive prices. It is high time for us to stop this unneccessary, crazy act in the globe.", "title": "Animal testing is unjustified.", "pid": "14dfcc1-2019-04-18T14:02:51Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.11814880371094}, {"text": "The 4 main reasons we use animals in testing are: 1. To advance scientific understanding 2. As models to study deisieses 3. To Develop and test potential for of treatment 4. To protect the safety of people, animals and the environment You can see the descriptions of these reasons here: http://www.animalresearch.info... Animal testing is very successfull and neccessary. No one wants animals to be treated badly, but would you rather have your loved one die? Insulin was tested on animals, and that saves lives every day. Scientists even fear that if animal testing becomes illegal, medical research will be stopped entirely. With the erosion of antibiotic effectiveness a real possibility, it is essential that we use every tool we have to a dress the medical threats facing our civilization. You can read about it here: http://newsciencejournalism.com... And here is another article that proves my point perfectly, if you'll take the time to read it: http://m.huffpost.com...", "title": "animal testing.", "pid": "908ed2cb-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.11697387695312}, {"text": "I disagree. No living being should be at the expense at science unless that being is dead. I don't care because animals don't know whats happening or some animals react different in captivity. How about better yet we test on prisoners or humans who volunteer . Animals shouldn't be at the expense of us because it's not morally right.", "title": "Animal testing is right when required for medical purposes.", "pid": "2f5fdbe4-2019-04-18T13:01:15Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.11341857910156}, {"text": "My opponent has forfeited the round. If he comes back this next one, I would like it if he responded to my argument. In regards to the comment about what would be non-scientific testing, I believe I can answer that. There is no such thing as non-scientific as technically everything can be said to be \"scientific\". However, if we're talking about knowledge beneficial to humanity, then I personally consider cosmetic testing to be non-scientific.", "title": "Resolved:The US should allow animal testing...If its for scientific reasons only", "pid": "ea3754ba-2019-04-18T17:34:19Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.0923309326172}, {"text": "Past experience has shown what invaluable advances can be made in medicine by experimenting on animals, and that live animals are the most reliable subjects for testing medicines and other products for toxicity. In many countries (e.g. the US and the UK) all prescription drugs must be tested on animals before they are allowed onto the market. To ban animal experiments would be to paralyse modern medicine, to perpetuate human suffering, and to endanger human health by allowing products such as insecticides onto the market before testing them for toxicity.", "title": "Animal testing has significantly improved human welfare", "pid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00183-000", "bm25_score": 217.07562255859375}, {"text": "I will accept the topic of this debate, I agree to all stated rules and respect that you are looking to improve your persuasive writing. Good luck to you sir, I look forward to having a civilized debate with you.", "title": "Should Scientist test products on animals", "pid": "8dd83f76-2019-04-18T12:13:33Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.0630340576172}, {"text": "Yes, it is true that it would be better for an animal to die than a human. However, the reason I am against animal testing is its inefficiency and lack of necessity. We have more effective, alternative methods than causing the suffering of fellow mammals. The saddest part is that we have to use animals that are similar enough to humans that it may work, so we use creatures with an actual form of consciousness, versus, say, a lizard. https://www.neavs.org...", "title": "Animals should be used for testing", "pid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.06204223632812}, {"text": "Animals have also been known to fail. The point being, animals should not be used if there are other options. It's not like using animals is really any more effective than other methods. Other mammals biologically resemble us, but not enough for it to work too efficiently, as my sources have pointed out. Thank you for debating this topic.", "title": "Animals should be used for testing", "pid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.05191040039062}, {"text": "You have a point on the intelligence of animals. However, they are still, despite their accomplishments, lesser than humans. And if the court accepts this, I would like to expand my original point to say that in scientific testing, it would be better for an animal to die than a human, evidence being as this position is the next logical step after my original proposal.", "title": "Animals should be used for testing", "pid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.0496063232422}, {"text": "OK, before I start rebuttling Con's arguments I have to make something clear! :I knew it would happen!! Firstly, do you think I am so naive that I would not think that you would found the website? It's the number 1 result when you google \"animal testing pros and cons\"and \"animal testing cons\", the number 2 result when you google \"animal testing pros\", and the number 8 result when you google\"animal testing advantages\". It was almost impossible for someone to mke a good research without visiting this site! This is why I gave you the sources!.. Every copied sentence is attached with the link of the site where it was first published! Since, I give the links and admit that these sentences have not been created by me I have no reason to paraphraze them!Secondly, I don't understand why this was such a great deal for you that you could not rebuttle at least one of the arguments I posted. Here are some sites that mention the debate rules- nowhere says that participants must come up with their own arguments. http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw...http://www.entsoc.org...Do you know why? Because the main purpose of debating is to defend your side well in order to persuade the audience! \"I don't like doing this, but it doesn't seem at all fair that sophisticated published arguments are pasted against myself. I could do exactly the same if I wanted and we would be left with a non-debate. It is not intellectually honest.\"In the first place, it IS fair and honest! A debater's arguments should not be prepared based on his/her opponent's level of knowledge. It was not my indebtedness to make arguments easy enough for you but it was you who had to search and post sophisticated ones. Moreover, NO! we would not be left with a non-debte. Contrary, it woud be a very interesting debate! We would both have to rebuttle some sophisticted arguments instead of ordinary ones and it would be great! It would be one of those constructive debates that could help people define their position and gain some knowledge! \"I am going to cut this round short as I want to see Pro's genuine reasons for animal testing, given she has voided her entire previous round by plagiarising. \"Really? You had more arguments but you didn't post them because you waited for me to post my \"genuine\" arguments? And when did you expect to post them? In your round 3? Now, about the \"genuine\" arguments:A debater should collect as many arguments as he/she can in order to defend his/her side! It is impossible to base a whole debate on someone's arguments! Before starting a debate, we all do some research! There no one who uses only his/her own arguments. You cannot ask me not to search and collect arguments and evidence, so I suppose that you want me to paraphraze them. BUT:1) An argument is yours when you are the first to think about it or at least you have come up with it without having heard or read it somewhere.. You cannot claim that an argument is your just because you have paraphrazed it. So, almost all of us use arguments that someone else has though about. And that's what we have to do in order to form an opinion! You cannot define your position in a topic by taking into consideration only your genuine arguments. 2) Given that I have paraphrazed the whole text.. So what? Does anything change? The main idea would remain the same! The only difference would be that I would may have done some mistakes. There are things that only specialized people know and I would not be sure if the paraphrazed text would be correct. Sometimes, a word plays an important role in a text and it could also change the whole meaning. So, since I have given you the sources, why should I have to risk it? So, there was no reason for you to ignore the arguments, let alone to ask me to paraphraze them. If you want to rebuttle something, rebuttle these arguments! Unfortunately, I will not have the chance to rebuttle your rebuttles. And finally, NO! I have not voided my entire previous round by plagiarising. This is wrong! If you had spent a little time to read and compare the 2 texts, maybe you wouldn't have said that! I have done much research and work in order for my round to be completed. I've added and removed many things.. examples: what animal testing offersthe image (found it while checking out a source that the website used too.)\"Without animal research polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year\",said Albert Sabin,developer of the Polio vaccine (source 6..Sorry, but I had not characters available)The quote at the endHousehold cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK-more than the total number of animals used in medical research every year.The UK consumes over 300 times more fish each year than the total number of all animals used in medical research every yearand many more things have been added. Now let's start with the rebuttals:\"However this is irrational, as we have absolutely no good reason to prioritise our own fellow species over another who has a measurable well-being. \"As I've already said, we don't conduct animal testing because we want to devalue animals' rights. Conrary, the fact that we have strict laws that protect animals' well-being, the fact that we use alternative research methods whenever possible and the fact that there is no other way to protect us and animals from viruses show the oppoiste! That we recognize animals' rights and we try to prevent them from suffering! Oh, yeah! I forgot..you have ignored my whole round 2 for some reason.. \"Let's assume we grant ourselves the right of our own well-being at the expense of animals, where does that leave us?'I have to repeat things..Oh gosh! OK, let's get started:We don't grant ourselves at the expense of animals. We just use animals whenever we cannot do something else.. I'm sorry but the only way to save from the HIV and the cancer or save animals from certain diseases we HAVE to use a few animals. Thanks to animal research we are where we are now and a lot of other species have not been extinct. We cannot stop using animals unless we find an alternative way to test drugs. \"An enormously disproportionate amount of suffering and negative well-being which is resultant of our own selfishness. Therefore, granting ourselves the right, and stating that animal research doesn't cost that many lives in comparison is a myopic way of looking at the bigger picture.\"I never said that animals should be tortured and exploited because they are not as powerful as humans, but we ,firstly, have to think about our own species. We have to find a way to face some viruses so that we'll not be extinct. If animals were in our shoes, they would do the same. This is how nature works! I also mentioned that :\"Household cats kill approximately 5 million animals every week in the UK\"This shows that animals kill each other without being menaced. The fact that we're being menaced now proves that in order for some species to become powerful so that they will not be extinct, they have to harm some other species. I never said that we have to torture animals because we are more powerful, but when we're being menaced, we have to find a way to protect ourselves. Please note that we try to harm animals as little as possible despite the fact that we're in danger. \" While an argument that animals are readily available for large scale testing might have had some credit in her he past, that same argument is no longer applicable today\"No, it is. I made a whole paragraph about why animals are necessary. Many diseases that menace our species today cannot be cured by using only alternative research methods. The tretments cannot be found so easilly. They need years of testing and examination. So, yeah, this argument is still appicable.\"Given that drugs are necessarily tested on humans anyway, why not cut out the 'middle man' and go directly from in vitro testing to in vivo trials in humans?\"Go to the last paragraph \" But why don't we use humans instead of animals?:\" There are a lot of things that humans cannot offer. \"except Pro simply doesn't have a leg to stand on in vested long term well-being interests\"Really? And your well-being? I have proved that animal testing benefits both people and animals. Thanks to medical research many animals have not been extinct. We have a lot of laws to protect them. We try to avoid using animals. What else can we do? Unless we find an alternative method we HAVE to use animals. If you have sth better to propose, do it. We can not quit medical research as we have to find treatments quickly if we don't want to die. Now, about morality:As Con has based all of her arguments on morality, I guess that she is a conscious person who stresses the importance of taking moral values into consideration. To start with, I have to clarify that morality is subjective and every person has differerent moral values. So, you cannot ask me to demonstrate animal testing to be immoral as I can simply answer that \"For, me it is moral as I think that we have to use our power against other species\" for instance. NOTE: THIS IS NOT MY OPINION IT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE. Furthermore, we are not responsible only for our acts but also for our omissions. That means that we have to take into consideration the consequences of conducting animal testing and those of quiting animal testing. Which is more immoral? To use a few animals in order to find a way to face some viruses or to let many people and animals die which can lead to the extinction of many species while we can avoid it?", "title": "Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing.", "pid": "3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.04539489746094}, {"text": "While I think most people would agree that animal testing should be used to a lesser extent, and be performed as ethically as possible, that's not what you are arguing for. You are arguing for a wholesale ban, regardless of the costs and benefits involved. I consider that irresponsible. Certain animal experiments are almost demonstrably unethical, and sometimes even unnecessary. That can't be said about all animal experiments however. We can not do research into malaria if we don't keep mosquitoes. We need to analyze snake venom to create antidotes. You may argue these pursuits are unethical, but it's certainly up for debate. I'm guessing the divisive issue is tests on mammals. I'm in no position to disprove all the biologists, doctors and pharmacists who claim animal testing is viable and useful, and the burden of proof is certainly on any person who wants to make such a claim. Humans are mammals, our muscles and digestive systems are often quite similar as well as our endocrine systems. In my opinion, the breakthroughs that rest on animal experiments speak for themselves. If there are better and cheaper ways, we will surely adopt those instead. People did not enter science because they are sadists. A complete ban on animal testing is not a viable approach, surely plenty of diabetics who are alive because of it would agree. I'm not sure it would have been more ethical to learn how to do kidney transplants or how to place the first pacemakers on humans.", "title": "Animal testing should be banned.", "pid": "da630fe7-2019-04-18T14:32:44Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.03765869140625}, {"text": "I believe that animal testing should continue because if we don't have animals to test on, who can we test on to find new stuff that could be beneficial for the growth in society? Whether you like it or not, it's one of the only ways we can find new types of cures and we could even find cures to many diseases. I agree that sometimes there is a minority of the time where animal testing is used for stuff like makeup, that way I do agree that it shouldn't be used, but if it is used to find new cures and something new that can be beneficial it would be great for our society, and we wouldn't even notice.", "title": "Animal Testing.", "pid": "61bc36ac-2019-04-18T17:28:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.0314178466797}, {"text": "Well, first of all, thanks for accepting.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To begin with, experimentation it's a very important part for scientific development. We can't test on humans primarly because of the moral. But if we can't use humans, why can we use animals?My reasons for using animals on research and/or experiments are: Most of the animals are breed in laboratories specifically for testing (like flies). This doesn't affect a species population. In fact, the species used are really common and aren't endangered. Animals (specifically mice) can be breed for a special experiment. An animal life could help the human race to find a cure, understand how certain organs work or even make a progress in the genetics area. Testing on animals allows us to know if a drug is safe for selling it. Scientists care about the animals. They use them just in really necessary cases and they use techniques that cause the least harm, stress or pain to the animal.", "title": "Animal Testing", "pid": "61bcba6c-2019-04-18T15:04:19Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.9981231689453}, {"text": "Firstly, I thank con for accepting my challenge, and would further like to state some reasons. Good Luck! :) 1) A good deal of people would say that so many animals are being killed in animal research but it isn't realised that animals are used in the food industry as well. The number of animals used in the food industry are countless comparing to animal research. People would approximately ear thirty sheep, five cows, six-hundred chickens in addition to thirty pigs in a lifetime whereas only three mice and one rat would be used in one humans lifetime due to animal research. In addition to all of this there are vegetarians in the world, including myself. The food industry uses more animals than the insignificant amount that animal research does and people don\"t even think about the sum that the food industry uses. Animal research benefits more people using less animals and the food industry uses more animals and only helps non-vegetarians. Would you rather satisfy your hunger, in which there are other alternatives, or would you rather save millions of lives, in which there are no alternatives that are appropriate? 2) It is a fact that animals sometimes do get harmed and possibly killed from animal testing, but if it hadn't been for animal testing the dreaded human race would have died out in the present climate. Numerous people have died from heart failure, liver failure, diabetes and even throat infections! If animal testing continues then more people would be saved. By all means animals are vital to us as we use them in the food industry, and other general labour. If we stop animal testing the human race would wipe out; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record! Thus, if there wasn't any animal testing humans and animals both would die for their own record, eventually. Thank you. :)", "title": "Animal Testing should be allowed", "pid": "aeeb3794-2019-04-18T17:18:40Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.99656677246094}, {"text": "Testing animals shouldn't be banned. Testing animals helps identify things that are either harmful for humans or helpful for science. Animal testing helps us identify diseases and how animals act. Animals aren't usually killed or tortured during animal testing. It doesn't hurt animals, and it helps humans.", "title": "Animal Testing should be banned", "pid": "c0429f6c-2019-04-18T15:12:05Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.9956817626953}, {"text": "Human lives are rarely threatened by final cosmetic products, unless an individual is severely allergic to a topical ingredient in the product, in which case they should avoid it. There is no point to testing products on animals if there is not a possible major risk to the consumer. I am not suggesting the notion that humans stop using cosmetics as a whole. I am arguing that using animals to test cosmetic products is unnecessary. The importance of cosmetics to ones self-esteem on the surface has little relevance to the notion of animal testing, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on why this is related to animal testing for cosmetics and define your terms. I will not debate whether the animals are alive or not. Also, I fail to see the direct relevance this has to cosmetic testing on animals, please relate this back to the debate topic.", "title": "Animal Testing for Cosmetics", "pid": "901f612c-2019-04-18T12:44:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.99044799804688}, {"text": "Firstly, the fact that animal testing has been used successfully in the past doesn't mean we should continue to use it. Secondly, mice are a lousy animal to experiment on. We should use university students instead. I'm very serious. Here are the reasons this is better than animal experimentation: 1. Students can understand and consent to treatment, while animals can't. 2. Students are better models for how drugs, etc, affect humans. 3. Animals have to be bred, fed and housed in cages. Students require no keeping and can be paid with food vouchers or chocolate bars. Or, if you're really mean, just credit it towards one of their courses. 4. Students are generally impoverished and need the handouts. Using them as test subjects helps student poverty. 5. Students are everywhere and contribute to overpopulation and destruction of the environment. If a few of them die during the trials, it's no big loss. 6. Cruelty to animals is horrible. Cruelty to students is hilarious.", "title": "Animal testing should be kept (medical reasons)", "pid": "1a7b445a-2019-04-18T17:18:44Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.98123168945312}, {"text": "The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and much more. But sometimes the drugs don't work and over 100 million animals have died from failed animal testing. All I am saying is if we did not have animal testing you would be putting humans at risk of getting really sick or possibly dying from a failed drug test. http://www.peta.org...", "title": "Animal Testing.", "pid": "61bc36ea-2019-04-18T12:14:22Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.9694366455078}, {"text": "The major pro for animal testing is that it aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. Many medical treatments have been made possible by animal testing, including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and much more. But sometimes the drugs don't work and over 100 million animals have died from failed animal testing. All I am saying is if we did not have animal testing you would be putting humans at risk of getting really sick or possibly dying from a failed drug test.", "title": "Animal Testing.", "pid": "61bc36ea-2019-04-18T12:14:22Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.95266723632812}, {"text": "First, animal testing for mental effects is needed to isolate variables. If we simply watch and study then it will not in a controlled environment so it will be difficult to isolate what variable effects what aspect of the mind. Second, he dropped my genetic testing argument. We need to conduct genetic testing on animals to best improve the species. Third, his only argument about farmers testing for yield is that we are testing methods, not the animals themselves. This is false, we test methods ON the animals. With medicine, we are not testing the animal itself, but the effectiveness of the medicine on the animal. There are two ways to view his argument then. One, testing medicine on animals is not the same as animal testing, meaning his entire case is based on a false premise. Or two, testing medicine on animals is the same as animal testing, in which case testing different methods of raising animals is animal testing. Either way, the resolution is false. In summary, the con only has to prove one scenario where the resolution is false. I provide three. If even one of the three points I bring up stand, then the resolution ought to be negated.", "title": "animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses", "pid": "3eced554-2019-04-18T19:30:38Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.9492645263672}, {"text": "Nowadays, the topic of animal testing is often discussed. It is considered that animal testing is a major benefit and allows us, as human beings, to advance in our medical research. We should continue animal testing. We depend on these animals for our health. Animal testing allows us to advance our drugs. Would you rather sacrificing ten animals a day for ten million people any day or the other way around?", "title": "Animal Testing should be allowed", "pid": "aeeb3794-2019-04-18T17:18:40Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.9443817138672}, {"text": "Animals used by laboratories for testing purposes are largely supplied by dealers who specialize in the trade. These include breeders who supply purpose-bred animals; businesses that trade in wild animals; and dealers who supply animals sourced from pounds, auctions, and newspaper ads. Animal shelters may also supply the laboratories directly. Some animal dealers are reported to engage in kidnapping pets from residences or illegally trapping strays, a practice dubbed as bunching. In any case, the demand for animals from all of these sources is increased by the practice of animal testing. An investigation in 2007 highlighted the primate trade from Malayasia and Spain. In February 2008, the High Commission of Malayasia confirmed to the BUAV that a ban on the primate trade would be reinstated following the BUAV investigation.[14]", "title": "Animal testing creates a high demand for animals and depletes populations", "pid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00230-000", "bm25_score": 216.92431640625}, {"text": "Yes, but an Ape would work. And the Animal testing is still needed. The Alternative methods usually use single cells, not that good. And I'm pretty sure an experiment wouldn't get passed if it weren't possible. We can't fix all the diseases, but we can try.", "title": "Animals should be used for testing", "pid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.9242706298828}, {"text": "I'm arguing against animal testing because I believe it is totally unnecessary. For one, animals usually are killed after the initial test or live injured for the rest of their lives. Secondly, many tests performed on animals are for materials that never sees approval or public consumption and use. Thirdly, animal testing costs a lot of money. Considering the animals must be fed, housed, cared for and treated with the drug or similar experimental substance, longevity of testing, and the price of animals themselves. Finally, the reaction to the drug/experimental substance in an animal's body is different from the reaction in a human's. Mainly because animals would be in an unnatural environment, they would be under stress. Therefore, they won't react to the drugs in the same way compared to the potential reaction in a natural environment.", "title": "Animal Testing.", "pid": "61bc36ea-2019-04-18T12:14:22Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.91929626464844}, {"text": "You said in your argument that we should only test cosmetics on animals when those cosmetics could harm a persons health. Companies shouldn't be putting harmful substances in their cosmetics in the first place. Later, you said that we'll have to use animals when testing cosmetics until we have a better solution. There are other alternatives to testing on animals. Also, I don't think humans would die if we didn't have animals for cosmetics testing. . http://www.humanesociety.org...", "title": "Animal Cosmetics Testing", "pid": "e92f1168-2019-04-18T16:07:43Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.90805053710938}, {"text": "Ultimately, I agree with you. Realistically, In nowadays, we really needs drug testing and other medicine or vaccine testing, because there isn't any way to replace animal testing. But animal testing for cosmetics doesn't. They have many ways to commute animal testing. But they are still using it because it's cheap and simple.", "title": "animal testing.", "pid": "908ed2cb-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.8924560546875}, {"text": "I am Con for this debate because I am against animal testing and I believe it should be stopped. Rounds 1) Accepting and presenting our arguments to the case 2) Rebuttal 3) Rebuttal 4) Rebuttal 5) Concluding our arguments. Animal testing is a cruel way of trying to find results that aren't always trustworthy. Whether the testing is drug tests, cosmetic tests, or toxicology tests they are all unnecessary and cruel to the animals. I think I knew way of testing should be considered maybe using humans who volunteer their bodies for the experiments. Mainly people who are very sick and volunteer their bodies so they can help so hopefully they can find a cure for future people who will get that disease or sickness. Humans will also be a more reliable source to test on because animals very different than humans, so if a certain drug works on a mouse that doesn't mean it will work on a human because their bodies react differently to certain diseases and medications. If we test on a human and that drug works then we can be much more certain that it will work on other humans as well.", "title": "Animal Testing", "pid": "61bcb28d-2019-04-18T18:20:07Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 216.87869262695312}, {"text": "The opposition's conclusions can be attacked in three ways. First, countries that are less economically developed than wealthy North American and European states are not likely to support rules or laws similar to the 3Rs doctrine or Directive 2010/63/EU. In these countries, low animal welfare standards often mean that animal research is cheaper relative to the cost of non-animal methods such as computer models or cell cultures. Second, across the world, researchers tend to specialise in certain fields. Animal researchers tend to involve animal work in most of their projects, meaning that they may be less aware of alternative methods that could be used. Essentially, an individual who has spent their entire career as an animal researcher is likely to see all scientific problems in their field of research as solvable through animal experiments. Finally, toxicology work on new drugs (and sometimes other products) still legally requires animal testing in most countries of the world. The length of time it took to introduce the EU ban on animal testing for cosmetic testing shows the difficulties faced by governments in adopting new methods of regulating animal research.", "title": "Animal research is only used where other research methods are not suitable", "pid": "7f023e5c-2019-04-15T20:22:59Z-00026-000", "bm25_score": 216.87295532226562}, {"text": "throughout the history, animal testing has played an imperative role in leading to new discoveries and human advantaged. However, many people tend to forget the great numbers of animal have suffered serious damage during the process of those experimentations. So, my point of view is that animal experimentations should be stopped. Using animals is bitter, because they are living creatures like people and feel pain. the are a lot of facts and researches which prove it.", "title": "animal testing", "pid": "908f528c-2019-04-18T16:59:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.86314392089844}, {"text": "I will be arguing against the testing of products on animals and the rules are; 1. Opponent must have a decent vocabulary and a relative experience in debating. 2. NO personal insults 3. Don't muck around, please. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments, no rebuttal Round 3: Rebuttal and conclusion. [Note: I am trying to improve my persuasive writing for high school and my English is relatively mediocre-above average. So please don't go full on me and many of these points made by me may not necessarily mine.]", "title": "Should Scientist test products on animals", "pid": "8dd83f76-2019-04-18T12:13:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.8616943359375}, {"text": "I actually plan on going into the medical field and tho i haven't started it yet, i have had to write numerous research papers in order to get accepted. Most every day medicine that has been used has tested on animals like flue shots, to diabetic medicine. Plus things like cosmetic test are completely overblown, the reality is that very little cosmetic test are actually done on animals.", "title": "Animal testing should be banned.", "pid": "da630f8a-2019-04-18T15:36:58Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.859619140625}, {"text": "Of course humans lives have a big value. But nowadays there is a big progress in technology and there are a lot of new innovations. I think people should search for alternatives , because they are too dependant from animals. We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans. One more reason to support my point of view, is reduction of animals. The new studies show that each year about 115 million animals in the world used for experimental purposes. Keeping the number of animals used to a minimum is extremely important. As much we use as much we lose. The animals are the essential part of our life. They have played various roles; that of a friend, companion, benefactor, protector, comforter, and more. This world would be a very different place were its sole inhabitants humans", "title": "animal testing", "pid": "908f528c-2019-04-18T16:59:04Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.84536743164062}, {"text": "animals are under the dominion of man. instead of eating a mouse, we can do testing on it. this is based on the bible, which says man is to have dominion over animals, and based upon human reason, which naturally shows we eat and use animals for utilitarian purposes. it is better we test on animals than people.... we need to do tests one way or the other and this accomplishes that.", "title": "animal testing is a good thing", "pid": "8cce991f-2019-04-18T15:43:14Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.8448944091797}, {"text": "\"Animal Experiments\". BBC.co.uk. Updated August 17th, 2004 - \"Animals are still used to test items like cleaning products, which benefit mankind less than medicines or surgery\". Animal testing should only be conducted where it could potentially save human life. This is the only way in which the intentional harm and destruction of animal lives could be justified.", "title": "Animal testing for non-life-saving human products is unjust", "pid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00209-000", "bm25_score": 216.84275817871094}, {"text": "New medicines require testing because researchers must measure both the beneficial and the harmful effects of a compound on a whole organism. A medicine is initially tested in vitro using tissues and isolated organs, but legally and ethically it must also be tested in a suitable animal model before clinical trials in humans can take place. The animal tests provide data on efficacy and safety. They not only identify potential safety concerns, but also determine the doses which will be given to volunteers and patients during the first human trials. Testing on animals aso serves to protect consumers, workers, and the environment from the harmful effects of chemicals. All chemicals for commercial or personal use must be tested so that their effect on the people and animals exposed to them is understood. The chemicals that we use day-to-day can accumulate in the water, ground or air around us, and their potential impact on the environment must be researched thoroughly.", "title": "Animal Testing.", "pid": "61bc36ea-2019-04-18T12:14:22Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.8395538330078}, {"text": "What is animal testing? Shell.com - \"No organisation can commission animal testing without being sensitive to understandable concerns about the issue in society. However, all responsible businesses have to ensure that their products are safe for their employees, customers, the wider public and the environment. New product developments have delivered many benefits to society, but they must be demonstrated to be safe.", "title": "Animal testing actually helps in testing whether products are environmentally friendly", "pid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00219-000", "bm25_score": 216.81930541992188}, {"text": "Cons No Never it should not be allowed and banned. Animal testing is inhumane and cruel to animals. Just because we want to be safe you feed or inject unknown chemicals in them just to see it is safe for us. Some are just for curiosity! When people \"test\" if products are safe. they force animals to eat it observe if they live or not if they live to treat, they stay there for the rest of their life since birth until with a little chance being rescued. These days people use dog breed beagles not mice. Nether mice or dog, imagine you are being experimented till death in a lab forever. And imagine how much you hated the white coats in maximum ride!", "title": "Animal Experiments/Testing", "pid": "99bfe116-2019-04-18T11:52:08Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.81887817382812}, {"text": "Hello. The reason my opponent votes negative on Animal Testing is because animals do not deserve the cruelties put upon them. However, my opponents alternative is flawed for the following reasons. 1. It is essential in scientific and technological advances. As long as pain and suffering for the animals is minimized, I believe that it is acceptable to use testing on animals as opposed to having humans go through the same process. That said, it is very impractical to have humans endure these tests. 2. It would prevent any harmful side-effects had the testing been done on humans. The ethics is questionable. However, it is widely believed that the value of a human is MUCH greater than the value on an animal. It is undebatable that we, as people, would rather have someone else do something. As long as everyone accepts this fact, there are no ethical dilemmas. In summary, I believe that animal testing is VERY desirable and the ethical issues are outweighed by the benefits of using them as opposed to human beings. My opponents argument is loose and the alternative is impractical and may cause danger to human beings.", "title": "animal testing", "pid": "573e6e3c-2019-04-18T19:46:40Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.8167724609375}, {"text": "In the last five years in the UK, no fewer than three independent inquiries have been carried out into the effectiveness of animal research in developing medicines for human use. The House of Lords Select Committee, the Parliamentary Animal Procedures Committee and the independent Nuffield Council on Bioethics all concluded that testing on animals is a scientifically sound method, has yielded great results in the past, and is crucial for future advances. The animals used for research in the United Kingdom must be specially bred by registered license holders. Research is not performed on stray animals or unwanted pets. This is strictly illegal. The use of chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas has also been banned since 1986. The vast majority of research is conducted on rodents, with a smaller percentage using fish, reptiles, and birds. A very small percentage is conducted in larger mammals.", "title": "Animal research is extremely tightly regulated by independent authorities", "pid": "e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00026-000", "bm25_score": 216.7926483154297}, {"text": "I think animal testing should be allowed. Animals provide a way for humans to test their new innovative ideas and vaccines. I know that it is inhumane for the animals, however, humans would have to suffer without the animals. You see, society is uneasy about testing a new and experimental treatment first on humans. This possibility of hurting a being we know is conscious and has emotions is TRULY inhumane. Treatments are tested first on animals just so we know that they are safe and effective. Besides, animals also offer models for experimentation that would be impossible to copy in humans. Some species of mice can be genetically modified to be exactly identical so that we can study the effects of two different procedures in mice that will not have different reactions. Without animal experimentation, millions of humans would die and suffer. Many types of lifesaving modern medicine have been created with animal experimentation. When it all boils down, it is either us, or the animals. I choose animals. Also, a VAST majority of all lab experiments use mice, not dogs, cats, are any other household pets. Testing and dogs and such is sometimes approved, but so minuscule that it's hardly even noticeable. I'm not saying that the lives of animals don't matter, I'm saying the lives of humans matter more.", "title": "Animal Experiments/Testing", "pid": "99bfe116-2019-04-18T11:52:08Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.79168701171875}, {"text": "Animal testing has become one of the most controversial topics of the modern world; however, there are many aspects of animal testing that people overlook. Without the use of Animal testing we would not have cures to many of the different diseases that we are able to cure. Many current diseases are cured and treated through the use of animal testing. For instance, Cancer and HIV are common illnesses that have been made treatable through the use of animal testing. Animal testing provides the safety for use of drugs on humans. We live in a society that values human life over the lives of animals. Through the use of animal testing, we are able to help reduce the risks of negative effects that the drugs we use can cause to humans. Before drugs go for human trials, they are tested on animals to ensure that they are ready to be tried on humans. This helps to reduce catastrophic effects that these drugs might have on the people who are trying them. The alternatives to animal testing, are not reliable. Through the use of computer engineering and cell cultures, we are able to see the effects to some extent; however, these methods are not as reliable as animal testing. Cell cultures are not as detailed as animal testing. Cell cultures only show the effects to the few cells it is tested on. While if you test in an animal, it shows the effects to the body as a whole. Computer models are useful for a hypothetical sample, but the body consists of many variables and unknowns that computers cannot account for.", "title": "Animal Testing", "pid": "61bcb28d-2019-04-18T18:20:07Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.77748107910156}, {"text": "Yes, a lizard would not work, and that's the problem. The point is, no scientific method is perfect, and with numerous diseases encompassing the planet, we can't come close to dealing with all of them. We don't need to waste animal lives to achieve an impossible goal. Alternate methods may not be superior to animal testing, but they aren't inferior either, and they don't involve killing or causing suffering in animals. https://www.rspca.org.uk...", "title": "Animals should be used for testing", "pid": "7ef1e9fb-2019-04-18T11:22:45Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.76243591308594}, {"text": "Actually I disagree with my opponent. Animals aren't the only way to test drugs. The science technology has improved and the scientists in U.S.A have invented CHEMO SYNTHETIC LIVER . Instead of animals we can use this ......liver to test our medicines. over a 100 million animals die each from animal testing in USA. 300 thousand animals die each year in New Zealand. Animal population is going down. Even my opponent agree that we shouldn't kill animals.", "title": "animal testing should be banned", "pid": "b57b834d-2019-04-18T16:08:55Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.74949645996094}, {"text": "I would like to start my argument with a favorite quote of mine: Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: \"Because the animals are like us.\" Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: \"Because the animals are not like us.\" Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. - Charles Magel Animal experimentation is less reliable, more expensive, and considerably less humane than alternative options. I'm going to avoid delving into consumer good research at this time, and focus more on medical research as that seems to be where the OP is aiming. Contention: Animal experimentation is not actually useful and is not reliable. A recent experiment involved surgically embedding coils into the heads of monkeys in order to track neural activity, but further inspection of the test revealed that the neural pathway being researched was not involved in the progression of Alzheimer\"s disease (Hansen). The testing of drugs is no more accurate. The American Anti-Vivisection Society states that \"nine out of ten drugs that appear promising in animal studies go on to fail in human clinical trials (AAVS \" Problems With Animal Research).\" A prominent example of this is thalidomide, a drug designed as a sedative and an anti-nausea medicine for pregnant women, which in animal tests had very few issues in pregnant dogs, cats, rats, monkeys, hamsters, and chickens. However, when released in the late 1950s for human use, it caused high amounts of birth defects, as well as issues in adults after prolonged use (Singer 57). Oftentimes, drug research on animals can skew in a different direction. For a remarkable number of drugs, animal tests indicate little to no benefits and the test subjects may develop significant issues. As a result, these drugs never continue on to clinical studies, or need to be pushed through to human clinical trials via back channels. Lipitor, a medicine designed to lower cholesterol, failed in animal testing but was an important medical development for humans (AAVS \" Problems With Animal Research). Synthetic insulin, crucial for diabetic people, causes deformities in rabbits and mice. Morphine, used for sedation and pain management, is stimulating to mice. Penicillin, an oft-used antibiotic, is fatal to guinea pigs (Singer 57). Animal tests run on these drugs, and many more, were inaccurate, and had they been relied on, would have held up medical advancement. Contention: There are plenty of alternatives that are more reliable. Animal experimentation is not the only option, and it is not the best option. Alternative research methods have been developed and approved, and studies show that they are often more accurate, faster, and less expensive. Researchers at the National Cancer Institute use cell cultures to test chemicals for anti-cancer properties, and have been able to recreate sixty different types of tumors and cancers, including brain, lung, and reproductive cancer. Using this method, over 20,000 drugs can be tested per year (SHAC). Dr. Bjorn Ekwall developed a test using donated human tissue to test toxicity, in place of the LD50 test. Not only does this test have more accurate results at 84% compared to the LD50\"s 52%, but it is able to target the toxicity on specific organs. Skin corrosivity testing has a 40% error rate when using animals, but is 100% accurate when using synthetic skins, such as EpiDerm or SkinEthic. Computer-based Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship models (QSAR) can also predict skin irritation correctly 95% of the time by comparing a new chemical to similar established chemicals using its properties (NEAVS \" Alternatives In Testing). Scientists have used human cells to develop \"microbrains\" and bone marrow, and have been able to use egg membranes and blood samples to test drugs (Newkirk 63). The Embryonic Cell Test (EST) is often used to ensure drug safety for pregnant women, and has been named more valuable than all animal tests combined (SHAC). As Gordon Bacter, founder of the cruelty-free Pharmagene Labratories, said, \"If you have information on human genes, what\"s the point of going back to animals (Newkirk 68)?\" Other alternative testing options include microdosing, where human volunteers are given extremely small amounts of the test drug so as to learn effects of the drug without compromising the entire human body, in vitro testing, where cells are given diseases and results are found within hours, epidemiological studies, or studying the population to learn how diseases work, and clinical studies. Clinical studies often involve people who have already contracted an illness volunteering for drug trials (NEAVS \" Alternatives In Research). The studies are carefully managed and so the risk to volunteers is minimal. Another option is computer models, which were used in the development of the \"AIDS Cocktail\", a potent combination of drugs used to slow the progress of HIV (Newkirk 225). These programs are able to simulate anatomical functions and can collect and manage a large number of research data points (NEAVS \" Alternatives In Research). Contention: Animal testing is too expensive and slow. Using animal testing, it takes five years, eight hundred animals, and four million dollars to test a single drug. Alternative methods allow, for the same cost, 350 chemicals to be tested in one week (Pacelle 342). Supporting Material: <http://www.neavs.org...;. <http://www.neavs.org...;. <http://www.shac.net...;. Cohen, Daniel. Animal Rights: A Handbook for Young Adults. Brookfield, CT: Millbrook, 1993. Print. <http://chronicle.com...;. Newkirk, Ingrid. The PETA Practical Guide to Animal Rights: Simple Acts of Kindness to Help Animals in Trouble. New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 2009. Print. Pacelle, Wayne. The Bond. New York: Harper Collins, 2011. Print. <http://www.aavs.org...;. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement. New York: Harper Collins, 2002. Print.", "title": "The US federal Government should ban ALL testing that requires the use of animals.", "pid": "aefcf694-2019-04-18T17:34:55Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.74710083007812}, {"text": "EU member states and the US have laws to stop animals being used for research if there is any alternative. The 3Rs principles are commonly used. Animal testing is being Refined for better results and less suffering, Replaced, and Reduced in terms of the number of animals used. This means that less animals have to suffer, and the research is better.", "title": "Animal research is only used when it’s needed", "pid": "b5be6b4d-2019-04-15T20:24:36Z-00027-000", "bm25_score": 216.74249267578125}, {"text": "I look forward to an excellent debate! Thank you Con. Now, according to your conditions, I have added a brief outline of the contentions I will present to you, as of arguing that animals should be used in medical research, if necessary: While minimizing suffering and pain, animals are very useful in medical research. Medical research using animals is a vital part of advancing both humans' and animals' health. Animals are one of the most common reasons for sickness caused in humans. If we stop animal testing the human race would possibly wipe out due to deaths from sickness; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record! Thus, if there wasn't any animal testing humans and animals both would die for their own record, eventually. What if it were your close relative who were sick, would using an animal make any difference? Animals are also killed in the food industry, for food, and the number of animals used in the food industry by far, outweigh the number used in the medical industry. Medical research can’t use any other alternative. There would be many cures not found if we don’t use animal testing. Also, please note, this is a rough outline of the arguments I will present. I may change, add, or not use some of the reasons provided for various reasons (which I don’t know of, as of yet). I do believe that in the next round you will present your arguments in more detail, to which I then rebut on and introduce more arguments. Also, if don't mind me asking, this is the first time I've had a debate where we are to give an outline of the arguments we are going to use? Thank you, and Good luck!", "title": "Animal testing for medical research", "pid": "16dc9c32-2019-04-18T16:46:13Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.72987365722656}, {"text": "In my opinion your argument is irrelevant to the topic, we're talking about the cruelty of people because of the act that they are using animals for experimentation; we can really say that the experimentation on modern technology is much more expensive than the expenses on the experimentation of animals to make medicines. I am now going to state my facts. --Argument-- If you think human beings are the only living creatures that have benefited from animal testing, then you are mistaken. Heartworm medicine was a product of animal testing and has proved to save the lives of millions of dogs across the globe. Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind the long life of cats. Moreover, several other animal drugs available today are the products of animal testing itself. Let us not forget that laws have been developed for the protection of animals, during the process of laboratory testing. However, some scientists break this law as well, just like any other law. Such cruelty has to be definitely punished and cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, it is also important for us to remember that there are several laboratories, in which animal testing is carried out in an ethical manner. Thus, animal testing is not something to be blacklisted completely. What one should be against is unethical animal testing. It is up to us and all individuals belonging to animal organizations and medical research to work hand in hand, and prevent this injustice from happening. We should ensure that animal testing is carried out in a safe, ethical manner causing as little pain and discomfort to the animal as possible. If animal testing was to be outlawed, then there would be very little scope of obtaining vital information necessary to eliminate suffering and premature deaths in both humans and animals.", "title": "Animal experimetation should be banned around the world", "pid": "89eb9d8b-2019-04-18T17:43:09Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.72024536132812}, {"text": "Animals are usually only used for testing for specific studies.", "title": "Animal testing", "pid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00041-000", "bm25_score": 216.70831298828125}, {"text": "I think that cosmetic testing on animals is necessary and helpful to the entire human race. I'm not saying it should be used for every cosmetic just ones that could hold a potential risk to human health and until we have a better way of testing cosmetic on something that acts alive but is not alive we will have to make due with animals. if not humans may die.", "title": "Animal Cosmetics Testing", "pid": "e92f1168-2019-04-18T16:07:43Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.70687866210938}, {"text": "I have already understood that medicine needs to be tested somehow before it can be used on humans, but with modern techniques is useless to use animals for that. For instance, nowadays scientists can clone an organ and safety test on that. In addition, I agree that animal testing has a big influence in medicine but I am sure that by the modern technologies we will receive the same result. Moreover, if we look so deeper we may see that there are so many millennial generation around the world claim that modern technologies are much more expensive than animal testing. It indeed consumptions of monetary sum to changeover from old techniques to new ones, but eventually it will be deserving choice of reaching a reliable results in a medicine. In fact, people who are against toward animal experimentation including me, we consider that modern technology is one time investment, while with animal testing you should keep paying for it. I have several arguments such as animals need food, shelter and transportation also need a money.", "title": "Animal experimetation should be banned around the world", "pid": "89eb9d8b-2019-04-18T17:43:09Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.69911193847656}, {"text": "Honourable and learned opponents. Animal testing is one of the most controversial topics in our generation. Just because animal testing has been going on for several centuries doesn't make it any bit okay. my two arguments will be, the uneccesarry use of animal testing as well as the chance of false results. It's completely necessary to use animals in a lab, partially because the world doesn't need a new soap or erectile dysuction pill so badly it results in the deaths of innocent animals. Most of the time these animals are tested on extremely utterly useless things, and very rarely do scientists finds major break throughs and advances medecine. The fact remains that if rodents were dying in a lab for cancer research, and real progress is being done, I'd guarantee most people wouldn't be against it. But the circumstances are not so pretty, and you cannot possibly justify testing on these animals with little to no advances. My next argument is faulty science. If the scientist does find a breakthrough and whatever drug he/she was being tested on animals does end up working, chances are it won't work on a human. Making it once again IRRELEVANT. You must understand that there are better ways out there, to find cures for medecine, to test products, and that animal testing isn't even close to being the answer to our problems. By now you should know that 1. The majority of our tests are on unnecessary products, at least not important enough to be used on animals 2. Even the small minority of animals being tested for medical reasons usually end up failing and resulting in a waste of time and not to mention an innocent life. 3. IF by chance the medecine ends up working on the animal, there is no telling whether or not this will work on a human being. Statistically 92/100 drugs that passes animals tests, FAILS in humans", "title": "This house would ban animal testing", "pid": "ad53c4eb-2019-04-18T15:29:26Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.6915740966797}, {"text": "Experimenting on animals for scientific purposes should not be banned because of several things, such as : 1. There is no such things as rights for animals,that's why scientist have been experimenting on animals. If there is rights for animals that means every human being must be a vegetarian. 2.If scientist don't use animals for experiment on diseases and cures then there's no medicine for such diseases. Imagine one of your family suffer a disease with cure that can't be found because scientists aren't allowed to work on them, Who'd you blame?", "title": "Experimenting on animals for science purposes shouldn't be banned", "pid": "96b3dd5b-2019-04-18T13:08:56Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.68292236328125}, {"text": "Edythe London, UCLA researcher. \"Why I use laboratory animals\". Los Angeles Times. November 1, 2007 - \"[animals] allow us to test possibly life-saving treatments before they are considered safe to test in humans.\" If animals were not available to use in testing drugs, it would be more difficult to determine the safety of a drug to humans, which would delay the release of potentially life-saving drugs. This could cost human lives.", "title": "Animals are important to testing life-saving drugs before they are safe for humans", "pid": "fd3161b0-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00199-000", "bm25_score": 216.67791748046875}, {"text": "Hello, Animal testing is the cruel science of testing products on animal in an extremely bestial way. And their only \"crime\" is not being able to talk. There are many reasons to as why animal testing is without doubly wrong; animals have a very different bodies and anatomy than ours. If a type of food for example was eaten by a human, would you say that it is harmless to them? An example, cats and dogs are dangerously intolerant to chocolate, if they eat it, they can die. For humans, we indulge in it all the time. Another reason is that animal testing is unreliable. Animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don\"t work or are dangerous, and of the small percentage that are approved for human use, half are relabelled because of side effects that were not identified in animal tests", "title": "Animal testing should stop", "pid": "9f5396d0-2019-04-18T15:42:14Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.66146850585938}, {"text": "{comment on your opinions for this debate} Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, is a cruel way of testing products/medicines on animals. every year, 150 million animals are burned, crippled and blinded ever year. I believe it should be abolished. i thank whoever takes the debate :)", "title": "Animal testing should stop", "pid": "9f5396d0-2019-04-18T15:42:14Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.65992736816406}, {"text": "I believe animal testing is a good thing. The animals are not treated with cruelty at all. The dogs are walked, and the animals are given toys to play with. If we didn't test cosmetics on them, companies can be unknowingly spread all sorts of infections to millions of people, and get sued. Animal testing saves lives each day. For example, lukemia. The survival rate used to be 5%. But they tested therapy on mice, wich raised it to 80%. Tell me what's closer to your heart? The life of a thousand rats, or the life of a thousand humans. I'm against animal cruelty, but this is one of the most important things a rat could do with it's life. Testing in animals has brought enormous advancement in the field of medical research. The cure for rabies and anthrax is thanks to animal testing. It also can lead to cures because of animal testing such as arthritis, whooping cough, leprosy, diphtheria, rubella and measles. And treatment to cardiovascular diseases. William Harvey had used dogs to find facts about blood circulation. Then later Stephan Hales discovered the means to measure blood pressure by using hares. Then Jean Poiseulle used dogs to messier blood pressure giving the world the first of it's mercury manometer for measuring blood pressure. None of this would happen without animal testing. I'd also like to emphasis humans suffering through varies diseases such as cancer and HIV can have some relief and not suffer through as much pain. Vaccines for lots of illnesses, antibiotics for infections, and insulin for diabetes have all been discovered thanks to animal testing. Not all animal testing is harmful to the animal. Animal food companies use test animals to see if a little of this or that oil in the diet makes for a healthier coat etc. People against animal testing complain it's killing animals. 95% of research animals are birds, mice, and rats. The same creatures we set out poison for so they do not get into our basements and attics. We eat them! Those are for survival, and so is animal testing.", "title": "animal testing.", "pid": "908ed2cb-2019-04-18T15:35:47Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.6521453857422}, {"text": "It is more than true to say that animal testing is dangerous. However, let's think about it this way. According to a study done by the magazine Popular Science, more than 88.7% of tests that were successful or unaffective by animal patients had the opposite or \"different\" effect on humans. Still not convinced? Doing their own research, The FDA reports that 92 percent of drugs approved for testing in humans fail to receive approval for human use. This clearly proves that what we test on animals are completely innacurate and thereby should not be used. So in this sense, I, myself care for my fellow man as well. Oh and thank you for clearing away that \"personal\" or sentimental part of this debate because I wasn't going to go much on about animal rights and whatnot. However, I'd like to give the voters this: Correct science is the most humane and safe. Correct science is science used for good and not on those who don't have the ability to say what's right or not. We cannot keep on experimenting on animals that are taken away without notice, to be used for study, or for something that does not benefit their species. How far are we willing to take animal testing as to taking away the whole animal race for our cruel and incorrect tests. (Note: I'm not those crazy animal activists whose working Peta or some crazy organization like that.)", "title": "Animal testing does more good than harm", "pid": "e937961a-2019-04-18T14:45:55Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.65061950683594}, {"text": "Given that people are going to be subjected to those compounds anyway, it is better to test it on an animal first, in case of any major side effects. After that, it could be tested on political prisoners in China, for instance. Animal testing provides a barrier between people and the really nasty things. It's not perfect, but until a suitable alternative is found, it's the best that can be done. Assume a zero-sum equation. We, as humans, want as much of that metaphorical pie that is resources as possible. Animals are eating up resources. We can either kill and eat them, use them as test animals, get power jollies by exercising power over them (http://www.debate.org...), or take them in as pets. The shorter lifecycle of the animals means that effects come to the fore more quickly than with humans, and corrections can be made. In short, animals are highly expendable and do not even factor into the equation, unless they are in limited supply. Using them as a barrier helps identify side-effects and whatnot before moving over to political prisoner testing, then dissemination into the general public. It may not be reliable, but it's better than nothing.", "title": "Animal testing does more good than harm", "pid": "e937961a-2019-04-18T14:45:55Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.64663696289062}, {"text": "Antibiotics, insulin, vaccines for polio and cervical cancer, organ transplantation, HIV treatments, heart-bypass surgery - it reads like an A to Z of medical progress. But these major advances have something in common: they were all developed and tested using animals. Animal experimentation is a contentious issue. It works. Some would have you believe there are alternatives for all animal research, or that animal testing is always misleading and unsafe. These are fallacies. Where there are reliable alternatives, of course, we use them - that's what the law demands. Magnetic resonance imaging, computer models and work on isolated tissues and cell cultures can be useful; but they cannot provide the answers that animal research can. No one chooses to use animals where there is no need. It gives no one any pleasure, and it is time consuming, expensive and - quite rightly - subject to layers of regulation. Yet it is still the best way of finding out what causes disease, and of knowing whether new treatments will be safe and effective. Biologically, we are similar to species such as mice and rats, because we have practically the same set of genes. Their bodies respond to disease and treatments much as ours do. If a genetically modified \"purple tomato\" can fight cancer in mice, as announced yesterday, it might work for humans, too. This could be the beginning of the cure for cancer.", "title": "Animal testing should be kept (medical reasons)", "pid": "1a7b445a-2019-04-18T17:18:44Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.6415252685547}, {"text": "Hello jlconservative. I agree that animal testing is helpful, I just debated for the sake of debating. You obviously have your facts straight and I will only present facts this time. I will also give you the links to the websites. 1. Ten Fast Facts about Animal Testing The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission do not require animal testing for cosmetics or household products. Sufficient existing safety data, as well as in vitro (test tube) alternatives make animal testing for cosmetics and household products unnecessary. Because mice and rats are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the actual number of animals used in product testing is unreported and unknown. It has been estimated that as many as 100 million mice are used in U.S. laboratories every year. Common animal tests currently used for cosmetics and household products include the Draize eye irritancy test, oral toxicity tests, and skin irritancy tests. Animals used in testing are most usually purchased from specialized breeding facilities. However, they may also be taken from the wild or acquired from animal shelters (through a practice known as \"pound seizure\"). Animals used in product testing most commonly include guinea pigs, rabbits, mice, rats, and dogs. Animal subjects can also include cats, ferrets, birds, and nonhuman primates, to name a few. Claims about animal testing on packaging and labels of cosmetics and household products are not regulated. Statements such as \"not tested on animals\" or \"cruelty-free\" can be deceptive, and require further inquiry. Shop with confidence and compassion by only purchasing products from companies approved by the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC) — the Leaping Bunny program. This is the only international standard that ensures that both products and ingredients did not involve new animal testing. Animal testing can occur anywhere within the manufacturing process, including final (or finished) products, ingredient suppliers, associated manufacturers, and contract testing laboratories. Animal testing for cosmetics has been banned in a number of European Union (EU) countries and a complete EU-wide ban is on the way. All of this data is from http://www.api4animals.org... I have more data about the actual animals used. The Animal Welfare Act requires laboratories to report the number of animals used in experiments, but it does not cover mice, rats, and birds (used in some 80 to 95 percent of all experiments). Because these animals are not covered by the act, they remain uncounted, and we can only guess at how many actually suffer and die each year. Many household products and cosmetics companies still pump their products into animals' stomachs, rub them onto their skin, squirt them into their eyes, or force animals to inhale them as aerosol sprays. Charities such as the March of Dimes use donations from private citizens to fund experiments on animals, and the FDA requires all drugs to be tested on animals. However, animals differ from humans significantly, making animal drug tests unreliable and dangerous. New research methods, such as computer models, cell cultures, and human studies are more accurate, less expensive, and much more humane. that is directly from the PETA website, and I suggest reading the Animal Welfare act. I was only using a \"personal in the moment\" reference when I mentioned my dog. That was uncalled for and most animals that are used are nto covered by the animal welfare act.", "title": "Animal Testing", "pid": "b8d489df-2019-04-18T19:54:30Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.6407470703125}, {"text": "Animal research has played a part in nearly every medical advancement over the past decade. Nearly every Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine since 1901 has relied on animal data for their research. Modern painkillers, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin, insulin and many more drugs all relied on animal research in their development. Also it's not just medicine. Many people wear make-up, many people wear hair-styling products etc. All these different products rely on animal testing in the stages of manufacture, without animal testing these products would be unsafe to use. At current, there is no viable alternative which could completely replace animal testing in trials therefore making animal testing essential.", "title": "Animal Testing is essential", "pid": "fd2bc663-2019-04-18T16:15:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.61572265625}, {"text": "Using the agreed question (from the comments), I am debating based on the following question: Be it resolved that animals should not be used for testing. I will be debating the Con side of this argument, however will not be debating that animals SHOULD be used for testing, but rather that it is not in and of itself immoral that animals ARE used for testing. I am using the following definition: Animal: a living, multi-cellular biological organism which derives nourishment through ingestion rather than photosynthesis, and which are spontaneously and independently mobile, and not a human being. I will use Round 2 to rebut Pro, and I will conclude in Round 3. Ultimately, the question of whether or not it is right to use animals for product testing is a moral one. As such, I will be arguing from moral grounds. So, given that this is to be a moral argument, why does man have morals if but to serve our values? What does a rational human being hold as their highest value or highest purpose? I would argue that the first principle of morality is to pursue man's primary purpose \" that being survival of man qua man.[1] In other words, in order to survive as a human being ought to survive. In other words, the prime moral directive of a human being is to choose his actions, values, and goals, in such a way as to maintain and enjoy that which we value the highest \" our own life.[2] Given that products which are tested upon animals are generally either necessary for the direct preservation of our lives (pharmaceuticals), or aid us in the enjoyment of our own lives (shampoo, soap, cosmetics). It is necessary to perform testing on living cellular structures similar to that of human beings in order to determine safety for human use. Given that necessity, it is therefore morally justifiable to use animals for testing purposes. 1) Ayn Rand, \"The Virtue of Selfishness\", p21 http://philo.abhinav.ac.in... 2) Ibid, p22", "title": "animals should stop being used as testing subjects", "pid": "2025817a-2019-04-18T14:44:11Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.61328125}, {"text": "Animals can further our understand of science vastly by experimentation, as well as save millions of lives.. Would you rather a albino rat die or a young girl with leukemia die? Most people (unless you belong to PETA which is another debate entirely) would prefer the girl.", "title": "Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research", "pid": "baa6bc4d-2019-04-18T17:00:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.61212158203125}]}
{"idx": 15, "qid": "16", "q_text": "Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?", "qrels": {"c7f7b345-2019-04-18T16:03:24Z-00002-000": 0, "59d1fc1c-2019-04-18T17:56:37Z-00005-000": 0, "b7844b08-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00018-000": 0, "bdbec276-2019-04-18T14:38:53Z-00004-000": 0, "bdbec276-2019-04-18T14:38:53Z-00002-000": 0, "917a6a48-2019-04-19T12:45:20Z-00022-000": 0, "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00009-000": 2, "c7f7b345-2019-04-18T16:03:24Z-00007-000": 0, "bf3fbda4-2019-04-18T18:34:09Z-00001-000": 1, "c27a55cc-2019-04-18T15:07:00Z-00001-000": 0, "74e915ea-2019-04-18T12:17:43Z-00002-000": 0, "11aa61bc-2019-04-18T14:21:12Z-00001-000": 0, "86fca339-2019-04-18T18:03:35Z-00005-000": 0, "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00001-000": 2, "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00015-000": 2, "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00016-000": 2, "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00002-000": 1, "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00010-000": 2, "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00015-000": 0, "6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00005-000": 2, "61dc5834-2019-04-18T18:31:58Z-00006-000": 1, "61dc5834-2019-04-18T18:31:58Z-00001-000": 1, "5d8b00fa-2019-04-18T11:23:36Z-00000-000": 0, "44c44402-2019-04-18T14:44:19Z-00003-000": 2, "44c44402-2019-04-18T14:44:19Z-00004-000": 1, "3cd36a40-2019-04-18T19:04:09Z-00004-000": 0, "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00017-000": 2, "3cd36a40-2019-04-18T19:04:09Z-00000-000": 0, "3cd36a40-2019-04-18T19:04:09Z-00003-000": 0, "3534f3b2-2019-04-18T18:00:43Z-00003-000": 0, "32391c6d-2019-04-18T16:58:22Z-00004-000": 0, "319ddd26-2019-04-18T16:50:02Z-00005-000": 0, "2a5141f4-2019-04-18T12:43:08Z-00002-000": 0, "24195d60-2019-04-18T19:02:29Z-00004-000": 0, "23d69a69-2019-04-18T19:37:31Z-00000-000": 0, "74e912a5-2019-04-18T13:31:24Z-00005-000": 0, "c7f7b345-2019-04-18T16:03:24Z-00001-000": 0, "cc40bf64-2019-04-18T16:25:47Z-00000-000": 0, "f0f76624-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00002-000": 0, "ccf0a250-2019-04-18T15:21:23Z-00003-000": 0, "d1b6be4-2019-04-18T14:12:16Z-00004-000": 0, "fdc41caa-2019-04-18T16:59:44Z-00006-000": 0, "f0f76624-2019-04-18T15:01:18Z-00001-000": 0, "dab1f67b-2019-04-18T18:43:23Z-00001-000": 1, "d3fcb97c-2019-04-18T17:00:53Z-00006-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement", "title": "allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 219.2235565185547}, {"text": "Patients will be better informed than under the status quo", "title": "allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.46563720703125}, {"text": "Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients", "title": "allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.0828399658203}, {"text": "Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs", "title": "allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.95994567871094}, {"text": "Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses", "title": "allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.68333435058594}, {"text": "The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system", "title": "allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.3295135498047}, {"text": "The power of the media broadcast is astronomical, and I believe there is an adversarial element put int the doctor/patient relationship when the drug companies advertise prescription drugs directly to the \"ill-informed\" pubic.", "title": "In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public", "pid": "6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.2814483642578}, {"text": "Advertising does not attempt to tell the truth, but to give a biased view of a product. Companies spend millions of dollars a year on advertising, and would not do so if there were no return on this investment. While purchasing a particular brand of cola on the basis of an advert might not be disastrous for the consumer, using an inappropriate drug could be. Drugs companies have also shown their willingness to abuse their advertising rights. For instance the FDA has recently had to insist that the possible side effects of drugs must be listed as an integral part of TV advertisements, because advertisements were being produced in which the list of side effects was read at too fast a pace to be understood. It is thus understandable that in a survey soon after the 1997 regulations on direct to consumer advertising, 80% of American Medical Association (AMA) General Practitioners (GPs) thought it was not a good idea and undermined their role.[1] [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005,  www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011 ", "title": "Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.163818359375}, {"text": "I extend all of my arguments. -Thank you", "title": "In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public", "pid": "6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.14706420898438}, {"text": "This leads to patients requesting drugs they do not need and in many cases are even harmful to them. The prescription drugs are very different from freely available drugs. They often treat serious diseases, and so advertising those should target mainly people that are very ill and especially vulnerable. On the other hand, with direct-to-consumer advertising, many people who do not have a serious disease become convinced that they need the prescription drug, because the advertisements scare them. Because of such advertisement, in the U.S. there was a rapid widespread exposure to dangerous drugs before risks were fully recognized, as with troglitazone (Rezulin) for diabetes and cisapride (Propulsid) for nighttime heartburn. Causing people to become more ill instead of healthier, because this leads to a higher “self-diagnosing”. [1] [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011", "title": "Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 216.8779296875}, {"text": "Creating a mentality of illness", "title": "allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.72344970703125}, {"text": "Advertising serves an important purpose by informing the public about a specific product. It is also regulated from manipulation, and therefore deserves no special restrictions; these same restrictions and watchdogs would be in place if advertising of drugs were allowed to make sure that no drug is misrepresented. We trust consumers to view adverts with a level of skepticism and we know that they form only one part of the research that goes into, say, buying a car. Drug companies have become more open in recent years. For instance, GSK now publishes the results of all their drug trials (including the ones that fail) online and there are plenty of other sources of information on drugs available. A drug that remains unused is a drug that is helping nobody; adverts are simply a reasonable way for drug companies to help consumers find out about their products within a safe and highly regulated environment[1]. When the first discussion in the European Parliament was started, regarding the advertisement of pharmaceuticals, the pharmaceutical industry specifically pointed out the anomaly that exists: “Specific laws stood in the way of it communicating with patients over its products, even when others could. Presumably, this meant information was communicated by the media about new medicines. In this regard, the restrictions on the pharma industry contrast with the freedom enjoyed by manufacturers of vitamins and herbal remedies, who routinely advertise products to patients.”[2] This shows that it is unjust to make any differences between the companies.   [1] Debate: Should Drug Companies be allowed to advertise prescriptions direct to the public. http://toostep.com/debate/should-drugs-companies-be-allowed-to-advertise-prescription [2] Jessop N., Will DTC Advertising appear in Europe ?, published 01/07/2011,  http://pharmtech.findpharma.com/pharmtech/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=702161, accessed 07/29/2011", "title": "Advertisements for prescription drugs are not significantly different from any other advertisement", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.57110595703125}, {"text": "Extend all my arguments.", "title": "In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public", "pid": "6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.49769592285156}, {"text": "Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to. Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy. Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients.[1] 56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected.[2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health. Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients. In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug’s manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization.   [1] Patient View – for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups, http://www.patient-view.com/projects4.htm, accessed 08/07/2011 [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002,  http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.100901.140537, accessed 08/08/2011", "title": "Patients will be better informed than under the status quo", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 216.4569854736328}, {"text": "Hope my opponent shows up eventually.", "title": "In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public", "pid": "6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.44515991210938}, {"text": "I agree with my opponent's point that the media's power is astronomical. A patient trusts their doctor and if their doctor makes a majorly wrong prescription, then the doctor's license will be at least revoked. Doctors have to go through grueling med school, memorize thousands of drug names in order to achieve their status as one and make good choices for their patient. However, if companies are allowed to advertise prescription drugs without really getting to know the patient and their individual case, the \"diagnosis\" has a huge chance of being inaccurate and could even be detrimental to the patient's health. One cannot actually tell from an ad who made it, what they are really giving their customers unless one really buys it and sees them. Unfortunately, too many non legit drug companies or even other companies can advertise whatever they want to make a quick buck from gullible people and they could even unknowingly cause their \"patients\" to have serious medical problems -Thank you", "title": "In Canada drug companies should not be allowed 2 advertise prescription drugs directly to public", "pid": "6a050331-2019-04-18T18:57:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.8213653564453}, {"text": "There must be a way to police these drug commercials. Other countries have laws prohibiting the advertising of drugs to the general public. Let these companies advertise their drugs to physicians through the internet or mailings. I am so sick of these ads. I just change the station. put the sound on mute, or better still, shut the TV off. You couldn't pay me to take this crap!! FDA doesn't care, they are in bed with these pharmaceutical companies, and the networks don't care they are making billions.", "title": "Drug Commercials", "pid": "44c44402-2019-04-18T14:44:19Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.56301879882812}, {"text": "If a patient sees a drug that is inappropriate for him, and asks their doctor for it, if his doctor does not prescribe it, then he may ignore his doctor and seek a second or third opinion. In private health care systems it is likely that economic pressure will result in a doctor eventually agreeing to the patient’s demand. In nationalized health services ‘pester power’ has resulted in doctors giving in to patients in the past rather than arguing with them (seen, for example, in the massive over-prescribing of antibiotics by British general practitioners for viral infections against which they are ineffective). If the doctor prescribes another drug (perhaps a cheaper generic version), even if it is chemically identical to the branded and advertised drug, the reverse-placebo effect may result in the drug being less effective than it should be, because the patient believes it is a weaker treatment. The patient may also be less willing to complete the prescription, or to visit that doctor again, thereby undermining the doctor-patient relationship.[1] Prescription medicines are fundamentally complex and dangerous, which is why they require a prescription by a qualified doctor. It is not helpful to have a patient who lacks the decade of medical training a GP has self-diagnosing on the basis of an advert.   [1] FDA: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs:Looking Back, Looking Forward, published October 2005,  www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm095993.ppt, accessed 08/07/2011", "title": "Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 215.55535888671875}, {"text": "According to a financial study conducted by the Villanova School of Business explained that there is no significant burden to the health care system due to direct-to-consumer advertising. The study, conducted in the years 2001 – 2005 in the United States, shows that there is no significant relationship between advertising and price sensitivity. The comparison with other countries shows, the prices of pharmaceuticals and the price for health care (for drugs) have not risen in the United States. Through advertising, after the introductory phase of a drug, the health system is not burdened more. Simply put people are just able to choose between drugs, in a comparable price range easier and therefore do not cost additional money to the state.[1] So a greater financial burden is no excuse from prohibiting companies to advertise products.  [1] Villanova University, DOES DTC ADVERTISING RAISE PRICE? THE IMPACT OF PHARMACEUTICAL ADVERTISING ON CONSUMERS’ PRICE SENSITIVITY, published 2005 http://www.brandweeknrx.com/files/dtc_drug_advertising_and_drug_prices_study.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011", "title": "The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 215.17269897460938}, {"text": "Actually prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America and receive enormous profits, regardless of the advertising. Companies actually have enormous budgets dedicated to advertising, in countries where it is legal. They are required to spend this money because they have to compete with other companies that are advertising their products, but if there were no advertising, they could spend the money on more research. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies[1]. Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70%[2].  “U.S. Pharmaceutical Launches: Marketing Spend and Structure\" reveals that the average blockbuster brand in the United States allots 49% of its budget to fulfill advertising needs.  This hefty allotment is attributed to the fact that most blockbuster brands target a mass-market audience that requires large-scale advertising.[3] Advertising reduces the incentive for research into new drugs as companies have found the returns on investment in advertising are better than those on research and development. This is particularly the case as it has become increasingly difficult to find a ‘blockbuster’ drug (because increasingly, new drugs are minor adjustments to existing ones). Significant changes to the way drugs are researched are needed for scientific advancements, but such changes are expensive and carry high risks of failure. It is of much lower risk is to the manufacturer to relicense existing drugs for new markets and new consumers, thereby allowing them to re-brand the drug[4]. So they do not use the money mainly for research for new therapeutics, but spend nearly half of it on advertisements to maximize their profit even more.   [1] CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, published 2003,  http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [2] Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go,  http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf, accessed 07/30/2011 [3] PR Newsmedia – United Business Media, Pharmaceutical Advertising: United States vs. Europe, published 12/22/2010,  http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pharmaceutical-advertising-united-states-vs-europe-55640307.html, accessed 07/29/2011 [4] Turning ideas into products- a pharmaceurtical paradigm shift. http://www.paconsulting.com/our-thinking/turning-ideas-into-products-a-pharmaceutical-paradigm-shift/", "title": "Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 214.8450927734375}, {"text": "Alternatively, private pharmaceutical companies should be abolished and the state should provide medical care for its people without capitalism and profit as a motive for companies to raise prices and such. However, that is in many ways a whole different topic.Regardless, I am interested as to what the benefits that supposedly carry more weight than the negatives are, in order for me to form a better argument against your position.", "title": "Medicare in the U.S should be able to negotiate with private drug (pharma) companies.", "pid": "5275c34b-2019-04-18T12:30:42Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.76283264160156}, {"text": "Advertising to patients promotes a ‘pill for every ill’ mentality as the drug industry seeks to ‘create’ new markets for its drugs by convincing patients that a pill can solve their problems. This leads both to greater hypochondria and to self-diagnosis of normal conditions as medical ones. For instance in October 2001, GSK ran advertisements for Paxil in the New York Times, claiming the drug would solve chronic anxiety. These advertisements came at a time when the events of 9/11—rather than a medical condition—were probably to blame for New Yorkers’ stress. The FDA declared in a 1999 study that fewer than one in four new drugs has any therapeutic value and the medical community now accepts that prevention through lifestyle choices is often the best way to tackle disease (for instance, rather than seeking a weight-loss or diabetes wonder-pill, childhood obesity should be tackled through exercise and healthy eating). Pill-popping seems easier and so is more attractive to many patients but in practice it is worse for the long-term health of society. By allowing the prescription drugs to be advertised we are making more people believe they are ill and need pills for them, rather than explaining to them that their back pain and high blood pressure are problems caused by their lifestyle choices.[1]   [1] Health Information Action, Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising The European Commission’s Proposals for Legislative Change, September 2011, http://www.haiweb.org/campaign/DTCA/BMintzes_en.pdf, accessed 08/07/2011", "title": "Creating a mentality of illness", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 214.66209411621094}, {"text": "By allowing anyone who is critically ill to use experimental drugs you enhance the already dubious role of drug company reps: especially in the USA, (where doctors do not operate under the NHS guidance found in the UK), there is already a problem of patterns of prescription being altered by the techniques of drug reps, rather than by evidence1. Where drugs are for sale before they have completed testing, there is even less evidence available, and therefore less ability for physicians to contest the claims of either reps or their own patients (who may have heard of the drug during their own research). Hence you magnify the problem of potentially ineffective of even harmful prescription. 1 Harris, Gwyn, ‘Pharmaceutical representatives do influence physician behaviour’, Family Practice, Vol.26 2009, pp.169-70, http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/169.full", "title": "This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine", "pid": "7b8b69bb-2019-04-15T20:22:38Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 214.6491241455078}, {"text": "This is the full King La Ding sponsored resolution: Medicare in the U.S is barred by the Medicare drug benefit passed in 2003 from negotiating prices of pharmaceuticals with private companies, King La Ding contends as pro that Medicare should be able to negotiate with private companies, because the benefits outweigh the negatives. They were bouncing in the street. Not the chicken just the feet.", "title": "Medicare in the U.S should be able to negotiate with private drug (pharma) companies.", "pid": "5275c34b-2019-04-18T12:30:42Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.3065185546875}, {"text": "The majority of products that are advertised treat currently under-treated conditions. Drugs dealing with diseases such as depression, diabetes, and high cholesterol are some of the most frequently advertised. These advertisements can help inform viewers about their conditions, and prompt visits to physicians, who can help treat the problem early on.  Additionally, informed citizens are good for society, as physicians do not always recommend necessary or helpful drugs. In the status quo, patients do not visit their doctors often enough to be diagnosed. Only approximately half the patients in America get beta blockers after a heart attack. Clearly, an advertisement for beta blockers would be informational, rather than harmful.", "title": "Advertising puts pressure on doctors to prescribe inappropriate drugs to their patients", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 214.18809509277344}, {"text": "How can it be that only tobacco companies get singled out and told not to advertise their products, while many others (such as prescription drugs) are allowed to market their products? There are many products which are hugely dangerous, take alcohol for example. Whilst drinks can be advertised, in the UK they must also carry a drink responsibly warning. Why can tobacco companies not do the same especially when you consider how much more immediate the danger from alcohol is? improve this  ", "title": "Restrictions reach out to the general population", "pid": "292b475e-2019-04-15T20:22:25Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 214.15151977539062}, {"text": "No problem,I agree that false advertising or deceptive advertising should not be allowed, and in my country it is against the law to use false or misleading statements in advertisement which negatively affect consumers. However what you have described does not sound like false advertisement.A chip shop might sell pizzas and burgers. A Burger King will also sells chips. A placed called 'Italian Pizzas' may sells chips and burgers. Petrol stations often sell food and cigerattes. The list goes on. As long as a company sells the thing they advertise they can sell anything else for extra revenue. I don't think anyone has a genuine reason to complain about seeing an item inside a shop they didn't know was there until they entered e.g. candy and ciggarettes inside Walgreens. Nobody has to buy them so what is the problem?Nicorettes are usually sold beside cigarettes because they both contain tobacco, and it makes sense to keep those products closeby behind a counter to deter thieves stealing them.Smoking, and eating Mc Donalds does not affect a doctors ability to do their job. It's important to reward yourself and unhealthy to completely avoid the things you enjoy. Provided you have a balanced diet you can eat anything, and still be healthy.", "title": "Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products", "pid": "1401781f-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.08663940429688}, {"text": "The purpose of prescription drugs must be remembered. Arguably they prevent against the development of serious disease and hence save both the patients the trauma of falling seriously ill and the National Health Service the cost of people falling seriously ill. Thinking about what the medicine prevents and the bigger picture makes the miniscule costs of prescription drugs in comparison seem quite appealing.", "title": "The price of prescription drugs is fair in proportion to what they prevent.", "pid": "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 214.0237579345703}, {"text": "I accept. First of all, my opponent should define drug commercials. Who advertises? What kind of drugs are being advertised? Where are these advertisements? Nevertheless, I'll start out with some basic arguments. Policing these advertisements would be a violation of two parts of the first amendment. Firstly, Freedom of Speech. These companies are trying to promote their brand that is (and has to be) FDA approved. As long is no one is being hurt or defamed by these advertisements, it is unconstitutional to police them. Secondly, freedom of press. Many ads appear in newspapers or magazines. Again, if the drug is FDA approved and the publishing company lets the drug ad go in, it is legal. On constitutional grounds I object to my opprnent.", "title": "Drug Commercials", "pid": "44c44402-2019-04-18T14:44:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.96841430664062}, {"text": "Drugs that are still undergoing clinical trials do not have a complete void of information about them. Presumably this policy covers drugs that have completed at least some testing in humans (say, phase one of the trials), and therefore at least some information would be available on which doctors and patients could base their decisions. Further, it is implausible to suggest that doctors are entirely under the sway of advertisers: whilst drug reps under the status quo have some influence in getting a doctor to use one drug rather than another, this is in instances where there is little to choose between those products, and (importantly!) both are licensed, safe and effective. They would clearly not be so reckless as to blindly follow a drugs rep and prescribe an untested product to their patient.", "title": "This policy enhances the role of drug reps and advertising, at the cost of evidence-based medicine", "pid": "7b8b69bb-2019-04-15T20:22:38Z-00019-000", "bm25_score": 213.8499755859375}, {"text": "Thanks for debating with me. I don't see anything wrong misleading about advertising something but selling something different like candy and cigarettes. They are sold in every supermarket, numerous shops, and even petrol stations, and are a common product. There is no reason whatsoever to assume those produts are healthy. Parents, doctors, teachers etc will tell you they aren't healthy.", "title": "Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products", "pid": "1401781f-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.83775329589844}, {"text": "Instead of moaning about overpriced drugs, people should take responsibility and use their initiative in asking for alternatives. People could go elsewhere for medication when they are absolutely certain that they cannot afford GP prescribed drugs. Alternatives to overpriced drugs of the NHS that cost them less money and can be brought, for example, from the local supermarkets, such as Tescos. It is difficult to qualify the extent of wastage, and that is not in the doctor’s hands. The patients should be encouraged not to waste medication and to give GPs back the remaining pills for example that they did not need to use and this in itself, is a cheaper alternative.", "title": "People should ask for cheaper alternatives", "pid": "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 213.7947540283203}, {"text": "Many ads don't include enough information on how well drugs work. For example, Lunesta is advertised by a moth floating through a bedroom window, above a peacefully sleeping person. Actually, Lunesta helps patients sleep 15 minutes faster after six months of treatment and gives 37 minutes more sleep per night. The Majority of ads are based on emotional appeals, but few include causes of the condition, risk factors, or important lifestyle changes. In a study of 38 pharmaceutical advertisements researchers found that 82 percent made a factual claim and 86 percent made rational arguments for product use. Only 26 percent described condition causes, risk factors, or prevalence.[1] Thus not giving the patients balanced information that would make them aware, that taking one of the pills is not a magic solution to their problem. Actually, according to a study conducted in the US and New Zealand, patients requested prescriptions in 12% of surveyed visits. Of these requests, 42% were for products advertised to consumers and consumers could not recall more than 4 different products of medicine.[2] This proves that the decisions made by the patients are not more informed and mainly only pressure to the advertised drugs.  [1] Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007 January; 5(1): 6–13.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1783924/ [2] Mintzes B. and co-workers, Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey, BMJ 2002,  http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7332/278.full.pdf, accessed 08/01/2011", "title": "Patients will be better informed than under the status quo", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 213.76040649414062}, {"text": "Ok, my opponent has basically just conceded the resolution. The resolution states that drug commercials should be legally policed. My opponent just conceded that they are legal and has not attacked my argument on constitutional legality. As far as my opponent's argument goes, he basically uses an example of a company using ads to mislead the public. Again, drug companies can do that. The question is whether or not the company should be punished. And my opponent says that these ads are bad as a whole. In most scenarios, they're actually good because patients learn about the product and the company makes money. Again my opponent just conceded the legality argument (which is what the resolution is about) and is losing the ethics argument.", "title": "Drug Commercials", "pid": "44c44402-2019-04-18T14:44:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.74501037597656}, {"text": "Pharmacies are reluctant to reduce prices because their prices have to reflect their costs. A great deal of money is spent in order to get the drugs to the patient and the NHS would be greatly affected if prices reduced because in business terms they would be doomed to failure. A business which relies on public funding is successful and continues if it is and continues to be publicly-funded, and this applies to most industries including the NHS. The general public would surely prefer the NHS with expensive and overpriced drugs to no NHS at all and all private healthcare, which would be extremely expensive anyway.", "title": "Reducing prices will affect the NHS", "pid": "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 213.66575622558594}, {"text": "Pharmacy student here. I'm taking this debate for the topic and not to debate on semantics or rigged wordplay. I know what you mean, you know what I mean, so let's discuss this in a way where we can hopefully both learn something. Your argument is heavily based on economics, so I will address a few issues there. First of all, the sale of medications does not abide by the nice round rules of freshman econ. Not when insurance companies are so heavily linked to the sales of these products. The copay for $100 worth of brand name medications can easily be and usually is $10 or less. The release of generic medications will lower the overall cost of the medication, but the benefit to the general population is much, MUCH less than you would imagine. Monopolies really don't apply in the field of pharmacy as much as you would think. Second, there is a saying that goes around in our pharmacoeconomics class. \"They say that pills costs 10 cents to make. That's just the second pill. The first pill takes billions of dollars to make\". Research and development are extraordinarily expensive, and is a much bigger financial burden than all other factors of production. If companies can't turn a SUBSTANTIAL profit, why would they ever try to make a new drug? Third, the FDA requires about 10 years to thoroughly review the drug before allowing it on the market. It also monitors medications heavily after they are released in case the side effects warrant a recall. Your proposal would flood the market with generic medications not 2-3 years after they are first released. If anything goes wrong, the FDA would have a lot of trouble on its hands trying to identify the source of the problem in dozens of pharmaceutical companies as opposed to just one. To sum up, your economic principles upon which your proposal is based, is flawed and applies much less to this topic than you think. Your proposal also neglects the absurd amount of money that goes into research and development, and also jeopardizes the safety of the general population. I await my opponent's response.", "title": "The United States government should reform drug patent time limits.", "pid": "fa3cb933-2019-04-18T19:46:11Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.48776245117188}, {"text": "Advertisements—especially those that identify symptoms—can lead to a healthier citizenry, as consumers become aware of their diseases earlier, and can thus find the drug that targets their problem at an earlier stage. Many drugs can prevent or reduce the likelihood of a patient requiring surgery (for instance anti-cholesterol drugs can reduce the buildup of atheroma in blood vessels, which cause cardiovascular heart disease and strokes, thus reducing the likelihood of a heart bypass being required and improving any post-stroke rehabilitation). This not only saves money but is also better for patients. Surgery involves the risk of complications as well as taking time both directly and in post-operation rehabilitation. Also many degenerative conditions can be best treated by early intervention; if patients are aware of the drugs that are available at an early stage they are more likely to take them, thereby increasing their standard of living and reducing their long-term cost to state or private health cover providers.", "title": "Advertising will enable patients to get better treatment earlier in their illnesses", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 213.473388671875}, {"text": "Ok, I know it's legal, but it doesn't have to be right. Just keep telling people they should convince their doctor they need this stuff. Look at Xarelto. They advertiser says you should ask your doctor, on the other station some lawyer is wanting to sue the drug company on your behalf, because of the serious side effects, including death. OK, I know it's legal. I shouldn't have started this debate, you can't fight money and big business. Hopefully people are smart enough to ignore these ads.", "title": "Drug Commercials", "pid": "44c44402-2019-04-18T14:44:19Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.4510498046875}, {"text": "Removing profit as a motive means that drug companies would be more likely to consider which drugs would actually benefit the most people and less about which would create the most overall profit. For example, pharmaceutical companies have reduced or dropped their research into developing new antibiotics, even as antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria are increasing, because there's less profit to be gained there than in other drug research. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/20/MN1234A1.DTL)", "title": "Would shift the onus from profitability to public benefit.", "pid": "39352d62-2019-04-19T12:45:34Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 213.44479370117188}, {"text": "Allowing the production of generic drugs will only increase production of drugs currently on the market. Without the profit incentive that patents provide, pharmaceutical companies will not invest in the expensive process of developing new drugs in the first place. It is a necessary trade-off, as patents are essential to incentivize innovation. Furthermore, many states have mandatory licensing laws in states requiring companies to license the rights to the production of drugs so as not to precipitate shortages.", "title": "Production of generic drugs reduce medical costs by allowing increased production and the development of superior production methods, increasing market efficiency", "pid": "57906a2b-2019-04-15T20:22:37Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 213.42874145507812}, {"text": "Why do most people prefer Coca-Cola to some other cola? Why do some people prefer Calvin Klein underwear to some other unadvertised brand? Are the advertised products functionally better? Not necessarily. But, in the mind of the consumer, advertising has given these brands added value. In the mid-1960s, a famous psychologist named Ernest Dichter asserted that a product\"s image, created in part by advertising and promotion, is an inherent feature of the product itself. Subsequent studies showed that while an ad may not address a product\"s quality directly, the positive image conveyed by advertising may imply quality. Moreover, by simply making the product better known, advertising can make the product more desirable to the consumer. In these ways, advertising adds value to the brand. That\"s why people pay more for Bufferin than an unadvertised brand displayed right next to it\"even though all buffered aspirin, by law, is functionally the same. Advertising also adds value to a brand by educating customers about new uses for a product. Kleenex was originally advertised as a makeup remover, later as a disposable handkerchief. AT&T first promoted the telephone as a necessity and later as a convenience. One advantage of the free-market system is that consumers can choose the values they want in the products they buy. If, for example, low price is important, they can buy an inexpensive economy car. If status and luxury are important, they can buy a fancy sedan or racy sports car. Many of our wants are emotional, social, or psychological rather than functional. One way we communicate who we are (or want to be) is through the products we purchase and display. By associating the product with some desirable image, advertising offers people the opportunity to satisfy those psychic or symbolic wants and needs. In terms of our economic framework, by adding value to products, advertising contributes to self-interest\"for both the consumer and the advertiser. It also contributes to the number of sellers. That increases competition, which also serves the consumer\"s self-interest.", "title": "advertisement leads to rise in economy", "pid": "7fa85938-2019-04-18T14:40:07Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.3811492919922}, {"text": "Allowing advertising places an additional burden on the health care system. As a result of advertising, if it were allowed, many patients would request the more expensive brand drugs and so place an additional burden on the public health care system. The offered generic drugs have the same effect; they are simply cheaper because they do not spend several millions on advertising. Drug costs are increasing at a faster rate in the United States than anywhere else in the world (roughly by 25% year on year since the mid-1990s). This growth has been mainly driven by patients demanding advertised drugs (they accounted for half the 2002-2003 increase, for instance). Advertised drugs are always more expensive than generic rivals because of the branding and advertising costs, as well as the increased price that manufacturers can demand for a snappily named product. In private health care systems, this drives up insurance premiums, thereby pricing large numbers of people out of health care coverage (44 million Americans have no coverage, despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country). Alternatively, it forces many people to select insurance packages with lower levels of coverage (the solution introduced in 2005 by the Bush administration). The EU has estimated that its member states with public healthcare systems would be crippled if they spent as much on drugs as the United States[1]. Actually estimates in the United Kingdom state that, by buying generic drugs, the public health care system could save more than £300m a year. General practioners could make more use of cheaper, non-brand versions of the drugs, without harming care. An example of the NHS overpricing drugs: one treatment for gastric problems, Omeprazole, can be bought from wholesalers for between £2.50 and £3.40, yet the NHS pays £10.85 every time it is prescribed. To make the matter worse, doctors often over-prescribe; at least £100m could be saved if they were more careful in this matter.[2] Therefore, because it would create a substantial financial burden to the current public health care system, allowing advertising would be a bad idea.   [1] Heath Care in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States [2] BBC News, Drug profiteering claims denied, published 03/14/2004,  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3511102.stm, accessed 07/30/2011", "title": "The costs and effects of advertising will place an additional burden on the healthcare system", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00019-000", "bm25_score": 213.37252807617188}, {"text": "1) Walgreens is the largest drug retailing chain in the United States [1], and it is now rolling out freshly prepared food, and customers are likely to find a pharmacist in the aisle to greet them and answer questions [2]. It is not known for it's candy and cigarettes, so I would say it's \"happy and healthy\" theme is very suitable. Below is a link to the television advert if you wish to watch - First Timers (GPE) Walgreens Commercial My nepthew is 4 years old yet he knows sweets, chocolate, and cigarettes are unhealthy. He would never think his teacher, and family are wrong simply because he saw a sign saying \"At the corner of happy and healthy\" on Walgreen even if he wanted to believe candy is healthy.I think by the time a child reaches an age where they are given pocket money, or are old enough to get a paper round or other low paid job, they will know that candy is a treat, especially if their parents only lets him/her have candy as a way to reward good behaviour.2) Doctors should be able to choose their own life style as it is their life, and they should live it which ever way they choose provided it doesn't harm anyone. Eating burgers, and smoking etc in their own free time does not hurt anyone else. Doctors don't need to be physically fit to help others, they just need to be knowledable. People who are obsessed about avoiding particular foods because they are labelled unhealthy tend to develop eating disorders. It is therefore important for doctors health to listen to their body. Treating yourself now and then does no harm. In fact it would reduce stress.sources:[1] wikipedia[2] http://www.bizjournals.com...", "title": "Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products", "pid": "1401781f-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.359130859375}, {"text": "Yes, prescription drugs are generally sold expensively worldwide, especially in North America. The pharmaceutical industry has been the most profitable industry in America for each of the past 10 years and, in 2001, was a five-and-one-half time more profitable than the average for Fortune 500 companies (1). Moreover, in Canada, the sale of a typical patented branded drug would bring about a profit margin of almost 70% (2). With all these facts, it is without dispute that only overpriced prescription drugs will lead to such a lucrative pharmaceutical industry. (1)CIBC World Markets (2003) 2003 Investors' Guide to The Canadian Drugstore Industry, [Online], Available: http://www.envoycapital.com/includes/docs/drugstore_industry.pdf [21 August 2008]. (2)Families USA (2002) Profiting from Pain: Where Prescription Drug Dollars Go, [Online], Available: http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/PPreport89a5.pdf [21 August 2008].", "title": "Pharmaceutical industries make huge profits", "pid": "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 213.29771423339844}, {"text": "The differences in price between generic and patented drugs can be disconcerting to those wishing to buy pharmaceuticals. As with other product, logic generally follows the rule that the more expensive option is the most effective. There are reports from the USA of generic drugs causing suicidal tendencies[1]. These factors, combined with the lower levels of screening for drugs in Africa, mean that cheaper drugs are generally distrusted[2]. [1] Childs,D. ‘Generic Drugs: Dangerous Differences?’ [2] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’", "title": "Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers", "pid": "b7844b08-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 213.27169799804688}, {"text": "Dr Marcia Angell (former editor of New England Journal of Medicine) Only 14 per cent of budgets go on developing drugs. The case for the granting of patents is that the resulting profits are necessary to finance the expensive process of R&D. These artificial monopolies, however, have proved very inefficient. “The FDA estimates it costs over 7 million dollars to bring a new drug to market pharmaceutical companies put that figure closer to 70 million dollars.” [[http://www.naturalnews.com/020345.html]] This disparity shows R&D is a relatively minor financial concern. “The pharmaceutical industry spends nearly U.S. $57.5 billion on marketing and U.S. $31.5 billion on R&D” [[http://www.naturalnews.com/022698.html]]. The main concern of pharmaceuticals is not the cost of research and development but advertising to compete with other firms and create a market for its product. This is not necessary for life-saving drugs; you may need advertising to be convinced to buy a skin care product but you hardly need convincing to purchase a HIV drug that will save your life. Apart from need-instilling publicity pharmaceuticals spend fortunes ensuring their profits are not compromised by legislation. “Drug companies spent more than $3bn on lobbyists and political \"contributions\" over the past decade in the US alone.”[[http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-hidden-truth-behind-drug-company-profits-1767257.html]]. The vast majority of the profits pharmaceuticals get allegedly to facilitate R&D, go to publicity and lobbying. Our plan would end this ridiculous waste. It would subsidize and reward success and tangible improvements in vaccines that can save lives; it would pay for the R&D with none of the frills. This is further evidence of the viability of this proposal, with cheaper R&D and patent-free drugs health care systems across the world would save billions in addition to those saved by the absence of premi", "title": "Patens are grossly inefficient. Our Plan Rewards Results", "pid": "dca95253-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 213.2622528076172}, {"text": "We should not attack drugs companies for making profits from their products, nor for encouraging patients to use them. Each new drug costs an average of $500m to produce and very small percentage of the drugs that are researched ever make it to the market.[1] The more profitable the industry, the more new drugs it can afford to research and develop and thus the more patients who can receive appropriate treatment. Many of the complex cures being developed for diseases like cancer, HIV/AIDs, SARS and Avian Flu will take decades to research. In the meantime, drug companies require funding streams from other drugs to continue research. Drugs have become increasingly expensive and advertisement helps to cover those costs. From 1980 and 2004, from about $6 billion (in 2005 dollars) to $39 billion. There has been a real growth rate of about 8 percent a year, on average. By comparison, drug firms’ gross margins—sales revenue minus costs and income taxes—have been increasing more slowly, by about 4 percent annually.[2] So, with more personalized medicine and greater costs in drug development, the industry needs a greater source of revenue in order to research therapeutics further.  Advertising would provide this revenue. [1] Hollis A., Me-too drugs: is there a problem ?, University of Calgary, published December 2004,  http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/topics/ip/Me-tooDrugs_Hollis1.pdf, accessed 08/08/2011 [2] Congres of United States, Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry, October 2006,  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7615/10-02-DrugR-D.pdf, accessed 08/01/2011", "title": "Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs", "pid": "8cb27dbc-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 213.25086975097656}, {"text": "Robert Reich. \"Why critics of a public option for healthcare are wrong\". Salon. June 24, 2009: \"Private insurers say a public option would have an unfair advantage in achieving this goal. Being the one public plan, it will have large economies of scale that will enable it to negotiate more favorable terms with pharmaceutical companies and other providers. But why, exactly, is this unfair? Isn't the whole point of cost containment to provide the public with healthcare on more favorable terms? If the public plan negotiates better terms -- thereby demonstrating that drug companies and other providers can meet them -- private plans could seek similar deals.\"", "title": "Public insurer can best negotiate down drug prices", "pid": "4e63160a-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00163-000", "bm25_score": 213.1824951171875}, {"text": "Reducing profit, reduces motive and the money necessary to get a drug through FDA trials. Without profit motive, drug companies will naturally move away from the rare and complex, yet fatal, diseases if they only affect a small percentage of people. Without the ability to set the price, their resources will naturally be moved almost exclusively into benign treatments which will have a larger percentage of the population as potential users.", "title": "Allowing for pooling of resources to force drugs to lower prices will reduce overall innovation.", "pid": "89e52114-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00254-000", "bm25_score": 213.18075561523438}, {"text": "#1 Just because something is not known for something opposite of what it's known for does not mean it doesn't exist. Like America and poverty. For both, you at least have to say that it is hypocritical. Because of this hypocritisy, doctors and pharmacies should not sell or use tobacco or in some cases, candy.", "title": "Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products", "pid": "1401781f-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.12257385253906}, {"text": "Medically there is no difference between generic and patented drugs. They are both identical, with the exception of aesthetic differences in some US drugs to avoid copyright infringement. Generic drugs cost less because they do not have to invest in R&D[1]. They focus on efficient methods of production and ensure that their product can be sold at a competitively low price. The lack of a need for R&D is therefore more prominent than quality in the pricing of generic drugs. [1] Stoppler,M. ‘Generic Drugs, Are They as Good as Brand Names?’", "title": "Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers", "pid": "b7844b08-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 213.11109924316406}, {"text": "My opinion is that places such as Walgreens should not sell cigarettes and candy, as that is hypocritical because Walgreens message slogan is \"At the corner of happy and healthy. \" This applies to hospitals selling candy as well.", "title": "Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products", "pid": "1401781f-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 213.09426879882812}, {"text": "I extend.", "title": "Drug Commercials", "pid": "44c44402-2019-04-18T14:44:19Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.94703674316406}, {"text": "There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors are not informed of their patients’ over-the-counter purchases, but a patient’s previous use of a drug as powerful as the morning-after pill may be something they need to know about to make good future medical decisions. Pharmacists cannot check medical records to find out whether there is anything in the customer’s medical history which might make taking the pill dangerous. They have no way of telling whether their customer is over 16.", "title": "There are significant harms arising from selling the morning-after pill through pharmacies. Doctors...", "pid": "e1347bd3-2019-04-19T12:47:56Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 212.9437255859375}, {"text": "It’s understandable that the medical establishment has an interest in ignoring treatments that are freely available. Pharmaceutical companies make billions each year selling drugs that cost pennies to manufacture. There is an enormous vested interest in insuring that the world in general- and the West in particular-remain tied to the idea that the only solution to disease is to swallow a pill provided by a man in a white coat. There are other solutions that have been used for thousands of years before anybody worked out how to make a buck out of it. For much of the world these therapies continue to be the ones people rely on and the rush of pharmaceutical companies to issue patents on genes of some of these traditional remedies suggests that there must be at least some truth in them.", "title": "The pharmaceutical and medical industries are worth billions of dollars annually. They have an interest in ignoring the efficacy of remedies that are, for the most part, free or considerably cheaper", "pid": "c55873e2-2019-04-15T20:24:28Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 212.94210815429688}, {"text": "When a real chance of profit exists in the development of a new product or drug, people and firms put the effort into developing and creating them. The incentive to profit drives a great deal of people's intellectual endeavors. Research and development, for example, forms a major part of industries' investment, as they seek to create new products and inventions that will benefit consumers, and thus society as a whole. Research and development is extremely costly, however. The US pharmaceutical industry alone spends tens of billions of dollars every year on researching new drugs1. The fear of theft, or of lack of profit stemming from such research, will serve as a powerful disincentive to investment. Without the protection of patents, new drugs lose much of their value, since a second-comer on the field can simply take the formula and develop the same product without the heavy costs of research involved, leaving the innovative company worse off than its copycat competitor. This will lead to far less innovation, and will hamper companies currently geared toward innovative and progressive products. Patent protection is particularly important to companies with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, such as pharmaceutical firms. Without the guarantee of ownership over intellectual products, the incentive to invest in their development is diminished as they will not be guaranteed a payback for their research costs as a competitor could simply take the product off them. Within a robust patents system, firms compete to produce the best product for patenting and licensing that will give them a higher market share and allow them to reap high profits. These incentives lead firms to \"invent around\" one another's patents, leading to gradual improvements in drugs and treatments, benefiting all consumers2. Without patents the drugs companies are trapped in a kind of prisoners' dilemma where both are individually better off by refusing to innovate, yet both suffer if neither innovates. Patents are the solution to this: if a company innovates, it alone can reap the rewards of the new invention3. In the absence of patent protection there is no incentive to develop new drugs, meaning in the long run more people will suffer from diseases and ailments that might have been cured were it profitable to invest in developing them. Clearly, patent protection is essential for a dynamic, progressive pharmaceutical industry. 1 Congressional Budget Office. 2006. Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry\". The Congress of the United States. Available:  2 Nicol, Dianne and Jane Nielsen. 2003. \"Patents and Medical Biotechnology: Empirical Analysis of Issues Facing the Australian Industry\". Center for Law and Genetics Occasional Paper 6. Available:  3 Yale Law & Technology. 2011, \"Patents: Essential, if flawed\", Available: improve this  ", "title": "Robust drug patent laws incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products", "pid": "57906a2b-2019-04-15T20:22:37Z-00026-000", "bm25_score": 212.9293670654297}, {"text": "Ron Pollack The pharmaceutical industry's repetitious cry that research and development would be curtailed if drug prices are moderated is extraordinarily misleading. [[ http://www.actupny.org/reports/drugcosts.html%5D%5D Yes, R&D costs money. Yet only 14% of pharmaceuticals' budgets go to R&D. Reports have linked \"high drug prices to advertising, profits and enormous executive salaries. The report documents that drug companies are spending more than twice as much on marketing, advertising, and administration.”[[Ibid.]] Our plan does not threaten this pathetic level of investment spending. Firms are incentivized to undertake research in life-saving drugs because now they have a guaranteed return on their R&D investment. Regardless of the course of drug production and distribution they will be profit from their research. For non-life saving drugs revenue is spread over 20 years and is by not guaranteed to cover costs. Our plan is much more hassle-free for businesses and encourages higher investment in productive R&D by giving firms what they spend towards developing a new drug. This marks a break from the status quo where only one in five of drugs developed are actually innovative rather than rehashed copies of old drugs. [Ibid]] In addition to research by firms we also enable charitable-institutions and universities to carry out further research. Scientists are principally motivated by the desire for peer recognition and also by the fact that they want to have achieved something more with their lives than reduce some teenager’s pimples by 30%. The cost savings we offer would allow us to hire some of the world’s best scientists to work in renown campuses and research institutions with a view to find solutions to pressing illnesses while still being much cheaper than the current cost. We are not dissuading research into live-saving illnesses we’re invigorating it by offering inciting profit that is tied to results and is cost-effective.", "title": "Taking Away the Incentive to Produce Life-saving Drugs", "pid": "dca95253-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00024-000", "bm25_score": 212.92471313476562}, {"text": "*NOTE* This is the restart of a duplicate debate. We are switching me to opening arguments position as it follows logical process better.Offering the debate challenge.I would like to start by giving my thanks to TBR, and showing my appreciation for the opportunity he has afforded me by presenting the topic in a poll and agreeing to this debate. Additionally, I would like to provide clarity for the audience; the following list will elaborate on Pro and Con positions as well as properly frame the generalized term \"relative\". Con's (TBR) Position -- The U.S. Government is NOT primarily responsible for higher costs of prescription medications within the U.S. Pro's (MakeSensePeopleDont) Position -- The U.S. Government IS primarily responsible for higher costs of prescription medications within the U.S. Relative (Framing) -- The word \"relative\" in the debate title defines as \"Relative to the new prescription medication costs as is seen in other modernized nations of the world.\" Costs of Prescription Medications (Framing) -- The word \"Costs\" as used in the debate title is defined as \"The cost per pill charged BY pharmaceutical manufacturers / companies TO distributors, pharmacies, retailers, or any other direct from manufacturer purchaser. Direct From Manufacturer Purchaser -- Defined as \"Purchasing product directly from source, avoiding unnecessary markup.\" I look forward to a spirited and informative debate with TBR.", "title": "The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2", "pid": "11aa61bc-2019-04-18T14:21:12Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.91802978515625}, {"text": "#1) While you could argue that Walgreens jingle is not saying what they sell; kids could see they sell healthy foods, and then could assume cigarettes and candy are healthy. At minimum, that is hypocritical of them. #2) You state that a doctor should do what makes them happy, but isn't it hypocritical to say dont smoke when the doctor smokes a pack a day. Or at rehab, where the doctor uses crack like the patient", "title": "Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products", "pid": "1401781f-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.91357421875}, {"text": "but you could get audited to any drug like my real dad is to beer and that's why I don't go to his house any more.", "title": "All store should stop selling drugs.", "pid": "7e7e5efd-2019-04-18T15:27:05Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.893310546875}, {"text": "I find your first sentence is very confusing: \"Just because something is not known for something opposite of what it's known for does not mean it doesn't exist.\"Poverty does exist in countries which are said to be rich, and people go to a doctor or chemist to improve their health, but they don't encourage anyone to smoke or eat candy. Staff at Walgreens are there to help customers. People can freely choose to consume what they like, and should not be prevented from doing so when those products are legal.", "title": "Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products", "pid": "1401781f-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.87315368652344}, {"text": "Drug patent time limits are defined as the 15 years given to the inventor or developer of a prescription drug to have exclusive rights to selling and distributing the drug without having to compete with generic brands of their product. This allows prescription drug manufacturers to artificially raise prices, slow down the process of research and development, and to eliminate all competition for an overly extended period of time. Drug patent time limits are benefical in allowing drug producers to be rewarded and compensated for their research in developing new medicines, however, by allowing an overly extended amount of time, it is slowing down the progression of modern medicine and defeating American capitalism through excessive regulation. In a capitalist society, the government should only regulate to the point where there is an incentive to produce. That point lies where the firm initially begins to earn economic profits. A perfectly competitive industry allows other companies to enter the industry at this point. At this point there are only variable costs and the costs of production should be equal between corporations. Now the firms may ablely compete for the purchasing powers of its citizens. The fatally flawed drug patent hinders this from happening. The affirmative proposes a system that will oppose the Con's case supporting the status quo: 7 years would be alloted as a drug patent, with the normal abilities of extension being available to the corporation. The average extension ranges from 5 to 7 years, giving a total estimated patent to the pharmaceutical corporation of 12-14 years, in comparison to the 25-27 years that you are defending. The appeals process, which is legal and cannot be banned without being in contradiction of many standing laws, is a permanent fixture in the system. The drug patents lead the consumer to believe that, due to its excessive period of exclusive rights, that generic drugs are inferior to their original drug, while they are in fact the exact same product. Allowing for the abuse of the drug patent system while corporations continue to amount massive profits is monopolistic and unhealthy for both the American economy and the future of American medicine and pharmaceuticals. Modern American capitalism with government regulation holds anti-trust laws that prevent patents from being absolute. If the best drug is to survive, then it is with respect to generic drugs. However, generic drugs are equal to the original drug, so the competition playing field is relatively equal. A National Center for Policy Analysis study criticized this corporate splurging, and cited that less than 1/3 of profits are spent towards research in development, in comparison to over 50% on advertisement during the original time of the patent. However, during the last 3 years of the drug's exclusive rights overall, the corporation actually increases its advertising spending heading in to the surfacing of generic drugs. In terms of the incentives for the Affirmative's plan, the incentive to create lies in the company's ability to maximize profits over a period of time, but making this period of time shorter would not act as a disincentive. Even after the profit maximization, they still hold the upperhand in the opinion of the consumers and usually tend to charge more than the generic drugs will charge, despite the bioequivalency of the two drugs and the equally similar costs of production. An economic incentive is given even if the drug manufacturer is given a few months to exclusively market and sell its drug. Thanks, The Colonel", "title": "The United States government should reform drug patent time limits.", "pid": "fa3cb933-2019-04-18T19:46:11Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.83338928222656}, {"text": "Selling to the vulnerable", "title": "ban the promotion of diets", "pid": "c1ac6b3c-2019-04-15T20:22:59Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.81240844726562}, {"text": "That's what I was thinking most of the time and I do agree but they should do something about people taking other peoples medicines and iv been saying that the whole time and I can tell u to shut up if I want to", "title": "All store should stop selling drugs.", "pid": "7e7e5efd-2019-04-18T15:27:05Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.7948455810547}, {"text": "Extend my argument please. Cudos to my opponent for appologizing in the comments for the forfeit.", "title": "Pharmacies shouldn't be allowed to sell contraceptives to teens under the state's age of consent", "pid": "2059e76d-2019-04-18T18:24:15Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.7775115966797}, {"text": "Dietary Advertisement are Advertised increasingly high throughout these days ..I admit that even i myself are caught up in these kinds on Advertisement. Most of these Advertisements are mostly cons. Not all of them are true. Not Only that teenagers will easily be effected and they will eventually take actions without any guide. They will make there own unhealthy diets and it will eventually effect there health .Not all teenagers will think rationally about what they are about to do .Its true that we want teenagers to make there own step to ensure there life path but it will eventually ruin there life if we don't guide them .these kind of things may cause teenagers to have anorexia..they will starve themselves. Some teenagers are naturally already thin but because of these kind of advertisement will make them have a different perspective.", "title": "Promotional Diet Advertisement Should Not Exist", "pid": "ae6b8e77-2019-04-18T16:43:25Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.7461700439453}, {"text": "Thank you for accepting Walgreens's motto/slogan is \"At the corner of happy and healthy,\" thereby implying that they sell products that are heakty and cause happyness. How are candy and cigarettes healthy? Candy causes cavities and diabetes; tobacco causes cancer and emphysema. That is the opposite of healthy. It is hypocritical of a company to advertise their products as healthy when infact they do the opposite. I once saw nicorette sold next to cigarettes. That kind of makes you lose credibility when you have product A, then have product B right next to product A, and B is to help quit A. In this medical hypocritisy, my doctors office sells candy and chips! That is hypocritical. Also, how can doctors tell a person they need to eat healthier or to stop smoking, but then go out and buy McDonald's and have a smoke break. The first example is false advertising, and the second one is just hypocrisy, of which niether should be allowed.", "title": "Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products", "pid": "1401781f-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.74452209472656}, {"text": "Okay, my opponent has not only forfeited his last round but has also forfeited the chance to respond late, as I have given him an extra 2 days to respond in the comment section. My arguments still stand. My opponent's arguments have all been responded to either directly or indirectly. I reiterate: Drug patent time limits are VITAL for any new pharmaceuticals to come on the market. If anything, they should be extended. Some drugs should even be eligible for large government grants, in my opinion. It all has to do with how drugs go from the chemistry text to the pharmacy shelves.", "title": "The United States government should reform drug patent time limits.", "pid": "fa3cb933-2019-04-18T19:46:11Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.7421112060547}, {"text": "Firstly, it is not true that it only cost $70 million to fund a drug research/production. The costs are significantly higher into $100-$800 million range. On the issue of marketing, marketing costs will be higher under the proposition model. Under the status quo, firms with patents don't need to market much because they already have a product that no one else can sell. Under the ned model, firms that are now producing the exact same drug now need to spend significant sums on marketing to attempt to differentiate their product.[[www.galbithink.org/cc4m.pdf]] Also the prop seems to be saying that they would be apying for all the R&D of these multiple companies because as soon as then info is out there that's it there are no more costs, this is not true, there a re production costs, labour costs, marketing costs (which will balloon), not to mention the initial start up fees. What is the great incentive for a company to enter this market if it's chances for profit are minimized? The prop essentially reduces the incentives for R&D for life saving drugs by creating a situation buinesses won't want to be in if they don't have to and the prop has also showed how drug comapnies do trend towards making more cosmetic drugs such as hair loss treatments, which they could still patent under the model. So why would a company choose aa lower profit margin at cost over a possible massive profit with costs, for a business it just doesn't make sense why they would choose to create important medication when there is very little in ot for them and this is the situation the prop will be creating.", "title": "Patens are grossly inefficient. Our Plan Rewards Results", "pid": "dca95253-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00019-000", "bm25_score": 212.7320098876953}, {"text": "Public insurer can best negotiate down drug prices", "title": "Public health insurance option", "pid": "4e63160a-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00040-000", "bm25_score": 212.7156219482422}, {"text": "Technology should not circumvent consumer protection laws", "title": "ban the sale of 3D printers to households", "pid": "3c93407c-2019-04-15T20:24:23Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.7150421142578}, {"text": "Well now, you are saying that stores should stop others from taking eachothers medicine. Does that mean that you no longer think that stores should stop selling drugs? Because if it does mean that, then I won. And you say that they should stop people from taking eachothers drugs, well, the stores can't control that. They tell you not to do it, but it's not like stores have cameras in everyones house. Someone could have perscription pain meds and then they have a friend over. The friend over decides to take some of the pain meds, even thought they are not his. The drug stores cannot control what goes on in peoples houses, so they will never be able to stop people from taking each others meds.", "title": "All store should stop selling drugs.", "pid": "7e7e5efd-2019-04-18T15:27:05Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.70835876464844}, {"text": "Alright. Let's say that Universal Health care becomes a right today. What's going to happen next? Let's look at the medical industry, And how it works. More specifically, Let's look at the pharmaceutical industry. The pharma companies are mostly in charge of providing new medications. How do they do that? Through Research and Development. The pharma companies are currently researching new medications that could help the average person, Like you and me. But these \"new\" medications aren't cheap, As you and I know. That's why generic medications exist: same effects as the brand name medication, But at a lower cost. How do generic brands exist? Through the free market. The free market dictates what they want, And if there is a good chunk of people who want to pay less for the same brand name medication, Then the free market creates an opportunity for that to happen. Now what happens when you take away generic medication in favor of the brand-name medication offered at hospitals? Actually, Before I get into that, I am going to explain why pharma companies have incentive to create new medication. These pharma companies mainly appeal to hospitals because since people go to hospitals for basically everything from ER operations to getting a check-up, They know consumers who go to hospitals will most likely pay for more expensive medication, Which are the brand-name medication. But the generic medication exist so that retail clinics can create lower prices for non-emergency causes, Like if you have the cold or the flu. Mind you, I am not saying that the cold or the flu are not important to treat, But I am saying that they are less important than, Say, Someone with a broken leg or someone who got a heart attack. These retail clinics, Given enough legal headroom to operate so long as they have professionally licensed doctors, Can create relatively dirt-cheap prices for the middle class, And in some cases, Even the poor people. What am I saying? I am saying that If the free market is allowed enough room to open more retail clinics and allow these retail clinics to compete with each other, They can actually help more people while operating more efficiently and having lower prices. Now, That doesn't mean we should get rid of hospitals. Hospitals are great for emergency operations and urgent care. But for everything else, Retail clinics are the preferred method of treatment due to lower prices. Now, Back to the question: what happens when you take away generic medication in favor of the brand-name medication offered at hospitals? What happens is that these big pharma companies don't have incentive to create new medications because they have no competition. Without generic brands, Big pharma sees the opportunity to significantly slow down progress on new, High end medication while increasing the price of currently available medication. \"So, Why don't we regulate the prices? \" you might be asking. Let me tell you why: Once you start implementing price control, Especially to the medical industry, These already existing medications become absurdly scarce to the point where it's nearly impossible to get the medication you need without waiting in line for hours on end. You know what else makes you wait for ours on end because of a scarce item? Rationing. Eventually, We will reach the point where we say \"there aren't enough medications for everyone. Let's ration. \", And we start restricting the amount of medications one can get. These big pharma companies will see that governments are controlling how much a person can get of a medication, And these pharma companies not only lose incentive to create new medications, But also lose incentive to keep a sustainable production rate. Why? Because when you ration something, Production of said rationed item will have more supply than there is demand, And that cost these companies a lot of money. So to alleviate this issue, The pharma companies slow down production to the point where there is now more demand than supply. That is what is happening in Venezuela. Due to their leader giving free medication, People wait in lines for hours on end, Hoping to get their ration of medications they need, Only to be greeted with a \"We just ran out of medications to give out. Try coming back tomorrow. \" Not only does this screw over the people we waited hours on end only to not get what they absolutely need, But it also creates a bigger health crisis than there needed to be. More people get sick due to scarcity of medications, And we eventually start to see all but the very elite who can afford to pay for the importation of medication die. All because we made health care a right. Let's step back for a moment and see what went wrong. By making health care a right, You just eliminated the free market that allowed for most people to afford medication. By eliminating the free market, You created an endless cycle of expensive and scarce medications that will only get worse as time goes on. That is why health care is not and should not be a right. By making it a right, You mess with the absolute fundamentals of the medical industry, Thus causing this endless cycle of scarcity we see right now in Venezuela.", "title": "Health care is a human right", "pid": "50687b66-2019-04-18T11:16:49Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.69989013671875}, {"text": "I agree to my opponent that it creates awareness among the consumers regarding the particular product but one can't deny the fact that they are far much misleading Here are the points on which I rely - 1-Cost of advertisement affects the cost of product. It will become burden to costumer. 2-The promoters only emphasise on the merits. 3-Advertisers present the product as a favourite of the celebrities. This has great influence on young minds. 4-People are preferring ready made food than fruits and vegetables through advertising. These new habits are adversely impacting their health. 5-Some pesticides, though in very small quantities were found in common cold drinks. But advertisers are not revealing this fact. 6-All cosmetic products are advertised in the name of fruit extracts, the chemical contents are neither displayed nor printed on the product cover. 7-Teenagers are attracted by cigarette, alcohol and diet pills advertisements, and their health is adversely effecting by these habits. 8-Consumers tend to be manipulated by an advertisement's promise that the product will do something special for them, which upsets their budget. 9-An advertisement for an expensive good is likely to create an ill-feeling in the mind of a poor teenager who cannot afford it. Such feelings often lead to hatred and anti-social activities. I would remind the opponent that he should post his argument and then in the final round we will put up ways and conclusions on this topic", "title": "The malicious and misleading advertisements of today", "pid": "34206649-2019-04-18T16:40:11Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.69149780273438}, {"text": "Great debate. Thanks.", "title": "The U.S. Government Is Primarily Responsible For The Relative Higher Costs Of Prescription Drugs v2", "pid": "11aa61bc-2019-04-18T14:21:12Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.67759704589844}, {"text": "Cheaper drugs aren’t trusted by consumers", "title": "produce high quality generic drugs for Africa", "pid": "b7844b08-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.65457153320312}, {"text": "Advertising specifically to children is unethical because they have little or no money of their own and have to persuade their parents to buy the products for them. Rather than advertising directly to parents, companies use a 'nag and whine' campaign that leads to bad feeling between parents and children. They rely on pester power to make adults spend money they don’t have on things they don’t want to buy, and which their children may well only play with for a few hours. Advertising which presents products to children as 'must-have' is also socially divisive, making children whose parents cannot afford them appear inferior, and creating feelings of frustration and inadequacy, as well as leading families into debt.", "title": "Advertising specifically to children is unethical because they have little or no money of their own ...", "pid": "d4ad0f87-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 212.62062072753906}, {"text": "Karl Rove. \"How to Stop Socialized Health Care\" Wall Street Journal. June 11, 2009: \"Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That's competition enough. The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore this. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 -- nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition's benefits.\"", "title": "Insurance industry has sufficient competition w/o public option", "pid": "4e63160a-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00119-000", "bm25_score": 212.6150360107422}, {"text": "If marijuana dispensaries are indeed about providing marijuana for medical purposes, than entire dispensaries are probably excessive. Instead, why not carry medical marijuana in pharmacies? This would probably reduce the excessive supply and abuses, and would certainly eliminate concerns of shady crowds centering around dispensaries and creating concerns for local communities.", "title": "Whole marijuana dispensaries are excessive; pharmacies better.", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00098-000", "bm25_score": 212.6079864501953}, {"text": "Robust drug patent laws incentivize investment of time and money in developing new products", "title": "allow the production of generic drugs", "pid": "57906a2b-2019-04-15T20:22:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.5896759033203}, {"text": "My first couple decades as a Registered Pharmacist in the United States were from 1965 to 1985. The major pharmaceutical manufacturers were invested in healing, curing disease and ameliorating symptoms that diminished quality of life. They were the \"Good Guys\". We, in the industry, trusted them. We worked with them. We had relationships with their representatives. They were good times, fine times. The average prescription was around $12.00. Generic equivalents were new to the market. Brand name dispensing was the custom. The manufacturers made money. Now, 2005, there is no doubt that the only mission Big Pharma strives for is to MAKE A PROFIT. As big a profit as they can. The idea that they are interested in curing illness is a laugher. They bring out new drugs for big illnesses \"high cholesterol\". Lipitor is or was recently the top grossing drug on the planet. As Rhett Buter said, \"Frankly, My Dear, we don't give a damn about your little, inconspicuous disease. There's no money in it. Oh, hell, stop it. We know you are going to die, but .. well, there' just NO PROFIT in it.\" Pfizer then turns to Smith-Kline Glaxo and says, \"Let's go get a drink.\" Jim Plagakis at http://www.jimplagakis.com", "title": "It's a \"No-Brainer\". In the USA Big Pharma is enjoying 8 years of \"Dubya\" by raking in the profits", "pid": "6c503906-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 212.5804443359375}, {"text": "I accept. position: I believe Pharmacies should sell whatever is good for mind and body", "title": "Pharmacies and other health buildings should not sell harmful products", "pid": "1401781f-2019-04-18T14:26:32Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 212.56365966796875}, {"text": "Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited. Extend all arguments. Hopefully she's back for round 3!The resolution remains unaffirmed.", "title": "Promotional Diet Advertisement Should Not Exist", "pid": "ae6b8e77-2019-04-18T16:43:25Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.55931091308594}, {"text": "For this round, it may seem a bit jumbled as we will start where we left off on our opponents' case and then move onto our defense. R2 will be assimilated into another one of our contentions due to the similarities. ===Rebuttals=== R3: Supply and Demand This was not refuted in our last round as we ran out of characters, as previously stated, but we shall address it this round. It may be true that this price raise would lead to such a competitiveness in a free market, BUT this isn't the status quo. As we have previously shown in R2, Turing has a market monopoly and the government has increased the harm here by adding so much red tape to the point where there cannot be any other company that enters here even though there is plenty of alternatives available. Turing made this decision knowing that there was no alternative and with this drug being so needed, people would be forced to buy this drug. With this being the status quo, we would have to see that you should flow this argument into our favor since there is no alternatives currently. Pro's free market has failed us in this field. Quoting Airmax is irrelevant to the debate. He is another DDO user and who has stated that he shouldn't be quoted, shouldn't have such a statement given. Please throw this out of the debate. ===Defense=== C1: Stakeholder My opponent should be the one concerned here as the insurance question is another free market issue. Here the government intervenes in the insurance industry, which then transitions it to a mixed system. Any argument here on insurance should be flown to Con's side in this debate due to it going against Pro's ethics. We have even stated that it would be lowered for hospitals, so this is another thing that is irrelevant, but we can see that we are still seeing harms here as it affects the average Americans and as shown before on how 22% of the US needs it and so many are unable to get the treatment for it. My opponent has failed to address or even acknowledge our impacts, please extend these across the board. People do have self-ownership, but we are arguing what should be done. The business is what should be operated on behalf of the public, since the free market, as purposed by our opponents, has failed to do its job. People have self-autonomy, but my opponent has yet to actually argue anything on how a business should have this. As a result, this attack is repelled as my opponent has yet to make an actual argument on behalf of the business, but has only argued about people. C2: Market Monopoly Our opponents' response is questionable. We did nothing here that seems to be atopical, but rather argued that since they were aware of the market monopoly and still did this knowing they would get away with it. Not to mention that this argument is one that is an attack on Our Opponents’ Free Market argument, so this argument is highly relevant to the debate at hand. We understand that the issue here is with the government regulations caused a problem, but it is our opponent's themselves that argued that their \"Free Market\" was the aspect that allowed Turing to raise their prices. These government regulations were a huge portion and part in their factoring that allowed them to do this. If these regulations weren't there then they would have elected to not do this. If Turing had been a wheat company and did this with wheat. Then people would go to other wheat sources and Turing would go under, but this isn't wheat. This is medicine. If the regulations fell away, if they didn't raise their prices...if. If is an issue here and our opponents are only begging the question here. We are arguing about what had occurred, not some different situation as even our opponents stated similar a few paragraphs above. Our opponents' flip-flop results in the negation of both of their arguments. We could play this blame game all day long, but we have to see that the system is something that influenced their decision and with our opponent using the market system as a means of ethics, this would apply directly to their case. Please extend this across. C3: Ethic of Care This was completely justified and many of the harms were cross applied from other arguments. The impacts where also not even addressed and such a drop should result in our victory on impact calc. Our opponent's don't even go and refute this argument and simply brush it aside. Please extend this argument across the board as this wasn't anywhere close to even a proper rebuttal of this argument as they simply brushed it off. ===Rebuttals=== R1: Capitalism and Freedom. This isn't a strawman but a legitament argument. Our opponents are simply trying to defame us here. We have to remember that there were instances in US and human history where slaves where considered unhuman and how we were doing them a favor. Slaves were even considered property and we can simply see here that this completely fits in their definition of capitalism as it allows them to protect property rights and if slaves are considered property, as they were, it would not only be permitted, but entirely justified. As a result, our arguments stands. There are many things that can be argued on the subject of Capitalism, but that is for another debate as people can go all day on the differences, pros and cons. Our opponent's rebuttal on Chile is subpar. Simply by sticking your head in the sand and ignoring how capitalism has led to these terrible things is a selective bias. This argument easily sticks and our opponents' argument should be flown to our side of the debate. We can argue on the issues of what if all day long, but the issue is that in the status quo it was unethical and our opponent's ethics are, by themselves unethical. Do keep in mind that our opponents did link their system of ethics to Capitalism as all one had to do is show how Capitalism was unethical, then our opponents' entire case is moot. With that we hand things off to our opponents once more for the final round.", "title": "Turing Pharmaceuticals' decision to substantially increase the price of Daraprim was ethical", "pid": "6458f426-2019-04-18T12:52:44Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.558837890625}, {"text": "Drug companies are by no means omnipotent, they are as much subject to the forces of the free market as any other business. If anything, the nations in Southern Africa have the largest market for the drugs in the world, so the drug companies would not be supplying the drugs at the current price, if people were not buying them. The threat of generic drugs only further serves to discourage drug companies from creating new and more effective medicines, as the developing nations have shown them that their patent rights will not be respected.", "title": "The countries with the biggest AIDS problems are held as a captive market and are forced essentially...", "pid": "78cd25ef-2019-04-19T12:46:52Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 212.54598999023438}, {"text": "Banning advertising won't work", "title": "ban the promotion of diets", "pid": "c1ac6b3c-2019-04-15T20:22:59Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.53854370117188}, {"text": "Public insurance would not waste money on advertising", "title": "Public health insurance option", "pid": "4e63160a-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00042-000", "bm25_score": 212.5362091064453}, {"text": "The use of generic drugs can sometimes fail to bring about a reduced price. For the cost of drugs to decrease, there must be competition within the industry to drive prices down. The switch from patented to generic drugs in Ireland failed to bring about any significant saving for this reason[1]. African countries must therefore ensure competition in order for generic drugs to become truly affordable which could be problematic due to continued protectionism in some states.   [1] Hogan,L. ‘Switch to generic drugs fails to bring expected savings for HSE’", "title": "Savings can be used in other sections of medical care", "pid": "b7844b08-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 212.50668334960938}, {"text": "The drug companies will not end up making a loss by reducing the medicine prices anyway. Basic laws of the market should tell you that the reduced profit for drugs like AZT and Nevirapine will be recouped from the fact that the drugs will suddenly become affordable to a market of millions of sufferers, many of whom will be using products like AZT for the duration of the disease, so it would not be a case of the companies losing money in making the drugs cheaper after all.", "title": "The drug companies will not end up making a loss by reducing the medicine prices anyway. Basic laws ...", "pid": "78cd25ef-2019-04-19T12:46:52Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 212.50302124023438}, {"text": "Opposition Summary", "title": "Patents on life-saving drugs should be bypassed", "pid": "dca95253-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.50022888183594}, {"text": "so youre saying we shouldnt buy bottled water because you don't like how its being advertised? Thats the dumbest reason to not buy a product i've ever heard. Really? So what how its advertised? If i want to buy a bottle of water i'll buy it, i don't care what the label looks like or how theyre being sold, i just want a damn bottle of water.", "title": "People believe the marketing hype too much", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 212.49717712402344}, {"text": "My opponent has forfeited this round, so there is not much to say. In case he will come back next round, I will go ahead and list some companies that would not benifit from advertising to children:1. Adult Film2. Car Rentals3. Life/Car/Homeowner's Insurance4. Adult Diapers5. Lawyers6. Real Estate", "title": "should companies market towards children", "pid": "4a6fb769-2019-04-18T18:44:00Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.4907989501953}, {"text": "Karl Rove. \"How to Stop Socialized Health Care\" Wall Street Journal. June 11, 2009: \"Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That's competition [and choice] enough. The results of robust private competition to provide the Medicare drug benefit underscore this. When it was approved, the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $74 billion a year by 2008. Nearly 100 providers deliver the drug benefit, competing on better benefits, more choices, and lower prices. So the actual cost was $44 billion in 2008 -- nearly 41% less than predicted. No government plan was needed to guarantee competition's benefits.\"", "title": "Private insurers offer sufficient choices", "pid": "4e63160a-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00107-000", "bm25_score": 212.48162841796875}, {"text": "Greater access of generic drugs can increase the chances of overexposure and misuse. This has a detrimental effect on fighting diseases. Greater access will lead to higher use rates which, in turn increases the chances of the disease developing an immunity to the drug[1], as is already happening to antibiotics resulting in at least 23,000 deaths in the United States.[2] This immunity requires new pharmaceuticals to counteract the disease which can take years to produce. It is therefore, disadvantageous to produce high quality generic drugs for Africa.  [1] Mercurio,B. ‘Resolving the Public Health Crisis in the Developing World: Problems and Barriers of Access to Essential Medicines’ pg.2 [2] National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, ‘Antibiotics Aren’t Always the Answer’, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 December 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/features/getsmart/", "title": "Easily affordable drugs will mean greater access", "pid": "b7844b08-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.46734619140625}, {"text": "Extend argument.", "title": "All recreational drugs should be legalized in the U.S and sold commercially with a tax", "pid": "f4e450e-2019-04-18T15:33:06Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.44776916503906}, {"text": "So on the one hand you claim people in Africa can buy the drugs cheaply after the patents end and on the other you are telling us old drugs are useless because of viral resistance. Indeed this makes it all the more important to encourage innovation. We have been accused of wanting to “ change the focus of drug production from the development of new drugs to the cheaper production of drugs that already exist.”. Apart from the fact that these two aren’t mutually exclusive this accusation naively assumes what there currently IS a focus on production of new life-saving drugs. However, “the current systems of innovation encourage drug firms to spend too much on developing minor modifications of existing drugs and on competitive marketing and patent litigation, instead of focusing efforts on innovations that will have the largest global health impact.”[[ http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/08/31/opinion/Proposed-health-fund-could-encourage-drug-developm-30136907.html%5D%5D. Currently “firms have incentives to focus on the diseases of people who can pay a lot of money when they get sick, even though those diseases tend to have many available treatments already, and the incremental health gains are typically small.” [[Ibid.]]. “Profit made by pharmaceutical firms is not, in fact, a return on their R&D, but is, instead, a return on their marketing investments”[[http://www.researchoninnovation.org/WordPress/?cat=4]] and as a result there is less incentive to make genuine investment that is aimed at the medical breakthroughs we need to address the problems you mention. Our plan changes all this. R&D is encouraged and is directly related to profit. We create a fund that is able to attract investment in research where it is most needed fulfilling the aspirations of scientists and the needs of patients. It will directly encourage greater and more meaning full investment spending.", "title": "Consequences of the Loss of Incentives.", "pid": "dca95253-2019-04-19T12:45:05Z-00026-000", "bm25_score": 212.43655395507812}, {"text": "I disagree. In fact, I think that all drugs should be illegal, except for prescription drugs/drugs used by hospitals to treat patients.", "title": "All drugs should be legal to sell, produce, distribute, and to be consumed by consenting adults.", "pid": "42468ac1-2019-04-18T19:48:35Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.4349365234375}, {"text": "I agree with the burden of proof as well as the definitions. Lets have at it! ========== Lower Costs ========== -Electronic Conversion This is simply a non-unique argument. Offices are already doing this without being forced to by the government. We would be spending more money by making companies do this, while they are already doing so. We would just be spending money to enforce what does not need to be. -Better care for chronic patients Quality cannot be forced. Quality occurs because of competition. This is simple economics. If doctors have to compete for patients, they can lower their prices, and increase the quality of their work. If there is competition, there is quality. If there is no competition (under Obama's plan), there is lower quality. If doctors are paid the same, there is NO incentive to increase the quality of their work. The remaining parts of the \"argument\" are simply excerpts of the plan that I have addressed. I will address one more segment though. \"'Prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs from consumers.'\" This is ridiculous. This will not lower prices since drug companies already sell generic drugs. They lower prices BECAUSE they already sell generic drugs. If they did not, they would hurt themselves. If Wal-Mart stopped selling generic Ibuprofen, Walgreens would profit. This would not be wise for Wal-Mart, and thus has never happened. This is another non-unique argument. ======================= STRENGTHENING PUBLIC HEALTH ======================= Once again, there is no argument made. My opponent simply spouts verses from the HC plan. \"'(1) EMPLOYERS. [...] To address employee health, an increasing number of employers are offering worksite health promotion programs, onsite clinical preventive services such as flu vaccinations, nutritious foods in cafeterias and vending machines, and exercise facilities. Equally important, many employers choose insurance plans that cover preventive services for their employees. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that worksite interventions hold tremendous potential to influence health and they will expand and reward these efforts.'\" Pay close attention to the last line. Whenever the President \"encourages\" or \"rewards\" a certain action, it means more money being spent. Obama has already promised not to raise taxes on people who make under $250,000 a year. With such a large part of the population not being taxed higher, the US starts to lack funds. (Anyone notice we are already in trillions of dollars in debt?) If he is going to reward these actions, he needs funds. Where are the funds coming from? If not from taxpayer dollars, then he can resort to either extreme taxation on the upper-class, or printing off more money (which he has already done). Then we are left with either extremely disproportionate taxes (which discourages achievement) or inflation. Do any of these options sound like a good idea? If we let the free market do its thing, the best interests of the economy and the American people are brought to the surface. \"'(2) SCHOOL SYSTEMS. Childhood obesity is nearly epidemic [7] [...]. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work with schools to create more healthful environments for children, including assistance with contract policy development for local vendors, grant support for school-based health screening programs and clinical services, increased financial support for physical education, and educational programs for students.'\" Once again, note the term \"increased financial support.\" Where is that money going to come from? \"'(4) INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES. Preventive care only works if Americans take personal responsibility for their health and make the right decisions in their own lives – if they eat the right foods, stay active, and stop smoking. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will ensure that all Americans are empowered to monitor their health by ensuring coverage of essential clinical services in all federally supported health plans, including Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and the new public plan.'\" Here is what this section is really saying: The smart people who take care of themselves are going to be paying for the dumb, lazy people who rely on taxpayer dollars to live. Plain and simple. With this plan, we award stupidity. People work hard for their money. If they want healthcare, they will buy it. If people do not work, and do not make money, they will not buy healthcare. If the working class is forced to pay for the health of the lazy class, then there is absolutely NO incentive to be a hard worker! How is that good for anyone, much less the economy? ========================= Bad news for those with Healthcare ========================= Obama's health-care plan is drawing criticism from one of his own advisers, Harvard University's Martin Feldstein. In today's Washington Post, Feldstein warns that \"For the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, the Obama health plan is bad news. It means higher taxes, less health care and no protection if they lose their current insurance because of unemployment or early retirement.\" Obama's plan would \"cost more than $1 trillion,\" and raise the top federal \"income-tax rate from 35 percent today to more than 45 percent.\" That certainly doesn't sound like it helps the American people. Are we going to disregard that 85% of Americans? ============ My Conclusion ============ If we go with Obama's HC plan, we have two major issues. 1-Insufficient funds 2-Extremely detrimental effects to 85% of Americans To me, that sounds more than enough to deject the HC plan. The resolution is negated. ============ Sources ============ http://www.hovservices.com... http://www.openmarket.org... http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com... http://www.barackobama.com... http://www.mlive.com...", "title": "Obama's Health Care Plan is beneficial to the United States of America", "pid": "68aff0ce-2019-04-18T19:19:59Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.42166137695312}, {"text": "The current patent system is unjust and creates perverse incentives that benefit large pharmaceutical companies at the expense of ordinary citizens", "title": "allow the production of generic drugs", "pid": "57906a2b-2019-04-15T20:22:37Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 212.39852905273438}, {"text": "My opponent forfeited and presented not a single argument.Seems to be pretty ususal on this site, which is a pity.Could've been a good debate.Extend argument.Thanks and goodbye!", "title": "All recreational drugs should be legalized in the U.S and sold commercially with a tax", "pid": "f4e450e-2019-04-18T15:33:06Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.38194274902344}]}
{"idx": 16, "qid": "17", "q_text": "Should recreational marijuana be legal?", "qrels": {"6c71015a-2019-04-18T16:09:02Z-00006-000": 2, "711b9599-2019-04-18T13:44:23Z-00005-000": 2, "800e7b12-2019-04-18T16:49:05Z-00003-000": 0, "82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00004-000": 1, "9dfd7dc-2019-04-18T18:21:56Z-00006-000": 2, "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00007-000": 0, "d3fcb9ba-2019-04-18T11:58:12Z-00001-000": 0, "d1b6b68-2019-04-18T18:14:43Z-00003-000": 2, "d9e09240-2019-04-18T19:13:37Z-00006-000": 2, "d3fcb99b-2019-04-18T15:37:25Z-00001-000": 0, "6c7100fd-2019-04-18T16:32:07Z-00008-000": 0, "de4e6edf-2019-04-18T19:42:08Z-00001-000": 2, "dfcfd9c7-2019-04-18T14:09:13Z-00007-000": 0, "e00385e6-2019-04-18T19:34:57Z-00004-000": 1, "2a5141f4-2019-04-18T12:43:08Z-00002-000": 0, "e650f9a4-2019-04-18T17:50:45Z-00005-000": 2, "e7574383-2019-04-18T18:14:05Z-00007-000": 0, "f703aaba-2019-04-18T13:53:50Z-00009-000": 2, "fad1e930-2019-04-18T14:45:25Z-00002-000": 0, "db751e93-2019-04-18T13:07:25Z-00005-000": 2, "6c7100fd-2019-04-18T16:32:07Z-00009-000": 0, "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00005-000": 2, "5992fb47-2019-04-18T13:36:34Z-00002-000": 2, "665dddb1-2019-04-18T14:39:12Z-00000-000": 0, "154dda41-2019-04-18T19:13:40Z-00008-000": 2, "14837e-2019-04-18T18:25:47Z-00007-000": 1, "2b49542f-2019-04-18T18:37:46Z-00005-000": 0, "11a47e3f-2019-04-18T16:37:04Z-00005-000": 0, "aa2a4a53-2019-04-18T15:07:29Z-00000-000": 2, "ac6030a1-2019-04-18T12:27:04Z-00000-000": 0, "bc59cf1f-2019-04-18T14:25:37Z-00003-000": 2, "bc8b6533-2019-04-18T19:10:43Z-00003-000": 2, "b2cd5f0d-2019-04-18T12:02:26Z-00001-000": 0, "2c3f2b73-2019-04-18T16:54:30Z-00003-000": 2, "c0722593-2019-04-18T19:00:13Z-00004-000": 2, "cdf789bc-2019-04-18T16:36:00Z-00000-000": 0, "37c282ea-2019-04-18T13:20:50Z-00003-000": 2, "4cb6dfdb-2019-04-18T13:54:54Z-00002-000": 2, "4f2bd943-2019-04-18T11:08:44Z-00001-000": 1, "4f2bd943-2019-04-18T11:08:44Z-00005-000": 2, "575d7777-2019-04-18T16:50:05Z-00005-000": 2, "59d1fc1c-2019-04-18T17:56:37Z-00005-000": 2}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Recreational use of Marijuana is an ever-present issue in our time. With the recent voting in this election for the use of it in various states, this has resurfaced as an important issue. This debate is short, and will center on facts rather than fluff.", "title": "Recreational Marijuana Should Be Legal", "pid": "2a5141f4-2019-04-18T12:43:08Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.22451782226562}, {"text": "I do not think recreational marijuana should be made legal, this is because of a multitude of reasons for which I believe the cons outweigh the pros. I look forward to this debate.", "title": "Recreational Marijuana Should Be Legal", "pid": "2a5141f4-2019-04-18T12:43:08Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.630859375}, {"text": "I have accepted this debate and shall be arguing the con side, saying that recreational marijuana, as I assume we are talking about recreational and not medical, should not be legal. My opponent will be arguing that recreational marijuana should indeed be legal.Because my opponent has neglected to lay out some rules, I feel obligated to do so. Proper grammar and spelling should be used at all time. All sources, if any, must be cited. All arguments must be sophisticated. Because that is all I wish to say, I await Pro's arguments for the legalization of recreational marijuana.", "title": "Marijuana should be legal", "pid": "6c7100fd-2019-04-18T16:32:07Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 217.55792236328125}, {"text": "My stance is I believe recreational cannabis should be illegal.", "title": "Recreational cannabis should be illegal.", "pid": "6c2b1862-2019-04-18T12:29:02Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.46510314941406}, {"text": "I believe that marijuana should be legalized for recreational use and by legalizying it, our society will benefit in certain aspects.", "title": "Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use", "pid": "4ac9893e-2019-04-18T16:40:07Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.35726928710938}, {"text": "I accept! GL my friend.", "title": "The U.S Government should legalize recreational marijuana.", "pid": "cb307ee3-2019-04-18T14:46:23Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.3203125}, {"text": "Accepted.", "title": "Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use", "pid": "4ac9891f-2019-04-18T17:10:18Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.177490234375}, {"text": "Hello opponent I hope you are having a nice day, Let's keep this debate civilized and use proper debate vocabulary. Before you tell me that I am a hooligan who smokes molly I want you to now that I am 22 years old and attending Harvard. I will let you start first - Julian", "title": "Recreational Marijuana should be legal", "pid": "554979f3-2019-04-18T11:41:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.169677734375}, {"text": "Marijuana should be legalized for recreational consumption. It should be up to the individual to decide whether or not they wish to consume marijuana, regardless of what ever health effects it has on the body. If one enjoys passing their time by smoking marijuana that should not be an activity that is considered illegal. The three inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the catch to these rights is you only have them if you are not infringing on another individuals rights. therefore if murder is how you pursue happiness that would not be allowed due to the fact that it infringes on your victims rights. As long as ones consumption of marijuana does not infringe on the rights of another individual, one should be allowed to consume it as they see fit.", "title": "Legalization of Recreational Marijuana", "pid": "d3fcb99b-2019-04-18T15:37:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.13040161132812}, {"text": "I firmly believe that marijuana should not be legalized for recreational use. It is not good for the body or for society. Legalizing it for recreational use would greatly endanger communities, and I feel that the idea of legalizing it is foolish.", "title": "Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use", "pid": "14b9fbff-2019-04-18T12:11:41Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.10093688964844}, {"text": "I accept the challenge.", "title": "Recreational cannabis should be illegal.", "pid": "6c2b1862-2019-04-18T12:29:02Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.08837890625}, {"text": "Recreational Marijuana should not be legalized. It is harmful and dangerous, and legalizing it would be no better than legalizing heroin. Addictive substances such as this should not be allowed to harm our citizens. While there is danger in legalizing it, there is no danger in keeping it illegal. Therefore, the logical solution is that recreational marijuana be kept illegal. Also, while people say that it only harms the people who use it, what about those people's friends and families? It is important to protect everyone possible from the effects of recreational marijuana.", "title": "Legalization of Recreational Marijuana", "pid": "d3fcb9ba-2019-04-18T11:58:12Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.07510375976562}, {"text": "I accept your challenge.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use", "pid": "99d62d9d-2019-04-18T14:32:36Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 217.03500366210938}, {"text": "I believe that Marijuana should be legalized for Recreational use. I will let my opponent go first.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use", "pid": "c0722593-2019-04-18T19:00:13Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.99630737304688}, {"text": "Legalizing marijuana will make crime rates much much worse kids will be growing it asking friends or strangers for it more then they do now yes Marijuana may make good money but look at the risks that follows more crime rates kids getting a hold of this drug. Marijuana should only be allowed medically not recreationally if you don't have a condition that you need Marijuana then you don't need it plain and simple.", "title": "Recreational Marijuana should be Legalized in all 50 States.", "pid": "fbfca9a3-2019-04-18T14:52:26Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.97293090820312}, {"text": "Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing in favor of legalizing marijuana for recreational use.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized for recreation use", "pid": "e833dcb-2019-04-18T14:32:54Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.91615295410156}, {"text": "OF COURSE!", "title": "Legalization of Recreational Marijuana", "pid": "d3fcb97c-2019-04-18T17:00:53Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.91371154785156}, {"text": "Well my reasoning for the use of marijuana as a recreational drug is that weed could most likely fix the economical problems by taxing weed.And also everyone says its a gateway drug but to be honest in my experience most people who smoke weed dont go on to do cocaine and heroin.", "title": "Legalizing Marijuana for recreational use.", "pid": "16893daf-2019-04-18T18:37:56Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.85792541503906}, {"text": "Marijuana/Cannabis - A drug that is made from the dried leaves and flowers of the hemp plant. Recreational Marijuana - A method of usage in which the psychoactive effects of the drug are used to induce an altered state of conciousness for pleasure by modifying the perceptions; feelings; and emotions of the user. My position on this topic will be that I will be advocating for the recreational use of cannabis to be legalized nationwide. Whoever feels that they want to take me up on this debate can leave a comment below. The first round will be acceptance. The rest of the rounds will be structured as to the wishes of each debater. There is only one rule that will be set in stone for this debate - No language that is foul/slanderous should be hurled at the opponent on a personal level. Keep it professional.", "title": "Debate Topic - Recreational Marijuana ought to be legalized nationwide", "pid": "4f2bd943-2019-04-18T11:08:44Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.83291625976562}, {"text": "Should marijuana become legalized for recreational use? In this debate, I am taking the Pro stance, meaning I support the legalization. 1st round - State your stance. 2nd round - Evidence to support stance. 3rd round - Counter the opponent's stance. 4th round - Closing statement/Final evidence and/or opinion. I will not stand rude or childish responses. I'm looking for a fun, cordial debate between people who can handle the topic. Thanks in advance, and I look forward to debating!", "title": "Legalization of Recreational Marijuana", "pid": "d3fcb9ba-2019-04-18T11:58:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.7825164794922}, {"text": "This debate will be over the topic of Marijuana legalization. I will be taking the Pro position, meaning I am arguing in favor of the resolution. DefinitionsLegalized - To be made legal. To not be restricted by law. Recreational - relating to or denoting activity done for enjoyment when one is not working. RulesForfeit results in an automatic loss. No semantics. Standard conduct applies.", "title": "Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use", "pid": "4ac9891f-2019-04-18T17:10:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.7805938720703}, {"text": "My opinion has chaned.", "title": "The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use", "pid": "bc59cf1f-2019-04-18T14:25:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.76901245117188}, {"text": "I accept!", "title": "Legalization of Recreational Marijuana", "pid": "d3fcb97c-2019-04-18T17:00:53Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.73635864257812}, {"text": "This debate is for the Adopt a Noob Tournament. My opponent is Rings48. My opponent and I would like to clarify before this debate begins: there will be no semantics. Good luck, Rings 48. I am looking forward to a great debate. Also, thanks in advance to the voters.", "title": "AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally.", "pid": "823c879a-2019-04-18T15:56:06Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.69923400878906}, {"text": "Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing in favor of legalizing marijuana for recreational use.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use", "pid": "99d62d9d-2019-04-18T14:32:36Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 216.69851684570312}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use", "pid": "bc59cf1f-2019-04-18T14:25:37Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.6765594482422}, {"text": "R1: AcceptanceR2: Opening Arguments (no rebuttals)R3: RebuttalsR4: Defense & Conclusion (no new arguments)Definitions:Marijuana: cannabis, especially as smoked in cigarettesLegalize: make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law.Recreational Use: used without medical justification for its psychoactive effects", "title": "The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use", "pid": "bc59cf1f-2019-04-18T14:25:37Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.65541076660156}, {"text": "This is a debate about whether or not marijuana should be legal for recreational use. My stance is against the use of recreational use. This first round is for acceptance so please post something like \"I accept your debate\" for round 1. The remaining three rounds are for contention and debate. Legitimate debaters only.", "title": "Marijuana should be legal for recreational use", "pid": "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.62985229492188}, {"text": "Due to the overwhelming evidence of the social and legal benefits, Marijuana should be legalized in both Medical and Recreational fields.", "title": "Marijuana Legalization", "pid": "6231ab28-2019-04-18T16:19:10Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.62818908691406}, {"text": "The Full King La Ding resolution: Recreational AND medical marijuana should be legal for adults in the United States, because the benefits clearly outweigh the positives. King La Ding Enterprises sponsors this debate with a set of rules, and this set of rules is as followed: If you are caught in an incorrect fact or anomaly, you must formerly recognize the opponent (who is roughly 99.99999999% likely to be me) as superior to you in every aspect of life.", "title": "Marijuana should be legal for adults. (Debate sponsored by King La Ding Enterprises).", "pid": "68c97443-2019-04-18T12:30:52Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.6107177734375}, {"text": "Marijuana should be completely legalized for medical and recreational use. Marijuana is completely safe. Marijuana is very healthy. The illegality of Marijuana and criminalization of Marijuana users is an unnecessary and harmful restriction on American culture and its citizens. I await someone to challenge these three points.", "title": "Legalize Marijuana for ALL uses.", "pid": "c0ff09ad-2019-04-18T20:00:02Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.5719451904297}, {"text": "Our younger society has developed a sub-culture of what \"cool\" is. This involves the use of drugs, sex, and other unhealthy activities that have developed a large niche in school systems, especially those attempting to show a sense of \"cool.\" If marijuana were to be largely legalized, the accessibility of cannabis would hugely increase for these kids.", "title": "Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use", "pid": "4ac9893e-2019-04-18T16:40:07Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.5343475341797}, {"text": "I will be arguing that marijuana, not necessarily in it's smokeable form should be legal for persons over a yet to be determined age(18-21) for medical and recreational use. Con will argue that it shouldn't be legalized for any age in any form, for any reason. Any source can be used until that source has been proven false or unreliable. Please respect your opponent. Debate can be informal. Con may begin with his or her argument in the first round or accept. Any further rules must be discussed and agreed upon in the comments section. Thank you and good luck.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use.", "pid": "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.5192108154297}, {"text": "Full resolution: \"Marijuana should be legalized for recreational and medical purposes in the United States. I thank SocialPinko for hosting this tournament. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legalized. Definitions: Should- indicating a desirable or expected state [1] Recreational- any substance with pharmacologic effects that is taken voluntarily for personal pleasure or satisfaction rather than for medicinal purposes. [2] Medical- curative; medicinal; therapeutic [3] This will be 4 rounds, the first being acceptance and clarifications if my opponent wishes to state any. The last round will NOT include new sources. Use of unorthodox semantics (discretion of voters) should be seen as a loss. Good luck! 1. http://oxforddictionaries.com... 2. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com...", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized", "pid": "59d1f83c-2019-04-18T18:35:46Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.5152587890625}, {"text": "Hello, I am very sorry if I make any mistakes because this is the first time I've ever had a debate. I gladly except your challenge.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized for recreation use", "pid": "e833dcb-2019-04-18T14:32:54Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.51490783691406}, {"text": "I accept and look forward to this debate.", "title": "leagalize recreational marijuana", "pid": "23bb90d-2019-04-18T18:07:35Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.5063934326172}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S.", "pid": "db751e93-2019-04-18T13:07:25Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.49520874023438}, {"text": "The war on drugs is a big failure. Marijuana has been in use for hundreds of years and has not been contributed to a single death. Marijuana is not a gateway drug, it's not physically addicting, it doesn't kill brain cells... The propaganda surrounding marijuana is deceitful and just plain stupid. This plant will only benefit us instead of being detrimental as many may think. Stereotypes placed on marijuana ussers are stupid and lame. Almost every celebrity smokes weed or hides joints in their coats and they've all become millionaires.Another reason marijuana should be legal is for hemp. Hemp is marijuana not used for smoking but to create products. It can make paper, clothing, fiberboard twice as strong as wood and much much more. It is illegal to grow because it is conjuncted in with marijuana.", "title": "should marijuana be legalized for recreational use", "pid": "7c8b175c-2019-04-18T15:27:03Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.49090576171875}, {"text": "Hello, my name is dtien and I accept your challenge.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use.", "pid": "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.43394470214844}, {"text": "My position: 1- Marijuana should not be legal in ANY quantity for ANYONE to do ANYTHING with. 2- Marijuana should not be considered for medicinal purposes...medical professionals are not witch doctors. 3- Since marijuana shouldn't be legal, there's no reason to discuss taxing it. 4- The growth of marijuana for personal use should be considered a crime. 5- Since marijuana shouldn't be legal, there's no reason to discuss the acquisition of it.", "title": "Marijuana Legalization", "pid": "d9e09240-2019-04-18T19:13:37Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.4261932373047}, {"text": "That is indeed unfortunate. Get well soon! PS : Maybe some marijuana might be good medicine for you at this time. Heuheuheh.", "title": "Debate Topic - Recreational Marijuana ought to be legalized nationwide", "pid": "4f2bd943-2019-04-18T11:08:44Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.4235076904297}, {"text": "Great! I will post my opening statement again for you to respond to. The legalization on marijuana for recreational purposes will only amplify rates of drug usage among individuals at all ends of the age spectrum. Psychologically, legalizing marijuana would send the message that using it would be acceptable, which it clearly generates more complications than it solves. From a legal standpoint, laws would need to be altered in order to accommodate for committing or engaging in criminal activity under the influence of marijuana. Needless to say, our tax-payer funded public health care systems would use taxpayer money to fund both medical and rehabilitative treatment for those involved with the substance.", "title": "Legalization of Recreational Marijuana", "pid": "d3fcb97c-2019-04-18T17:00:53Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.42184448242188}, {"text": "I accept the challenge. I will be rejecting the idea of legalizing recreational cannabis nationwide.", "title": "Debate Topic - Recreational Marijuana ought to be legalized nationwide", "pid": "4f2bd943-2019-04-18T11:08:44Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.41748046875}, {"text": "I have decided not to reveal my opinion, so the fact I'm supporting legalization in this debate does not necessarily reflect my personal stance on the matter.", "title": "Marijuana should be legal for recreational use", "pid": "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.41433715820312}, {"text": "The legalization on marijuana for recreational purposes will only amplify rates of drug usage among individuals at all ends of the age spectrum. Psychologically, legalizing marijuana would send the message that using it would be acceptable, which it clearly generates more complications than it solves. From a legal standpoint, laws would need to be altered in order to accommodate for committing or engaging in criminal activity under the influence of marijuana. Needless to say, our tax-payer funded public health care systems would use taxpayer money to fund both medical and rehabilitative treatment for those involved with the substance.", "title": "Legalization of Recreational Marijuana", "pid": "d3fcb97c-2019-04-18T17:00:53Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.4137725830078}, {"text": "My first point stems off of economic impact. Taxation off of marijuana could bring billions into each state's economy. The legalisation of this substance would also make many different medical disorders easier to treat without a prescription, reducing the cost of the everyday person, and decreasing corporate profits. This would consequently result in lower healthcare costs. (. http://taxfoundation.org...) My second point is that of decreasing prison population. Marijuana illegalisation has been an excuse to lock up minorities for the last 50 years. Prison numbers and demographics prove this. If we want equality, we need this substance legalised. (. https://www.washingtonpost.com...) Finally, if we allow a psychoactive drug like alcohol. And we tax and regulate it. Why now marijuana?", "title": "Recreational Marijuana Should Be Legal", "pid": "2a5141f4-2019-04-18T12:43:08Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.3983612060547}, {"text": "Thanks for the debate.", "title": "The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use", "pid": "bc59cf1f-2019-04-18T14:25:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.36962890625}, {"text": "The use of marijuana should be legal in the United States because there are little to no arguments based on scientific fact to say why it shouldn't be. Many people in the United States use marijuana whether it be legal via prescription or illegal, there are no statistics to show a death toll from marijuana use. If marijuana were legal in the same way that alcohol is it may take it out of the category of \"illegal drugs\" therefore somewhat nullifying the \"gateway drug\" argument.", "title": "Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US", "pid": "8b8ff60f-2019-04-18T18:26:25Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.35446166992188}, {"text": "I accept! I will be negating the resolved in that marijuana should be legal for recreational use in the United States.", "title": "Making marijuana legal in the U.S", "pid": "ac6030a1-2019-04-18T12:27:04Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.32533264160156}, {"text": "Full resolution: If marijuana, as a recreational drug, is legalized for those over the age of 18, it should be legalized to grow on a commercial basis only and any domestic growth of it should remain illegal. First round is up to Con. They can either accept or make a case.", "title": "[Drug legalization resolution too long to post here]", "pid": "8b859a7-2019-04-18T16:07:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.31114196777344}, {"text": "NOTE: Because it has already been established in many other debates, we know that marijuana is harmful to one's health. Unfortunately, so is alcohol, tobacco and...gasp...even the hamburgers we get from our favorite fast food chains so please don't waste your time proving that aspect. Recreational marijuana use should be legalized. Just like any other legal drug, it comes with it's own set of responsibilities and restrictions. Sure, it is unhealthy, but no worse than many other legal drugs. I feel like every other legal prescription commercial I see, has warnings about possible side effects, even \"death.\" I am not a professional debater, and certainly not an experienced one on any level, so I know this may be unorthodox, but PLEASE list your problems with my statement with your arguments and it'd make me happy to answer/refute each one of them. :)", "title": "Legal Recreational Marijuana Revisited", "pid": "e3b7cf32-2019-04-18T19:40:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.30503845214844}, {"text": "Like i said in my first speech it may bring more money but there are risks that follow i gotta ask the voters Do you wanna get a phone call from the Juvnile detention center saying your child was caught with marijauna? Do you want to gamble children's education? Do you want your child not to beable to support themselves because there high all the time and have minor in possestion on them?", "title": "Recreational Marijuana should be Legalized in all 50 States.", "pid": "fbfca9a3-2019-04-18T14:52:26Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.30397033691406}, {"text": "Although you have a valid point, people who advocate for the legal use of marijuana do not consider the whole picture. Legalization of marijuana will cause an immediate turf war among drug dealers and the cartels. In order to maintain their profits, with less drugs to sell, they will have to increase their violence. This will lead to more violent crimes. Also, marijuana should not be legal for recreational use in the United States, because there are still more marijuana addicts in the United States than any other type of addict. The marijuana addiction is still treated more than alcohol or any other addiction in treatment centers in the United States. Marijuana should not be legalized, because people become addicted to it, and it is needless.", "title": "Marijuana should be legal", "pid": "6c7100de-2019-04-18T16:32:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.29298400878906}, {"text": "To allow for an equal debate, I forfeit this round.", "title": "Resolved: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational purposes.", "pid": "ae791dd7-2019-04-18T17:53:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.28843688964844}, {"text": "*rings48 turn on rocky theme starts, starts to jog around to random places, punches a wall, remembers why he doesn't do boxing*Thank you very much Debatability. I also want to thank our judges for voting on this debate. I wish luck to Debatability as she starts the debate.*rings48 ices his hand before round 2 starts, smokes a joint, quickly snuffs it out as he realizes he remembers he is Con, has a stupid smile because of the bad joke*", "title": "AAN: Marijuana should be legalized recreationally.", "pid": "823c879a-2019-04-18T15:56:06Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.2774200439453}, {"text": "Resolution: The U.S Government should legalize recreational marijuana. The Burden of Proof is on Pro. Con must simply refute my case and show it should *not* be legalized. The debates will be 4 rounds with 5k character limits. Ideally this will be kept under 4k characters though. ==Definitions== Legalize: Make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law. Recreational: Relating to or denoting activity done for enjoyment when one is not working. Marijuana: Cannabis ==Rules== 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions 7. No Kritiks 8. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up may merit a loss. ==Structure== R1. Acceptance R2. Pro's case, Con rebuttals R3. Rebuttals R4. Rebuttals and conclusion.", "title": "The U.S Government should legalize recreational marijuana.", "pid": "cb307ee3-2019-04-18T14:46:23Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.24984741210938}, {"text": "In my opinion, cannabis or marijuana should be legalized in the United States. I believe that it would have many useful medical, as well as recreational purposes. If the proper laws are instituted, cannabis legalization would prove very useful in the United States.", "title": "Cannabis Legalization in the United States (Medical and Recreational Uses)", "pid": "bc00ee1b-2019-04-18T13:20:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.23638916015625}, {"text": "I think marijuana should be legal..", "title": "Should marijuana be legal", "pid": "efda0a4-2019-04-18T13:23:28Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.23284912109375}, {"text": "-", "title": "Marijuana Should Be Legalized", "pid": "11024bfb-2019-04-18T16:21:57Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.2273712158203}, {"text": "-", "title": "Marijuana Should Be Legalized", "pid": "11024bfb-2019-04-18T16:21:57Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.2273712158203}, {"text": "many believe that marijuana is an ok or great drug but marijuana has a dark side to tell that not all people know. The affects can be very damaging both physical and mental. some people also think that it is a natural and good solution compared to the drugs that the pharmaceutical companies make or hospitals or other forms of retailing medical drugs but that is not the truth base on current evidence, marijuana is an dangerous drug drug and that there are less dangerous medicines offering the same pain relief and other medical symptoms without the nasty side effects that occur when consuming marijuana. This depends on how much you consume but getting high tensed to last longer then being intoxicated and we as humans does not jest drink alcohol from fermented fruits other animals do it as well like monkeys, elephants purposely consume fermented fruits to get intoxicated so it is perfectly normal to consume alcohol unlike marijuana! According to scientific studies the active ingredient in cannabis is \"THC\" which remains in the body for weeks. This ingredient is also used in most rat poisons. The immediate effects of taking marijuana are rapid heartbeat, disorientation, possible violent vomiting, and lack of physical coordination. Afterwards other symptoms which follow are depression, sleepiness, and some users suffer from panic attacks and anxiety which can lead to bodily harm. These are some of the reasons why marijuana should not be legalized.", "title": "should marijuana be legalized for recreational use", "pid": "7c8b175c-2019-04-18T15:27:03Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.2222900390625}, {"text": "I believe that marijuana should be legalised in the United States. Here are some facts: $70 billion are spent a year on stopping marijuana use. Taxing marijuana would significantly boost government funding. People who smoke marijuana seem to have less problems with pain and headaches. This may seem weak to begin, however I would like for a person against marijuana legalisation in the United States to offer their argument before I really start to bring my arguments to the table.", "title": "Marijuana should be legal", "pid": "6c710081-2019-04-18T18:09:23Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.20799255371094}, {"text": "Pass.", "title": "The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Recreational Use", "pid": "bc59cf1f-2019-04-18T14:25:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.2049560546875}, {"text": "There was pretty much no argument there... I think it was supposed to be about medicinal purposes, but Cannabis has over 80 cannabinoids that help people. That's all besides the fact though because this debate is specifically about recreational marijuana (it's in the issue statement). Can I just point out the fact that prohibition *never* works. The United States prohibited alcohol for 13 years (1920-1933), and people drank through the entire thing. This is something I hold near and dear to my heart, being a Wisconsinite where they teach us specifically how stupid it was during social studies classes. So now, we've been in the War on Drugs for almost 40 years. Seems a little silly, doesn't it?", "title": "Recreational Marijuana should be Legalized in all 50 States.", "pid": "fbfca9a3-2019-04-18T14:52:26Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.19656372070312}, {"text": "Several states and cities have legalized marijuana; both medical and recreational. I truly believe marijuana should be used ONLY for EXTREME medical conditions, not for recreation. For one, in the area I live in (Greeley, CO), marijuana is out of control in the schools, and is causing major problems. There is one town in my area, Garden City, Colorado, which gets ALL of its tax revenue from marijuana sales. This is disgraceful. I believe the federal government should outlaw all recreational marijuana sales, and only use medical marijuana for extreme life threatening situations.", "title": "Marijuana should be outlawed nationwide", "pid": "5992fb47-2019-04-18T13:36:34Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.1944122314453}, {"text": "Recreational use of marijuana should not be legalized because it leads to the use of other drugs such as cocaine, heroine, and other hard drugs. While the use of marijuana may not have adverse health effects on a person and no addictive chemicals it is as afore mentioned a gateway drug. Many people who use hard drugs started out smoking marijuana and wondered \"If i have this much fun being high on pot what could cocaine do for me?\" I understand this isn't the case for everyone who uses marijuana but it is a growing problem in the US.", "title": "Should recreational use of marijuana be legal in the US", "pid": "8b8ff60f-2019-04-18T18:26:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.18470764160156}, {"text": "I do not think weed should be legal. Weed is a highly dangerous substance that is extremely addictive AND causes large amounts of brain damage in the long term. It might be useful in the short term for surgery but afterwards it might even make them take it up as a habit. The government already has enough problems with weed users so we don't need any more.", "title": "Should marijuana be legal", "pid": "efda0a4-2019-04-18T13:23:28Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.15138244628906}, {"text": "I thank Con for instigating what I hope would be an enlightening debate. In this debate, I am arguing that 'Recreational marijuana should be decriminalized,' or 'Decriminalizing recreational marijuana is right.' Con, on the other hand is arguing that 'Decriminizing recreational marijuana is wrong' or 'Recreational marijuana should not be decriminalized.'As the rules explicitly state that the first round is only for acceptance or stating your position, I shall wait until the next round before giving definitions.", "title": "Decriminalizing recreational marijuana.", "pid": "cdf789bc-2019-04-18T16:36:00Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.14305114746094}, {"text": "I accept. I am for the legalization of recreational and medical uses of Marijuana. Good luck and I hope we have a good debate. Since no definitions were set up I'll do some. Marijuana- Cannabis Illegal- In this context, to have the sale, possession, distribution and growth illegal to be punished by the law", "title": "Marijuana should remain illegal", "pid": "986b9b3c-2019-04-18T14:05:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.13992309570312}, {"text": "Whilst many use marijuana as a recreational drug or as a pain killer it depends on how you use it and why especially if its a young adult such as a 18 year old who's front cortex hasn't even developed yet", "title": "Marijuana should be legal", "pid": "6c71015a-2019-04-18T16:09:02Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.12437438964844}, {"text": "I challenge jamccartney to a debate about medical marijuana. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. My opponent will be argue that marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes. My opponent and I already agree on the issue of recreational marijuana. Before we begin, I would like to state the debate structure:Round One: Acceptance and stating your stanceRound Two: Main ArgumentsRound Three: Rebuttals and ConclusionBoth jamccartney and I share nearly identical views and I will therefore not list the debate rules. They are obvious to both of us.", "title": "Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes.", "pid": "fa1a69b6-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.1189727783203}, {"text": "I accept", "title": "Legalization of recreational marijuana in the U.S. would benefit the economy", "pid": "37c282ea-2019-04-18T13:20:50Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.11627197265625}, {"text": "Alright, we both forfeited a round, but Con broke one of the rules so she lost the conduct point. C1-Costs The War on Drugs has cost American taxpayers billions of dollars, money which could be better spent on infastrucutre, debt repayment, etc. (1) C2-Right to Liberty In the Declaration of Independence it states that one unalienable right is the right to liberty. That means people should be free to pursue their own choices without restriction from any government or other person. For this reason, people should be allowed to smoke marijuana without fear of being punished. Realistically, many things many people do every day, such as eat fast food, are not good whatsoever, yet they have the right to do so. C3-Unviolent Crime Arresting someone for marijuana is using the law, which is meant to protect people from others, to arrest someone from making a choice which does not directly harm anyone else. R1-Health The health argument is irrelevent. Something cannot be illegal, simply because it is unhealthy. It doesn't harm anyone else, and people have the right to do what they want as long as they are not harming others. In fact, it is not even conclusive it is bad. Some studies have found marijuana does not effect teh brain. (2) 1-http://www.drugsense.org... 2-http://www.iflscience.com...", "title": "Marijuana should be legal for recreational use", "pid": "fad1e930-2019-04-18T14:45:25Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.1061553955078}, {"text": "Ii will be arguing that the U.S. should legalise marijuana (both recreational and medical) for 18 year olds and up.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening statementsRound 3: Refutation Round 4: Closing statements.There will be 24 hrs to argue.You will have a character limit of 8,000.There will be a 3 day voting period.Votes must include a comment.The voting style is open voting wth no Elo minimum or maximum.", "title": "Marijuana should be legal", "pid": "6c71015a-2019-04-18T16:09:02Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.0862274169922}, {"text": "I propose the legalization of Marijuana. One of the most used arguments for the legalization of Marijuana is that it will produce massive tax revenue. I'm no economist. I want to look into the morality of marijuana. 1) Someone shouldn't be restrained from a soothing activity with less side-effects than common legal drugs. 2) Marijuana use in teenagers will not increase. 3) Crime will decrease because it will reduce dangerous drug deals.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized.", "pid": "59d17c99-2019-04-18T18:59:14Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.05535888671875}, {"text": "The resolution: The United States Should Legalize Marijuana for Public Consumption. This means for non-medical use as well as medical. Marijuana (cannabis): http://en.wikipedia.org... Please use the first round to accept the terms. You have 72 hrs to argue after you accept the challenge.", "title": "The United States Should Legalize Marijuana.", "pid": "8160cfd9-2019-04-18T18:44:31Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.04193115234375}, {"text": "My opponent has forfeited so I will accept the victory.", "title": "Recreational Marijuana Legalization", "pid": "665dddb1-2019-04-18T14:39:12Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.03756713867188}, {"text": "Resolved: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational purposes.I will be affirming this topic today, because my view (at least for the purposes of this debate) is that the decriminalization of marijuana has no place in society.Here are my conditions for a successful debate:Round 1 - agreement to debate, introductionRound 2 - definitions, burdens, values, and contention-level argumentsRound 3 - refutations to the arguments and conditions created in Round 2Round 4 - summary and crystallization of the key arguments and voting issueHere are a couple of observations hat I have with respect to the previous structure. NEITHER PRO NOR CON MAY DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS. These should be automatic grounds for disqualification:1. beginning contention-level arguments, definitions, values, burdens, or observations in Round 12. doing any refutations of the opponent's arguments in Round 2 (ex: Con cannot spend his/her Round 2 speech refuting my arguments from Round 2)3. trolling, loitering, or being disrespectful to the opponentAnd finally, a couple of expectations for the round (so long as my opponent agrees to them):1. use evidence, statistics, and examples to illustrate arguments2. follow through with impacts to arguments, clearly defining how each links back to the values and burdens stated at the beginning of the Round 2 speeches3. sign-post arguments (ex: using contentions or benefits)I will NOT make any definitions or specific arguments until the Con accepts this debate.I look forward to this debate!", "title": "Resolved: Marijuana should be legalized for recreational purposes.", "pid": "ae791dd7-2019-04-18T17:53:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.03469848632812}, {"text": "...vgfgjk", "title": "Marijuana should be legal", "pid": "6c71011c-2019-04-18T16:27:48Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.0333709716797}, {"text": "I claim the following: Decriminalizing recreational marijuana is wrong.", "title": "Decriminalizing recreational marijuana.", "pid": "cdf789bc-2019-04-18T16:36:00Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 216.0185089111328}, {"text": "I accept, though you should have also appointed some conservative judges. ;PJust kidding, your selections are fine. I'll let you post your arguments first.To clarify, this debate is about marijuana legalization for all purposes, including recreational. :)", "title": "Marijuana Should Be Legal", "pid": "eda04888-2019-04-18T14:09:48Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.01821899414062}, {"text": "Marijuana should be legalized for recreational use for any person over the age of 18. Weed, as its called, has been used for many purposes all through out history, even George Washington had hemp is his personal garden. Marijuana should not have been made illegal and it should not continue being illegal. I will make my main arguements in later rounds. I look forward to a good debate.", "title": "Marjuana should be legal", "pid": "40e4b6f7-2019-04-18T19:05:22Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.01719665527344}, {"text": "Pro claims that the fact that people who use marijuana are more likely to use other drugs, is a correlation but not a causation. Though there is a very slight and confusing differential between both causation and correlation, some would say that in this instance, that this is more of a causation rather than correlation. This is because people who are smoking marijuana, have been urged in some way or another to begin using a different hard drug. Therefore, marijuana is the cause of people trying other drugs because it opens up a world of newer, harder drugs with it indeed being a gateway drug. To continue, pro claims that marijuana can be used to treat depression and anxiety, whether or not that is true or not, is not relevant to this debate, as we are debating about recreational use of marijuana, and not medicinal use for it. However, research provided by Mayo Clinic suggests that people who smoke marijuana are more likely to be diagnosed with depression, rather than non smokers. With that being said, pro also claims that smoking marijuana does not cause lung cancer. However, this is untrue because according to the American Lung Association, smoke in itself no matter where it is from, including marijuana can cause all sorts of lung illness ranging from damage of the lung lining, or even chronic bronchitis. Furthermore, marijuana is indeed harmful to our bodies, and can lead people (especially those that do not have very good control over behavior) to try harder drugs out there. Combine that with people that are prone to mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, and then we have got a world of very physically, and psychologically ill people. Maybe a consensus would be for a doctor to prescribe marijuana in some instance, which would be for a different debate, however the debate about whether or not marijuana should be available to anyone for recreational use, is proved to be con by the reasons stated above. Thanks for a good debate!", "title": "Marijuana should be legal for recreational use", "pid": "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.01339721679688}, {"text": "I absolutely believe that marijuana should be legalized. It is a harmless plant that has less fatalities than Tylenol or other drugs that you trust. marijuana has many benefits and therapeutic values that the people of America want. Marijuana may be illegal but that does not affect the demand for the drug. The laws set on marijuana only incarcerate many non violent people. Marijuana is widely used and I believe that our government should legalize this herb and take it out criminal control.", "title": "The Legalization of Marijuana", "pid": "1e41346c-2019-04-18T17:04:39Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.0054931640625}, {"text": "As far as the risks go, which is pretty much the only thing that stops you from thinking recreational marijuana should be legalized, they shouldn't matter, since there is a risk to everything. For example, the risk to driving a car is that you could possibly get in a wreck and either injure yourself or even die. 1.3 million people die in car crashes a year. Does this mean we should ban driving? Of course not! Is addiction a problem with recreational marijuana? Well, did you know medicinal marijuana can also be addictive? Does this mean we should reject the legalization of medicinal marijuana? Of course not! Maybe you're right; maybe we shouldn't ban the smoking of cigarettes. But it still makes no sense to me as to why we shouldn't legalize the smoking of weed. http://www.narconon.org... To summarize my argument, legalizing recreational marijuana does have risks, but it also has benefits. Just because something has risks doesn't mean it shouldn't be legalized. And majority of America wants it to be legalized! Therefore, I see no reason why recreational marijuana shouldn't be legalized, and my opinion is the same as it was before this debate. http://thehill.com... This has been a good debate, Con, and I really enjoyed it. I\"m not the best at debating, but I feel you have gave me a challenge that has improved my debating skills, so thank you. Good luck in the voting period!", "title": "Smoking weed should be legalized in all of America.", "pid": "eec21427-2019-04-18T11:48:32Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.99981689453125}, {"text": "Contention 1: Marijuana should not be legal for recreational use because the side effects that are brought by it can be life endangering. One statistic suggests that smoking marijuana can increase one's heart rate by as much as two times for up to three hours.[1] The recreational use of marijuana could endanger the lives of those who may have heart conditions. Another side effect found in marijuana would be from the aspect of smoking the drug. The smoke will cause the lungs to be irritated and may lead to respiratory issues in the future.[2] It can be claimed that marijuana may lower pain of certain cancers and diseases, or even to be used as a medical substance, however I ask that this claim is not brought in as a contention due to the fact that this debate's main focus is regarding the recreation use rather than the medical use. If a doctor feels marijuana can be a healthy medicinal supplement, then that would be a different story. The claim that marijuana can be taxed and help our country make some much needed capital is also invalid given the fact that the health risks behind marijuana are by far much more important to worry about rather than allowing the focus to be upon tax revenue.", "title": "Marijuana should be legal for recreational use", "pid": "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.98590087890625}, {"text": "Con forfeits the debate.", "title": "Resolved: The possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana should be legalized in the U.S.", "pid": "db751e93-2019-04-18T13:07:25Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.97988891601562}, {"text": "Arguments extended.", "title": "Marijuana should be legal for recreational use", "pid": "fad1e930-2019-04-18T14:45:25Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.9780731201172}, {"text": "I will now back off from the assertion that marijuana should be legalized entirely and generally. To attempt to argue the general statement of \"Marijuana should be legalized\" would result in my definite defeat. This is my first argument on here and i don't exactly know all the rules, so shifting my perspective in the way that I am about to do may result in my defeat. I should have argued \"Marijuana should be legal in a private setting. So if you wish to continue the debate with this i would be glad. As for the previous topic you have the win. Marijuana should be legalized, and along with its legalization strict laws should be made to stop public usage. If one is found under the influence while driving they should receive an extremely harsh punishment. I believe the punishment for drunk driving should also be severely increased, but that is a different argument. One should only be aloud to use marijuana on there private property. This eliminates the possibility of non-consensual second hand smoke. This means that if you are a man who smokes marijuana at your home, and you have a wife who is pregnant, than she is consenting to receiving the second hand smoke, if she does not consent and she also owns the property then you are in violation of her right to decide what goes on in her home. If she does not consent and does not own the property then she has the choice to leave your property. By limiting the use of marijuana to only the private setting of the user, this effectively does not infringe on any one else's rights.", "title": "Legalization of Recreational Marijuana", "pid": "d3fcb99b-2019-04-18T15:37:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.9453125}, {"text": "I think marijuana should be legalized because it is NOT addictive and in some states of America that have legalized it e.g. Colorado the crime has gone down in some cities buy at least 10%. also for people with anorexia the munchies would be a good idea to get them to start eating.", "title": "Should Marijuana Be Legalized", "pid": "d44d94da-2019-04-18T15:44:00Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.9385986328125}, {"text": "Debate the topic. Forfieture will result in conduct points being awarded to the other position. Obey the character limit (no google docs)BOP is split. I will be taking the stance that the legalization of recreational marijuana in the U. S. would benefit the economy. To whoever accepts the challenge, I wish them good luck.", "title": "Legalization of recreational marijuana in the U.S. would benefit the economy", "pid": "37c282ea-2019-04-18T13:20:50Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.93006896972656}, {"text": "Individuals should have the right to use marijuana legally in the United States.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized in the United States.", "pid": "d4e0c5b9-2019-04-18T18:54:41Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.92819213867188}, {"text": "The global economy is going rather well. Therefore, I do not think it needs that additional boost by having recreational marijuana decriminalized/legalized. Now, given the health arguments I have made previously, what is an additional argument you can make about your support of the decriminalization of recreational marijuana?", "title": "Decriminalizing recreational marijuana.", "pid": "cdf789bc-2019-04-18T16:36:00Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.9250946044922}, {"text": "I just want to say that marijuana, while proven to have some negative side effects, are nothing compared to another recreational drug, alcohol. The side effects of marijuana are often temporary, and can be reduced to none when the drug is no longer in the users system. Marijuana as a medicine is often much safer than the legal counterparts, prescription drugs. Side effects from prescription drugs often include death, organ failure, etc.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use.", "pid": "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.9161376953125}, {"text": "In many states, they have begun to drop the noose that restricts medical marijuana use. In my state of CA you will find more dispensaries then star bucks. . however I think everyone should have this choice, and that it shouldn't be only ok for the terminally ill. I want to argue that this should be the federal standard(legal), and that marijuana has been taboo for so long, based on ignorance and denial. I am (pro) so will be defending and asserting this motion. (con) will argue marijuana should remain and/or be permanently illegal. The way it goes. .. .", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized", "pid": "59d1f899-2019-04-18T18:19:38Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.9156036376953}, {"text": "I, pro, will be arguing for the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana, also known as weed. Format: Round 1 - Opening statements (not arguments) Round 2 - Pro begins opening argument, con rebuttals Round 3 - Final arguments and statements Rules: 1. Don't troll 2. Use correct grammar and spelling 3. You will have 72 hours to respond. This should be more than enough time and both person's are expected to submit their arguments during this time frame to prevent bugs and glitches 4. Be civil 5. There is a max of 8,000 characters. If you need more, put it on a Google document and post the link as your argument. 6. If you need extra time or wish to continue the debate, message your opponent.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized in the US.", "pid": "629701cf-2019-04-18T12:24:29Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.91134643554688}, {"text": "will give opponent chance to post his argument", "title": "Marijuana should be legal.", "pid": "21ae9089-2019-04-18T17:38:28Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.90866088867188}, {"text": "I guess my opponent has forfeited the last round. I have already said that it isn't unhealthy, it would be great for the economy and it is safer than legal drugs. For these reasons, it is reasonable to change the federal laws and legalize cannabis.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized", "pid": "59d20078-2019-04-18T15:03:14Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.90606689453125}, {"text": "As I'm sure we've all heard from our health teachers, marijuana is indeed a gateway drug. Marijuana can lead to the trial of other drugs which may be even more harmful that marijuana itself. I see what you mean by saying that there have been zero deaths in history from marijuana, however that statistic is simply regarding the short term effects while being under the influence. Your contentions have completely ignored the long term effects. For example, smoke inhalation (even from cannabis,) Can cause long term effects such as cancer. This debate is about the legalization of marijuana, and not about whether cigarettes and alcohol should be legal or not. Therefore, when I describe the health risks involved in marijuana (which are proved by what I have stated in round 1,) I am speaking about marijuana, not anything else. Another reason that marijuana should not be legalized for recreational use, is because marijuana is terrible for mental health. Marijuana creates a feeling of anxiety to some user which have been linked to depression. This, I suppose would essentially be considered another health risk. With that being said, there are too many long term health risks behind marijuana, so therefore it should remain out of the hands of recreational users.", "title": "Marijuana should be legal for recreational use", "pid": "fad1e94f-2019-04-18T13:10:10Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.89422607421875}, {"text": "Marijuana should be legalized.", "title": "Should marijuana be legalized", "pid": "12148574-2019-04-18T14:19:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.87155151367188}]}
{"idx": 17, "qid": "18", "q_text": "Should churches remain tax-exempt?", "qrels": {"986b9b3c-2019-04-18T14:05:55Z-00004-000": 0, "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00006-000": 2, "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00008-000": 2, "986b9b3c-2019-04-18T14:05:55Z-00005-000": 0, "986b9b3c-2019-04-18T14:05:55Z-00003-000": 0, "956b6a2b-2019-04-18T20:02:32Z-00004-000": 0, "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00001-000": 2, "68240a5c-2019-04-18T12:13:04Z-00000-000": 0, "145407a3-2019-04-18T18:17:10Z-00002-000": 0, "2772ce32-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00089-000": 0, "2c9ce16e-2019-04-18T17:14:44Z-00001-000": 0, "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00014-000": 0, "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00006-000": 0, "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00000-000": 2, "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00001-000": 2, "7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00004-000": 1, "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00002-000": 2, "3f1c75e-2019-04-18T11:15:58Z-00005-000": 1, "42a405ef-2019-04-18T13:38:33Z-00006-000": 0, "4761cc64-2019-04-18T14:27:31Z-00001-000": 0, "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00004-000": 2, "4c315ac7-2019-04-18T11:25:41Z-00002-000": 0, "66abd9bf-2019-04-18T13:35:26Z-00004-000": 0, "681825ca-2019-04-18T16:50:01Z-00009-000": 0, "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00002-000": 1, "2c9ce16e-2019-04-18T17:14:44Z-00004-000": 0, "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00001-000": 2, "b1c2d7b2-2019-04-18T19:12:07Z-00002-000": 0, "f557b0be-2019-04-18T11:33:39Z-00003-000": 0, "f345611f-2019-04-18T13:00:39Z-00002-000": 0, "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00004-000": 2, "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00002-000": 2, "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00001-000": 1, "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00000-000": 2, "ffa16c3b-2019-04-18T15:59:53Z-00003-000": 0, "b2629620-2019-04-18T18:08:01Z-00003-000": 0, "ea76cbbd-2019-04-18T16:40:35Z-00001-000": 0, "ffa16c3b-2019-04-18T15:59:53Z-00001-000": 2, "d1a46990-2019-04-18T16:12:18Z-00006-000": 0, "ca561f99-2019-04-18T15:37:24Z-00000-000": 0, "b80912ea-2019-04-18T17:08:58Z-00001-000": 0, "c2b2fdab-2019-04-18T16:52:21Z-00008-000": 0, "ca561f99-2019-04-18T15:37:24Z-00001-000": 0, "c2b2fdab-2019-04-18T16:52:21Z-00009-000": 0, "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00001-000": 0, "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00002-000": 0, "df991015-2019-04-15T20:22:47Z-00001-000": 0, "c5dfa21f-2019-04-15T20:22:57Z-00005-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "I believe that there sould not be a tax exemption for Churches. Con must argue the opposite, of course:) Definitions:Tax exempt: To be free from, or not subject to, taxation by regulators or government entities.*Some information about the topic: US churches received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country's founding**. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained. Acceptance first.Sources: *http://www.investopedia.com... **Edwin S. Gaustad, Church and State in America, 2nd edition", "title": "There should not be tax exemptions for Curches.", "pid": "ffa16c3b-2019-04-18T15:59:53Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.5630645751953}, {"text": "Yes, of course all churches should pay taxes, there is no legitimate reason why churches should be exempt from taxes, just because you claim religious belief does not mean you are exempt from taxes so why should a church be exempt. Religion in general is a multi billion dollar business the only difference between a corporation and a church is we tax a church.", "title": "Should Churches Pay Taxes", "pid": "7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.29534912109375}, {"text": "Background informationIn order to understand why churches should be tax exempt, we must first outline which taxes that churches already pay, and which taxes they do not.In what way are churches tax exempt?1) Federal income taxAccording to the IRS, [1] \"Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.\"For this to occur, the church must meet ALL of the following criteria:■ the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes, ■ net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder, ■ no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation, ■ the organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and■ the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy2) Property taxChurches do not pay property tax under the legal precedent of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). The court upheld the tax exemption status for churches on a 8-1 decision. In defense of his decision, Justice Douglas quoted: \"We do not mean to say that religious groups and the press are free from all financial burdens of government. We have here something quite different, for example, from a tax on the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with those activities. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. State aid to places of worship, whether in the form of direct grants or tax exemption, takes us back to the Assessment Bill and the Remonstrance. The church qua church would not be entitled to that support from believers and from nonbelievers alike.\"[2]The court gave the following four reasons for their decision [3]:1. The First Amendment tolerates neither governmentally established religion nor governmental interference with religion.2. The legislative purpose of tax exemptions is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion, and New York's legislation simply spares the exercise of religion from the burden of property taxation levied on private profit institutions.3. The tax exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, far less than taxation of churches would entail, and it restricts the fiscal relationship between them, thus tending to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.4. Freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.3) Other taxesChurches are also exempt from other minor state taxes, but seeing as this is on a state level, it would be too difficult to outline each and every one.Should churches be tax exempt?In short, yes. As you can see from what I have outlined above, churches and non-profit organizations pay the same taxes. This is because the same reasons that apply to non-profits also apply to churches as well.Churches are vastly known as a positive thing in the United States. An article in America Magazine defends this stance by saying: \"At least where most Catholic nonprofit organizations are concerned, I would say there should be hope: Catholic nonprofit organizations are second to none when it comes to predictably and reliably producing benefits for nonmembers, wider communities and the public at large.\"[4] Even as an atheist myself, I acknowledge that churches bring together a community of generally good people who want to do the right thing to please whatever God they worship. Although they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, it is still the right thing nonetheless. Putting a tax burden on these churches would be completely redundant because it would discourage future good work done by the churches, and diminish the amount and the quality of good work that a church community could accomplish, leaving that extra slack to be picked up by the government or not picked up at all.I acknowledge that there are negatives to allowing churches to be tax-exempt. If I had to, I would argue a more progressive approach by saying that churches should pay a little more than what they do now, but applying an extreme solution (such as abolishing the tax-exemption status entirely) to a minor problem (possible abuse of the system) will be both counter-productive and redundant.Thus, I negate.Citations:1. http://www.irs.gov...2. http://ffrf.org...3. http://supreme.justia.com...4. http://www.americamagazine.org...", "title": "Churches should be taxed.", "pid": "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.21957397460938}, {"text": "1. Tax exemptions for religious institutions are a deep-rooted historical practice. In Coler v. Corn Exchange Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it requires an extremely strong case to overturn a rooted historical practice. Therefore, the burden of proof is on my opponent to make such a case. 2. The bulk of my opponent's argument focuses on the first amendment, which forbids any law \"respecting an establishment of religion.\" This prohibits direct state aid to religious institutions, but it does not prevent \"incidental\" aid which is neutral among sects. Thus, in Walz v. Tax Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned as follows: \"The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches but simply abstains from demanding the church support the state.\" If churches are taxed, it would actually create an impermissible entanglement between church and state, as it would DEMAND every religious SUPPORT the state. This would be unconstitutional, as it would create a law \"respecting an establishment of religion.\" It would also violate the Free Exercise clause, as it would challenge the religious view that religious institutions have tax-exempt status. The purpose of the first amendment is to establish religious liberty and to maintain neutrality among different (often opposed) religious groups. It is therefore imperative that churches are given tax-exempt status, as a tax on churches would violate the fundamental premises of the first amendment.", "title": "Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed.", "pid": "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.75689697265625}, {"text": "no", "title": "Churches should be taxed!", "pid": "541c0fdb-2019-04-18T14:17:03Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.73980712890625}, {"text": "My opponent has once again forfeited a round. No clear rebuttal was made by my opponent. No closing argument was made by my opponent. This is unfortunate as I believe this was an interesting and thought-provoking topic. With that said, I would like to thank my opponent for the initial argument and look forward to any and all challenges on the topic in the future. In closing, I have provided my audience with what I believe to be a convincing argument for the position that Churches of all religions should not be taxed by the Government. Furthermore, I aimed to provide a convincing rebuttal against my opponents initial claims. In doing so, it is my hope that I have provided a convincing argument for my audience to ponder when personally deliberating this topic. I ask humbly that you please consider my opponents forfeits when casting your vote.", "title": "Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government.", "pid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.34405517578125}, {"text": "Hope you are having a good day! My opponent said, \"Church should not pay taxes because they are the center for religions. \" Sure churches are the center for religion, But they shouldn't be tax exempt. All places that make money pay taxes, Except churches. Churches make money, Lots of it, And they don't donate that much. Also, I just went to your source and found that it has nothing to do with the topic. Source: https://bigthink. Com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches", "title": "Churches Paying Taxes", "pid": "3f1c75e-2019-04-18T11:15:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.24383544921875}, {"text": "Bla bla bla 3rd round is final bla bla bla", "title": "Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation.", "pid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.2321014404297}, {"text": "Bla bla bla 3rd round is final bla bla bla", "title": "Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation.", "pid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.2321014404297}, {"text": "Premise:Churches ( referring to place of worship) have to go under stringent IRS protocol. Premise:Religions like Scientology and the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster do not fulfill these criteria. Premise:One of the Biggest reasons why Churches are not taxed is to show separation of church and state, as seen in Supreme Court ruling of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. Conclusion:Taxing religious organizations that follow the rules of the IRS is in strict violation of the first amendment. http://www.irsvideos.gov... http://www.law.cornell.edu...", "title": "End tax breaks for religious organizations", "pid": "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.21029663085938}, {"text": "Synopsis: The Resolution is interpreted to suggest that religious communities (the definition of “Church/Mosque/Synagogue” being used) should pay Taxes, and not have tax exempt status. The word “Church” will be used in substitution to all forms of related Religious Communities. Proposition I: Definitions Tax: A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. {1} Exempt: Free from an obligation or liability imposed on others {2} Endorsement: An act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something. {3} Sources: 1} . http://bit.ly... 2} . http://bit.ly... 3} . http://bit.ly... Proposition II: BOP will be on my Opponent, as he desires a change from the Status Quo, is Pro, and the instigator of the debate. Additionally, I claim that all money, being properly acquired, is exempt from tax until otherwise made compulsory. In this way, not being required to pay tax is the natural system, and therefore, Pro must show that there is a proper justification to extend taxation over a currently untaxed organization. Counter-Case I: Endorsement of Religion / Favouring Large Churches Counter: This is purely non sequitur. Allowing people to keep more of what is already theirs does not count as endorsing them. Rather, giving them money would count as Endorsement. They aren’t being given money, they are keeping the money that was already theirs. It would be endorsement to give a different status to other religious communities. Which means all Religious communities would either need taxed, or exempt. My opponent referenced a SCOTUS decision, however it isn’t sourced, so it can be disregarded, since no details are linked. Regardless, I will go ahead and point out that it is still an appeal to authority, and doesn’t matter in a discussion on what we believe should/n’t be done. Regardless of their decision, being allowed to keep more of your money is not the same as being given money. SCOTUS seems to speak from the position that our money is the government's money until we are told we can keep it. But that isn’t how it works. The issue with Pros second claim is that it assumes removing tax exemption will somehow be more fair than allowing both Large and Small Churches to keep all their income. In truth, Larger churches are more easily capable of paying taxes, while Smaller Churches risk falling under and failing, in the same way that small business’ are hurt more than large business’. Whereas a similar tax rate will still allow large organizations enough income to accomplish their goals and obligations, it would leave smaller organizations a smaller income to do so, preventing growth. With that said, I will further point out that there is a break in the logic that says allowing two people to keep all their money benefits the richer more because he has more money to keep. Saying a wealthier organization makes more money, so we should take it, doesn’t work. In actuality, giving a different tax liability to different Religious Organizations risk creating “endorsement” by forcing larger ones to pay more. Giving the same Liability endorses the larger ones by hurting smaller “competitors”. Conclusion:I have shown here that there is no endorsement or unfairness in giving the same tax exemption to all organizations of the same type. Rather the only way to avoid the government influencing religion is to keep Government out of Church coffers. Counter-Case II: Use of Tax Revenue. Counter: So? Firstly, I’ll let Pro know that Blogs, which do not have links to direct sources, are not themselves sources. So Pro’s first source is not valid. Regardless, it doesn’t matter. We cannot simply justify increased taxation by the amount it will provide. Instead of sustaining increased spending with increased taxation, we must first work to decrease spending. Funneling the money into systems like the VA is a waste, as it is not an issue of money, but of structure and efficiency, like many other budgets. Other budgets are similarly well funded, but suffer from inefficiency and wasteful bureaucracy (Such as education, where we have one of the highest spending per students in the world {4/5/6}), or otherwise has dedicated revenue (SS is supported by largely by Pay Roll Tax {7/8}). And to say we could fund the Vietnam war is also a terrible thought. Taxing Charities to fund unpopular wars? Pro is listing how we can use the money, but I argue we should try to fix the problems that lead to the failure of these programs. Taxation from Churches look like a lot, but will not fix our problems. So we should try something that can. Streamline bureaucracy, modernize systems, and try to fix our financial problems by decreasing financial needs. If the systems are not able to be fixed without constantly increased taxation, then the system is broken and should be replaced. Pro sets a dangerous precedent of fixing problems by taking more money. I will lastly point out that Religious organizations are highly charitable (sourced in Case I below). Pro is wanting to take this charitable money, lose half of it in Bureaucracy, and use the rest for welfare. It will not help, but rather it will decrease national social assistance. Of course, this doesn’t really matter, as the Churches will not pay taxes regardless of their religious status, as I will point out in my Case below. . Conclusion:Here it is shown that the notion that our budget should be fixed by increasing taxes is flawed and dangerous, and that the problem should be fixed from the expenditure end. If Pro had his way, our government could spend as much as they want, and simply charge us more for the right to exist, rather than taking responsibility for our money which they have forced us to hand over. Why should we be forced to give more and more to an irresponsible Robber Baron that won’t at least try to minimize the costs? No, be accountable to our money, then we can talk about taking our holy dollars. Sources: 4} CBS: . http://cbsn.ws... 5} OECD: . http://bit.ly... 6} Investopedia: . http://bit.ly... 7} . http://bit.ly... 8} Heritage: . http://bit.ly... Case: Churches are Non-For-Profit / Funded by Donation. Thesis: I will prove here that removing the tax exempt status will not change anything, as Churches are inherently tax exempt through being Charitable organizations. Rationalization: Churches are non-for-profit. They are highly charitable {9, yes the source says the catholic church doesn’t provide half of SA, but it does show they alone still provide a great portion}. The church's income largely goes to paying workers (like most Charities, which is subject to income tax), debt {like most Charities}, mortgage/rent {like most Charities}, maintenance {like most Charities}, and Bills {like most Charities}. The remainder is largely charitable or related to religious programs {10}. Like all Charities, they are inherently Tax-Exempt. I will point out that Churches must meet certain 501c3 requirements, such as not attempting to intervene in political campaigns. They may, under certain instances, be subject to UBIT Tax. {11} Churches are Charitable, and therefore tax exempt, even without their status as churches, as their non-administrative expenses deal with social aid, and religious expansion, rather than commercial or financial profit. {12} So even with removing the religious exemption, Churches will not be paying taxes anyhow. Pro would have to also support altering the 501c3 requirements, which risk forcing other non-religious charities to pay taxes, or otherwise to add in a clause preventing non-religious organizations from being class as Charities, which would be worse as that would become religious discrimination. Conclusion:Here I have successfully shown that Churches, being charitable organizations, would be tax exempt even barring religious exemptions. The impact of this coincides with Counter-Case II. Pro spoke of all the ways we can use Religious Taxes, but since these Churches, as charitable groups, will pay no tax anyhow, there will be no extra income for the inefficient social programs that Pro wants to support. All the effort of forcing through a controversial law to get the Churches taxed, and absolutely no increase in revenue. Sources: 9} Politifact: . http://bit.ly... 10} . http://bit.ly... 11} Score: . http://bit.ly... 12} Investopedia: . http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: My opponents arguments are basically that we should fix our fiscal problems by increasing taxes, rather than fixing the problems inherent in the current system. I rather suggest we fix the problems so that we need not increase taxes. Beyond this, Pro gives no other real argument because the non-sequitur that letting Groups keep their own money is the same as giving them money, when it is different on principle, and that tax exemptions benefit richer churches more, when in reality, taxation would hurt smaller churches more. Regardless of religious status, the sheer majority of these organizations are Charitable, and would not be taxable regardless. Any money taxed would be used less efficiently with the added layers of bureaucracy. I’ll point out that there are major moral problems if money taxed from Church went to things (or freed other money to go to things) which are fundamentally against the Church’s views. Lastly, I repeat myself, not for the last time this debate: The Budget should be fixed streamlining, removing redundant or aged programs/departments/regulations, and fighting wasteful/corrupt spending. Not by following the never ending policy of increased taxation, which will only reward their fiscal incompetence rather than force fiscal reform. {13/14} Sources: 13} Heritage:. http://bit.ly... 14} The Hill:. http://bit.ly... ==Unitomic==", "title": "Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation.", "pid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 217.20077514648438}, {"text": "I had to put this into Google Translate. You are saying that assuming churches serve the general welfare of the population, and the IRS lists churches as serving the welfare of the population, then they should not be taxed. This is based on assumptions which I will now tackle. Churches claim to offer some benefit towards the welfare of the population, but most churches, specifically the Catholic Church, run like a business. They have outlets in every country, they provide advice, morality and salvation to their customers and even have competition from other religious businesses. These religions often require tithes from their members, which provides income for the church. Religions are business as much as any other corporation. Next up, there are clear benefits to taxing the church. If we were to tax the churches, we would make 71,000,000,000 Dollars annually, and that's only in America. http://taxthechurches.org... http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org... Churches make more than most businesses on the planet, and yet are able to use the claim that they benefit the welfare of the people to remain tax exempt. Saying \"if the law says it's right, then it must be right, this is legal, so it too, must be right\" doesn't cut it. Anything that claims to \"benefit the welfare of the people should then be exempt;\" doctors, civil servants, anyone who helps others. This only means that the laws need to be changed. Your move, Duncan.", "title": "Churches Ought not be Taxed", "pid": "b80912ea-2019-04-18T17:08:58Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.0638885498047}, {"text": "Unfortunately the only argument that my opponent has offered the entire debate is that he thinks poor churches should get tax exemptions because they need the money. That argument is lacking in any substance or sources. The rest of the debate, my opponent has spent his time either agreeing with most of my points or playing a game of semantics. My argument still stands that ALL CHURCHES SHOULD HAVE TAX EXEMPTIONS REMOVED and I will clarify my argument one last time. I believe it is dangerous to link, in any way, a person's faith with government. If governments are providing tax exemptions to churches, it leads to manipulation in various ways. For starters, if one political party is pushing to increase exemptions, it could (and does) lead to churches using their power to sway voters... and when a pastor/priest/minister tells someone that they had better vote a certain way, too many people will blindly follow. My opponent agrees with me that too many churches make far too much money. My thoughts are that rather than just draw a line in the sand and say if you make $_____ per year then you don't get tax exemptions, I would cut all tax exemptions and put it in the churches hands to help each other out. Instead of one baptist minister owning two million dollar mansions while another baptist church can barely maintain 10 parishioners, why not share that money amongst the churches? They all work for the same God, right? If we draw a line in the sand in order to determine who can and who can't get tax cuts then that will just promote loophole finding and ways of reallocating money so that they fall just under the line. It happens all the time in businesses across America and really, religions are just businesses. To recap this debate, I backed up my initial arguments with relevant sources while my opponent offered none. I debated my side of the debate at hand while my opponent tried to counter with semantics and spent most of his time agreeing with me, offering next to no actual argument to support his side of the debate, aside from \"a lot of these poor churches are also in poor communities so cannot receive as much of a offering and not donations\". Please consider all of this when voting, and don't just vote based on whose side you agree with. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate.", "title": "resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES", "pid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.03688049316406}, {"text": "Many people trust the tax-exempt status of their religion to mean that it has gone through the discipline of financial accountability to earn the government's approval. Removing that status would leave many people clueless about who to trust as official and wise religious leaders. The official and wise religious leaders deserve to have tax exempt status, goes this thinking, because they worked hard to earn it. They must continue to maintain it by adhering to the government's criteria for financial stewardship. The riches go to the winner, and this must hold true for religion as well.", "title": "Some Emerging Religious Groups do Not Have the Political Connections to Qualify", "pid": "af414960-2019-04-19T12:47:32Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 216.99378967285156}, {"text": "==Unitomic==", "title": "Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation.", "pid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.9757537841797}, {"text": "==Unitomic==", "title": "Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation.", "pid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.9757537841797}, {"text": "1. By churches, I mean any religious building or organization. It can be a Christian church, but in the context of this debate, it shall apply to Mosques, Synagogues, or anything of like quality that is relevant. 2. The only difference between how non-profit clubs and churches is property taxes. Non-profit clubs pay these taxes, but churches do not. 3. This position would include tax deductions. If a church did enough charitable actions, they may end up paying no taxes at all. 4. I am not calling for the destruction of religion. I am an atheist, but whether or not any religion is true shall not be the topic being argued. For the sake of debate, we will assume that none of these religions or true, or that we cannot determine whether one is true. 5. This debate is not a debate about taxes in general. This is a debate over whether churches, which are largely exempt from taxes (some counties tax them and some don't., but most do not) should pay them. Namely the tax being discussed is property taxes, which most non-profit clubs (not charities. Charities are usually taxed the same as churches) must pay. (Again this differs as property taxes are handled at a more local level.)", "title": "Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs.", "pid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.93045043945312}, {"text": "Assuming that it's true that Being a Church implies that classified as serving the General Welfare & classified as serving the General Welfare implies that Ought not be Taxed, then it's true that Being a Church implies that Ought not be Taxed. Being a Church implies that classified as serving the General Welfare; Classified as serving the General Welfare implies that Ought not to be Taxed. Necessarily, Being a Church implies that Ought not to be Taxed. IRS lists Churches as serving the General Welfare. Either serving the General Welfare or Ought to be Taxed. If not serving General Welfare implies Ought to be Taxed. If Ought not to be Taxed implies serving the General Welfare. If Ought not to be Taxed implies Being a Church.", "title": "Churches Ought not be Taxed", "pid": "b80912ea-2019-04-18T17:08:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.91371154785156}, {"text": "To me, the separation of church and state is one of the most important principles of our nation. In such a diverse country, secularity is crucial. Should the government decide to tax churches, or any other spiritual or religious organization as I assume you do not mean particularly Christianity and its denominations, the separation of church and state would be violated. One of the fundamental doctrines of the state. While an economically intriguing idea, this is not a good idea. I apologize for taking so long on my response.", "title": "Churches Should be Taxed", "pid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.86439514160156}, {"text": "In this debate resolved, I affirm and stand with the PRO. I ask the CON to please refrain from providing any rebuttals in the second round as it is for the formulation of case statements. I have no parameters for this debate, so I move on toward the iteration of my case: [Thesis]The exemption of churches in the case of taxation violates the First Amendment, contradicts the word of US law considering the nature of churches, and economically comprimises the US defecit. Henceforth, American churches should be taxed. [Contentions]Contention 1: Subsidizing religion violates the First Amendment.Subsidizing churches constitutes the establishment of a religion with consideration that American government is providing special protection and privilages to groups solely intended toward the practice of faith [1]. This action and the practice of it violates the Establishment clause, as shown below. Sub-point 1a: Purpose of the subsidization of churches includes the advancement of religion. The Internal Revenue Service explains the purposes of exemption of taxes in its Code Section 501(c)(3): \"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.\" [2]Sub-point 1b: American governments are favoritist toward churches. The following presents an analysis on the guidelines from the Internal Revenue Service: \"Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. \" [3]Contention 2: Tax exemption of churches is economically compromising.Constitutional arguments aside, tax exemption of churches is also economically compromising with consideration that the property taxes of such institutions can greatly reduce deficits. According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. [4]Contention 3: The nature of churches warrants removal of tax exemptions according to American law. The removal of tax exemptions can be argued legally as well as constitutionally. Sub-point 3a: Many churches are political machines. The United States passed a law in 1954 explaining that institutions that are tax-exempted in no circumstances can support political candidates. \"Every fall, the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, organizes \"Pulpit Freedom Sunday,\" encouraging pastors to defy IRS rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit. More than 500 pastors participated in Oct. 2011, yet none lost their churches' exemption status.\" [5] [1] Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court dissenting opinion, Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, supreme.justia.com, Feb. 10, 1947[2] http://www.irs.gov...;[3] US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (5.1 MB) (publication 1828 (11-2009) Catalog Number 21096G), www.irs.gov, 2009[4] Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, \"The Church of America,\" www.huffingtonpost.com, Oct. 11, 2011[5] Andy Birkey, \"Few Consequences Currently Faced by Pastors Who Endorse from Pulpit,” iowaindependent.com, Oct. 6, 2011", "title": "Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed.", "pid": "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.850830078125}, {"text": "Today, I am proud to propose the topic 'That we should tax religions'. I wish to represent the PRO side. We will argue that religions should be taxed. I expect that my opponent on the CON side will argue that religions should continue to have a tax-exempt status. ==DEFINITIONS== 'We'- America 'Religions'- Organizations that preach about the role of deities [1]. 'Tax'- A government placing a debt onto an individual or company to raise revenue [2]. My model will be as follows: • Religions will be taxed in line with ordinary tax rates for businesses and • Charitable work completed by religions will be tax-exempt. I recognize that as instigator I hold the burden of proof. For this reason, I ask my opponent not to begin his argument until round two. This debate will have four rounds. I thank my opponent in advance and look forward to this debate. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "title": "That we should tax religions.", "pid": "1e5d5fcd-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.85069274902344}, {"text": "INTRO: Yes rich churches have overall a lot of money and are using it wrong I agree that is a problem that must be fixed but there is one thing this resolution forgets to back up and why judge it can\"t be passed. The reason I am going neg today is because I believe the tax exemptions should only be removed from churches that are rich not the poor churches that actually need it. 1.Poor churches need the money \"Not enough to pay off tax emptions \"A lot of smaller churches start out in poorer areas 2.Huge churches don\"t need/ the money use it wrong etc. \"Only 3% to 10% of tax emptions used for charity \"In addition to the lack of transparency, it is vital to consider whether any multi-billion dollar operation, religious or otherwise, should enjoy sweeping tax exemptions on their assets or actually needs it. What exactly does the tax exemption promote if an organization already has more than enough money to run its activities from individual contributions? \"Religious organizations with large entertainment venues. There are churches with pools, skating rinks, bowling alleys, huge gyms, etc. Such things are not required in order to practice your \"faith\". It gives religious groups a very unfair advantage over businesses offering the same services, but which have to pay taxes. \" Also just a little joke thing some of these same tax exempt huge churches claim \"god can pay our taxes\" so if they believe in this they don\"t need these tax exemptions in the first place not to mention they have millions or billions of dollars and they seem to maintain their buildings rather well. 3. Tax exemptions are not justified and poorly monitored There are millions of dollars of undocumented, unclaimed, untaxed church income each year. The figures cannot be accurately calculated by the IRS since most churches do not file the \"voluntary\" paperwork. Preachers are living in million dollar \"church funded\" homes, driving \"church gifted\" Jaguars, and wearing \"church donated\" Rolexes. Whilst enjoying a lavish lifestyle, many are not paying the myriad of taxes that the rest of US citizens are required to pay because church-based money is virtually untouchable, untraceable, and unaccountable. What becomes of the rest of the unaccounted cash millions that filter through the tithing trays? A local church, said to be the largest growing church in America, recently spent $1.2M on Harley Davidson motorcycles as gifts to the top 11 leaders. It is also claimed that they have used over $1M bailing out church members from jail. We are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion \" to the tune of about $71 billion every year. The current laws allow for open money-laundering and tax evasion without the likelihood for consequence or penalty.They have no safeguards to determine how many untaxed dollars are passing though the church doors and officials hands. Once a group claims to be a church, the IRS has no enforcement to determine if any illegal activity occurs unless the evidence is gathered and handed to them first. Although it states that all non-profits must not benefit any individuals, and must not spend a significant amount of time or money lobbying lawmakers, there is currently NO WAY TO DETERMINE, REGULATE, OR PUNISH these illegal behaviors. Major example: Some church leaders have even managed to use the church to hide their assets. For instance, Rev. John Hagee reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San AntonioExpress-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In other words, Hagee hides his millions in assets in his church and escapes taxation on his own personal wealth and property. So yes I agree that rich churches shouldn't have this money but what you have to understand is their are poor churches that doe. I personaly go to one that has about 10 members without tax emptions we wouldn't survive. NOt all churches are good big buildings in fact a lot of Baptist or apostolic or those religions have buildings in poorer areas.", "title": "resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES", "pid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.81002807617188}, {"text": "My opponent has fully forfeited this debate. Vote Con. Thanks.", "title": "Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed.", "pid": "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.7506561279297}, {"text": "Preface: I would ask Pro if the next round, or perhaps the round after, be made the concluding round. This debate will devolve into repetition and nonsense if we go all 5 rounds. Proposition: My Opponent challenged my view that Tax Exemption is natural. However, he does not elaborate further. Therefore, he has effectively left the matter in my favour. What we earn is naturally ours, ergo, to have what is ours taken is not natural, even if necessary. I will follow up later. Counter-Case I: Corporate Tax Summarization: My opponent claims that we will simply label churches as Corporations. Counter: Churches are not Corporations. This is simple, objective fact. Pro can no more relabel them then he could relabel me rich. Pro claims that Churches seek to make money. This means nothing. All charities seek to acquire revenue. What matters is the use of this money. A Corporation will make money to benefit its leaders/shareholders through financial profit. A church seeks to gain revenue in order to benefit everyone else, through charitable means. Ergo, the Churches are in fact Charities, and cannot be labeled as anything else, any more then he can relabel the Salvation Army. To do so in order to expand tax revenue would be a grievous abuse of power, and a sign of a Government that is falling beyond the threshold. No, Churches will be labeled as what they are, Charitable organizations. Pro says Tithes are mandatory, I ask for sources. Social Pressures are also given when charities stand outside walmart, or when we are asked to donate at the register. But this doesn’t change the nature of the charities responsible. No, Pro may be too weak to resist social pressure, but he cannot redefine “Voluntary”. No matter how much pressure is applied, the fact that you can say no (Often times without people knowing) means it is completely voluntary. I, for example, did not give tithe in church today. Conclusion: Pro failed to prove that Churches are Corporations, and merely declared them to be so. Or rather, declared that he would label them Corporations, regardless of what they actually are. Counter-Case II: “Counter-Cases” / “Cases” Summarization: Pro has attempted to attack my Counters, while presented a new case that Churches aren’t Charities. Counter: “When these groups enter society, they give up the right to not be taxed. ” This is one of the most philosophically bankrupt views I have seen in awhile. Again, to keep what we earn is the natural way, and to be taxed is unnatural, if necessary. To act as though taxation is inherent until otherwise said shows a lack of understanding of the nature of taxation. Saying that government withholding tax is a sign of support further shows his flawed philosophy toward taxation. The inability to distinguish between not having our income stolen, and being money suggests he views our money as Government Property, with the money we have left being our allowance. I will allow the Voters to make of this philosophy what they will. Once the smaller Churches begin going under, Pro will then give them a stimulus. This means taking money from wealthier churches, and giving it to smaller churches, to make up for the tax that is now implemented. This is the endorsement of religion the First Amendment is against. This means benefiting the smaller churches at the expense of the large ones (ironically, more so than Pro’s claim that exemption benefits larger churches more). Or perhaps we not tax them at all, and not need to give taxpayer money to Churches. Or they collapse. Then tax revenue is lost. Now no one gets Social Aid. My opponent declares SCOTUS to be the final authority, yet again committing the Appeal to Authority, without giving evidence that they are right. SCOTUS has been wrong before. They are largely an opinion with authority, whereas my sources are academic. I have shown the flaw in their reasoning, Pro has not shown flaw in my sources. Pro says that our education system is underfunded, without source. I have sourced that it is among the most well-funded in the world. All other problems are in administration, and therefore extra funding won’t help. Our SS problems are derived from a broken system. Money will be wasted without change. Pro fails to express how taking the money from a charity, and wasting half of it will benefit us more than just letting the Charity use the money. Paying the debt is no better than war. It is taking more money to pay for the government's own inefficiencies, rather than trying to fix it from the government’s (expenditure) end. Pro fails to show how these churches are not charitable. Rather, he makes the unsubstantiated claim that they “keep a cut for themselves”. What he is referring to is unknown, and thus irrelevant. Any administrative/maintenance/debt costs are normal for charities. They are still Charities. Scientology has a controversial tax status. It has even been revoked because it didn’t meet the requirements to be a non-for-profit Church. {1} Thus Churches can lose status. Pro also mentions that bureaucracy won’t waste the money. I sourced that there was waste. Here is another {2} Conclusion: Pro’s Counters fail to dispel my arguments, and he fails to revive his own. As it stands, his logic is shown to be faulty. Pro says my argument relies on Churches being Charity, but as this is the established fact about Churches, it is actually Pro’s job to show they are not Charities. He has failed in this endeavor, as his statements, when looked at carefully, can be seen to apply to any Charity. His failure to show that churches can even be taxes further defies his claim that taxing them will benefit social programs. He further continues making unsubstantiated claims that adding money to these programs will help, when I have shown the problems are often not financial. Sources: 1} Wikipedia: . http://bit.ly... 2} Slate: . http://slate.me... Case: Long-Term Loss Thesis: I will show here that increasing taxation will only lead to a less successful future, with a dangerous precedent in place, and decreased taxation is prefered. Rationalization: A fact that many people seem not to realize is that taxation harms long term economic growth {3}. With less capital, business/people have less spare income for expansion. This will not change for churches. Their decreased growth will lead to the revenue from them dropping overtime relative to inflation and government spending. Eventually, the Social assistance gained from this tax (which is already less than lost by taxing charities) will further decline relative to had the Churches been able to simply invest the money into expension (something Charities are allowed to do). But worse, is the precedence. After taxing the Churches, the Government will find that it is not enough. Because 71 Billion won’t fix the anything. Instead of fixing their fiscal incompetence, they simply added a tax, on a 501c3 eligible group with strong legal defenses. The precedence is almost certainly set. If it has already been set (very likely given increasing tax/GDP ratio {4}), it will be further enforced. New taxes, expanded taxes. This will lead to slowed economic growth, and cause long-term harm to revenue. If taxes are lowered instead, the economy will grow from increased investment/ease-of-business. The increase in economy will eventually reach a point will more revenue can be brought in with lower and less taxes. A long-term solution, along with fixing the bureaucratic mess, and destroying waste. Far better and more efficient than the short-term solution of taxing more, which will only necessitate (and precedate) further taxation increases. Conclusion: Pro’s economic policies would see decreased economic/church growth, leading to a situation where tax revenues will be lower (relative to inflation) in spite of higher tax rates. Lower taxes and smaller/efficient government is best. Sources: 3} TPC: . http://tpc.io... 4} . http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: Pro fails to resuscitate his arguments, often merely repeating them without further elaboration. He fails to realize that simply referring to SCOTUS’ position doesn’t justify their claims. Pro doesn’t really make any headway against my claims, beyond relying on the notion that he can tax them as something they aren’t (Corporations). And if they don’t fit the classification, he’ll tax them as such anyhow. This doesn’t work, and Pro failed to show Churches to be anything but Charities, as his descriptions of the churches are little different than other Charities once analyzed. Perhaps most crippling is Pro revealing his faulty philosophy toward taxation, implying that theft of our earned money is natural, and to be allowed to keep all of our earned income is a gift from government. This is a dangerous notion. Pro may not have stated this philosophy word-for-word, but the implication is there. Especially, when he says not having our money taken is the same as being given money. This is a stockholmesque view. Taxation is Theft. Taxation is necessary, but it is theft. It must be done carefully, and every single effort must be made to keep it as low as possible. If government fails in this endeavour, and choses to keep raising tax, then it must be seen as an aggressive parasite to our economic system, taking more, and giving less. Pro would prefer this parasite, because his disdain for religion justifies expanded taxation on charities simply due to their religious nature. {5/6} Sources: 5} . http://bit.ly... 6} Mises: . http://bit.ly...", "title": "Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation.", "pid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.7472381591797}, {"text": "Since my opponent forfeited, I\"ll be brief. The reason they should be taxed differently is because, unlike social clubs, churches are charitable. This is evident in the requirements for their respective classifications. Whether you agree with the benefits derived from the charity the church makes (missions, absolution, peace of mind, counseling, soup kitchens, etc.), they still have a mission to improve the world, in their eyes. Social clubs do not have that pre-requisite, therefore, they are not the same, and should not be compelled to be treated equally. http://www.irs.gov... www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations", "title": "Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs.", "pid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.7204132080078}, {"text": "In this debate, both individuals will argue that churches should or should not be taxed like other organizations. The debate is to be determined by whichever person has outlined better points for their case. Round 1: Acceptance (Only type that you accept the challenge) Round 2: Argument (State your point / No referencing or rebutting Pro's Argument) Round 3: Rebuttal (Rebut each others Round 2: Arguments) Round 4: Conclusion (Conclude your argument) I wish my opponent the best of luck.", "title": "Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government.", "pid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.69879150390625}, {"text": "Wow. I believe I have lost this debate. I am going to forfeit; there is no way I can beat you, stubborn as I am. I believe the evidence you have put forth has put me in a position that I can only help but see that your point is stronger than mine. Congratulations.", "title": "Churches Should be Taxed", "pid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.67156982421875}, {"text": "Argument 1: Tax exemption constitutes an endorsement of religion. Tax exemptions give these institutions more money. This is a simple fact. Regan v. Taxation with Representation (US Supreme Court) decided that a tax exemption has the same effect as a cash grant. This is unconstitutional. Argument 2: Tax exemption favors larger churches, which are often predatory. This credit varies from church to church. Your average church may pull in a good amount, but definitely not as much as Kenneth Copeland's church worth hundreds of millions of dollars. A larger amount of money would be taken from his church if it was taxed than your average church. This means the bigger churches (which don't need help) are helped more. Sadly, these big churches are often the predatory ones, taking money from sick people in exchange for a promise of healing that never comes. Argument 3: We need the money Source 1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Source 2: http://bigthink.com... According to source 1, churches have $300-500,000,000,000 in untaxed property. According to source 2, this could make us $71 billion per year. This could have paid for the war in Vietnam. This can pay for free college tuition (estimated cost $60 billion per year). This could be channeled into social security to increase benefits or to be saved for the future. It could be used to help the drastically underfunded VA. This money could be used for so many things that are a good for all of society.", "title": "Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation.", "pid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 216.6681671142578}, {"text": "My opponent has just spent most of his last round argument agreeing with me and providing information to support my argument, with an end note that poor churches should still get exemptions because they need the money. I would argue that the church money should be spread out within each faith. If a baptist church in one region is struggling, why not get aid from the multimillion dollar baptist church across town? Why should it be up to the government to aid one failing church when others of the same group are doing far more than surviving? My opponent actually failed to address any of my arguments in the previous round, aside from the ones he supported, so my arguments still stand, awaiting rebuttals. I will clarify one argument that I made that I believe needs to be addressed. There is no one faith that accounts for the majority of the population. Christianity cannot be counted as a single faith, since groups like Catholics, Protestants and Mormons all fall under Christianity and they are all run by completely separate organizations. And even under Protestants, which is the largest group in America, there are so many divisions that disagree on so many fundamental issues. So why would the majority of non-believers of any specific faith want their tax dollars going towards funding a religion that they disagree with. Especially people who are directly impacted or even attacked by members of those churches, like homosexuals or women who get abortions. If the government funded a group, using your tax dollars, that stripped rights away from you, would you want to keep paying for that group? If church groups want to spread their word around, they need to do it with their own money that they collect. It should not be up to the government to ensure that churches have enough money to keep spreading the word. That money should go to more important things like scientific research on health and climate that offer evidence, proof and results rather than a promise of eternal salvation that can never actually be confirmed as a real service beyond helping some people feel less nervous about death, while terrifying many others with a threat of eternal damnation.", "title": "resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES", "pid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.65695190429688}, {"text": "Assuming Churches count as NPO(non-profit organisations) they should be taxed in the same ways. All other organizations (like corporations, including non-profits) pay taxes on everything, profits, franchise tax, business license tax, property tax, payroll tax. Churches are often a big part of communities in America, they typically use a lot of the communities resources, occupying large areas of land and real estate that they do not have to pay tax on. The amount of property owned by churches is vast compare to any other single co-operation, if the churches were to pay only this tax alone the personal property taxes you and I pay would go down considerably, many tons and cities property tax rates would drop and lets be honest, the government would have a LOT more income. Not only are churches using vast amounts of land they are not paying tax for, they also use the services paid for by tax payers, why is it fair churches get the same treatment by police, fire departments and schools that us ta payers do, when they provide nothing towards it? However you may claim churches to be non-profit, they still collect money and revenue in many forms, donations, events, fund-raisers, trips, selling merchandise (whether they pay sales tax on this I am not sure, I think it may vary church-to-church and depending on the merchandise) at the end of the day, successful churches such as those run by the Baptists and Catholics make millions, many churches in my area have their own gyms, libraries, day cares and swimming pools, they also seem to afford excessive trips and camps. Where does all this money come from and why is none of it going back into the economy? You may claim that it is being put to good use for the churchgoers to use these facilities, but what about atheists like me, or people from non-Christian organisations? Religious affiliations only remain tax-exempt if the government sees the religion as legitimate. At the end of the day everyone would benefit from Churches paying tax; they are such a huge part of the American society and the gain a lot of revenue (whether they are meant to or not! ) Every other organisation has to claim their earnings, there is no reason churches should be exempt.", "title": "Churches should be taxed.", "pid": "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.65333557128906}, {"text": "My opponent forfeited the previous round. Extend arguments.", "title": "Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed.", "pid": "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.64566040039062}, {"text": "I agree with my opponent\"s definitions. I disagree with their proposition II which states that the natural state is not being taxed. Rather, churches are corporations, not charities, which are subject to tax. This is how I plan to implement the resolution, by changing churches\" status to that of a corporation. First, let\"s look at what a corporation is through looking at what it attempts to do. A corporation\"s goal is to make money [1]. This is exactly what religion has done since the dawn of time. Since ancient Mesopotamia and before, religions have required sacrifices of property to be part of said religion, sometimes enforced at gunpoint. This isn\"t the case now in most of the world, but let\"s take churches in America as an example. The collection box, basket, etc. is passed around in front of sometimes the entire town. This incredible social pressure combined with the fact that many religions command a tithe make it so that \"donation\" is not truly voluntary. You pay for the service of religion. This is how religion has been viewed by the cynical upper class for millennia, and why the cynical upper class proselytizes. Thus, the burden of proof is on both of us. I must prove that churches are corporations (see above) and my opponent must either prove they are not or that churches must be an exception to other corporations. 1-http://www.investopedia.com... Counter-Case I My opponent makes the point that allowing groups to keep money doesn\"t count as an endorsement. That is EXACTLY what it is. When these groups enter society, they give up the right to not be taxed. When the government chooses not to act on this, it shows the government is in support of the group. Thus, the government is neutral towards the private citizen and the corporation, but not to the charity. My opponent called my use of the SCOTUS an appeal to authority, but if that\"s an appeal to authority, so is every source we both used. The SCOTUS decides what the Constitution means. They decided that the government giving money to a lobbying church is no different from tax exemption [2]. I take that line of reasoning to its inevitable conclusion and say that the government giving money to a church is no different than a tax exemption. My opponent claims that our money doesn\"t start as the government\"s to take. Rather, when a group such as a church enters a democratic government, they give the government permission to tax them, as I note above. My opponent also makes the claim that small churches could fall under and fail. So what? The government can then provide an economic stimulus as it would to any other business, or let it file for bankruptcy or die. The government is in no position to keep a failing business afloat. If so many would go under, though, churches can utilize tax credits given to small businesses once classified as them. My opponent then points out that we shouldn\"t take money from the rich simply because they are rich. That\"s not what I\"m saying. I\"m saying that 30% of a million is more than 30% of a thousand. We are allowing these large, predatory churches to grow exponentially, leaving the smaller churches (often the ones doing the charity work my opponent references) in the dust, thus incentivizing churches to adopt this model. 2-https://en.wikipedia.org... Counter-case II First, Con discounts my source because it\"s a blog. Well, the Washington Post puts the number possibly higher while referencing the same study. [3] Con talks about bureaucratic waste and how funneling more money in to programs doesn\"t solve that. First, our education system is worse than others not because of bureaucracy but because of a lack of funding for poor schools and because our focus on testing and curriculum sucks. However, college is a different sort of thing. Our universities are some of the best in the world. [4] More money helps more people access them. On social security, Con points out it is well funded by the payroll tax. I don\"t dispute that. But Con\"s source points out that some people may be entitled to as few as around 10,000 dollars per year. That\"s less than the poverty line, which is already too low. This money could be used to increase their benefits. On the Vietnam War, that comes from the standpoint of the Ford or Carter administration which wants to offset the damage done. The examples Pro gives of bureaucracy gone awry aren\"t where the money will go, and so the bureaucracy isn\"t the problem here. Hell, the money could simply be used to pay off the debt! 3- https://www.washingtonpost.com... 4- https://www.timeshighereducation.com... Case The Con\"s case rests on the church being a charity. A church\"s motivation is not to be a charity, nor does being a church necessitate charitability. Take Scientology. Not exactly a charity. It exists to make money. Even the smaller churches which may be genuine in their efforts to be charitable take a cut for themselves, and the charity is merely an additional \"product\" they sell to their members who want to be charitable. Join the church, pay a tithe, and you can be charitable. When something exists to make money, and second help their consumers, it is no longer a charity; it is a corporation, and ought to be treated as such. Conclusion We need to implement this resolution through making churches considered corporations because that\"s what they are, not charities. We can use this money to fund things listed above, or countless others.", "title": "Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation.", "pid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.63522338867188}, {"text": "Preface: I am OK if we make the 3rd round the final round. Proposition: My challenge is what Con referred to later, which is my statement that joining society necessitates being taxed (essentially). I will rebut their attack to that here. One thing Con notes is that my philosophy treats money as the government's. In a literal sense, yes it is. All currency is government property, and the government is the only thing giving the dollar, pound, yen, etc. any value. However, that's probably not what Con referred to (I make that argument in case it was). The government needs money to run. No dispute there by Con. That money must come in the form of taxes. Taxing certain arbitrary groups more or less than others is unnatural. Ergo, taxing churches removes the arbitrary distinction (I will show the arbitrary distinction later when I defend my point that churches are businesses, thus validating my point here). Corporate Tax To quote Con, \"a corporation will make money to benefit its leaders/shareholders through financial profit.\" Well, most churches do this. The church leaders are paid a salary. This salary is generally proportional to the income of a church, just as with a business. In fact, the church leaders are the only group always benefited by a church. Con says a church seeks to benefit everyone else through charitable means. Nothing about being a church NECESSITATES this. None of the ones I went to growing up did such a thing. Let's remind ourselves that the purpose of a church is to be a place for worship or other religious activities, and that religion is not necessarily charitable. I had assumed that it was common knowledge that some churches require a tithe. This well off church [1] (I assume they're well off if they have a website) requires tithing. The social pressures go beyond merely standing outside of Walmart, but it often goes further in places like Utah. These ex-Mormons tell of how much one has to lose by leaving the church (and thus it loses financial support) [2]. 1-http://www.tfh.org... 2-http://exmormon.org... Counter-cases Con claims an economic stimulus constitutes an endorsement of religion. True, it creates an excessive entanglement, which is why it only should be given if the government can ensure it is solely used for secular purposes, and why I said it \"could\" be used. My preferred solution is simply allowing them to take advantage of small business tax credits. It shouldn't be any worse if a church goes under than if a bakery goes under. The so-called appeal to authority in this case is justified. Why? Because the argument the SCOTUS makes is justified by my earlier argument about taxation being the natural state. On the education system being underfunded, I meant that it is not evenly funded. It is often funded through property taxes (common knowledge), meaning that schools in poor areas are worse. Con claims the social security system is broken. Con doesn't show how, and SS is certainly working fine now. Con also says that paying the debt is no better than war. This is simply wrong. The problem exists. Reducing spending stops it, and begins to slowly chip away. More money helps solve it, or slows it down until Congress can get its act together. On the DoD waste, Con's source notes that the Pentagon is already working to get rid of the waste, and the money can still be used elsewhere. Economic growth Con's own source says that tax cuts harm the economy-essentially, a really low tax rate also harms the economy. This means there's a sweet spot-probably between 25 and 40 percent, which is where it's been for the Obama and Clinton administrations, which have had sustainable economic growth [common knowledge]. Thus, the current business tax rate is a lot closer to the sweet spot of economic growth than 0%. Conclusion Vote Pro to protect the separation of church and state, to give the government more money it can use, to call churches what they are (businesses), and because it will stimulate the economy, contrary to the Con's arguments.", "title": "Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation.", "pid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.63412475585938}, {"text": "Even though my opponent forfeited, I'll still see what I can pick apart from her arguments.Notice that not once throughout my opponent's main arguments did she ever distinguish between a church and a non-profit organization. In that light, she also failed to provide you a single reason to vote Pro.As I said in my opening argument, churches are like non-profit organizations, which provide benefits to the community as a whole without being taxed for it. My opponent didn't even try to argue against this in her opening argument, possibly because she, as well as I, acknowledge all of the good that can come out of a local church.The problem with my opponent's case is that she doesn't realize that taxing a church will simply discourage it from providing these benefits to the community. People who work at churches or even people who volunteer are already taxed at an individual level. This poses a problem for taxing the churches, as Professor Dean Kelly writes in his book \"To tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be ‘double taxation’ indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the upbuilding of the fabric of democracy.\"[1] And what does this mean? If churches spend less time helping the community, who picks up the slack? Either the government does so, which ultimately means more taxes for all of us, or nobody picks it up at all. Both situations are undesirable and completely avoidable by not taxing churches in the first place.Looking at my opponent's arguments, all I can really see are complaints about what the churches have. So what if churches own land? So what if they have facilities on this land? Pro hasn't given you a single reason as to why these are even bad things, except for that some people feel like they can't use those facilities.The last sentence the Pro says is the most fallacious of all: \"Religious affiliations only remain tax-exempt if the government sees the religion as legitimate.\" Looking at my opening argument, you can see this is blatantly false. The IRS outlines specific guidelines that the church must follow in order for it to remain tax exempt. Believe it or not, there ARE churches that are not tax-exempt, because they choose not to follow those guidelines. But what my opponent said about churches \"making millions\" was REALLY true (and we have no reason to believe this without a proper citation), they wouldn't qualify for tax-exemption in the first place.Thus, this resolution has been negated.Citations(s):1. http://www.opposingviews.com...", "title": "Churches should be taxed.", "pid": "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.60960388183594}, {"text": "My opponent is obviously confused about the resolution so I will post it again. Resolved: remove tax exemptions from ALL religious institutions in the US so I will add a observation to clarify what this means Observation: Basically all the con has to do is to show why not ALL churches should have tax exemptions removed definition of all: the whole amount, quantity, or extent of Just incase my opponent is still confused. I set this resolution like this on purpose (its based off a congress bill) but anyway all con has to do is show why not ALL churches should lose tax exemptions. In other words I can just say only rich churches should have tax exemptions removed but not poor churches or vice-versa. So yeah I agree with pro that rich churches shouldn't have tax exemptions, but I believe poor churches should so they can become a bigger church. As I pointed out a lot of these poor churches are also in poor communities so cannot receive as much of a offering and not donations. As I pointed out I go to one of these churches and we survive due to tax exemptions which is why I believe on RICH CHURCHES SHOULD HAVE TAX EMPTIONS REMOVED. Rich churches only use 3% to 10% of tax exemptions for charity anyway and they use the rest to get things like pools and basketball goals that other business have to pay taxes for but poor churches don't so I belive they should be allowed to have tax exemptions.", "title": "resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES", "pid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.5806884765625}, {"text": "I accept the challenge. I will pursue the position that Churches of all religions should not be taxed by the government.", "title": "Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government.", "pid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.57882690429688}, {"text": "Perhaps my opponent has merely forgotten to reply. I will check the comments section should he place his rebuttal there.", "title": "Churches Ought not be Taxed", "pid": "b80912ea-2019-04-18T17:08:58Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.51156616210938}, {"text": "Extend.", "title": "Should Churches Pay Taxes", "pid": "7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.482421875}, {"text": "Extend.", "title": "Should Churches Pay Taxes", "pid": "7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.482421875}, {"text": "So, I will let Pro start. I am offering the following definitions: \"Private non-profit clubs\" - will be known as social clubs, and subject to 501 (c) (7) categorization. Churches will be categorized as a 501 (c) (3). Con stipulates that laws vary from state to state, which means that in some states, a church may or may not be treated differently. For the purposes of this debate, we shall assume there is indeed different tax implications for each category. As such, we will focus on the federal (IRS) definitions of these non-profits for this debate, since if the IRS says they are tax-exempt, they are for state purposes as well (whatever that entails). The debate is over whether social clubs ought to be treated equally to churches for ALL tax purposes. Good luck to Pro. If Pro does not agree to these terms, say so in the next round, and we will quickly end the debate in a tie, thus allowing Pro to issue a new challenge without revealing his hand.", "title": "Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs.", "pid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.48101806640625}, {"text": "Religious institutions are not created to be Tex-Exempt, ergo taxation is needed to stimulate the economy as well as to ensure no fraud is being perpetrated from these institutions. \"With the smallest Catholic Churches in America seeing money in the range of $350,500.00/month cross their nose, fraud and scams run rampant. Thus taxation is the one sure fire way to keep them honest. This won't be used to target strictly Catholics. Muslim mosques, Jewish sinnogaues(Spelling error, my bad), and other types of religious establishments will be taxed as is seen fit by the IRS. \" said Iowa Senator Jenna Hurst(L) at a 2013 conference. This will be the backbone of my argument and following contentions. I anxiously await your response and any questions you may have.", "title": "remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S.", "pid": "ca561f99-2019-04-18T15:37:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.47109985351562}, {"text": "My opponent forfeited yet another round. Extend my arguments further.", "title": "Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed.", "pid": "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.46533203125}, {"text": "Preface: Pro has agreed to make this the final round. Thus, no further Cases or Counter-Cases will be made (except in regard to new information he releases), instead currently standing Cases and Counter-Cases will be defended. In turn, both Debaters will merely Sign further Rounds, not Post Cases/Counter-Cases. Proposition: Nature of Taxation Pro admits straight out that he perceives all our money to be Government property. This is against the very nature of US governance philosophy. The Government does not own us or our property, we own the government. No, our property is our own, not leased to us by government. This includes our money. My hard work doesn’t give me revenue leased to me. It gives wealth which belongs to me, and me alone {1}. He suggests a defense is government minting. No, this is a service of government, owed to us, as we own the government. The government is not a this-for-that organization. It is here purely to protect, and provide certain things. We pay taxes out of necessity, not because the government is entitled to our wealth. Beyond this, no other substantiation is given to support this radical change is economic philosophy. It is for the Voter to decide from here if they buy my opponents view, and how it further affects their views. I will point out that highly Pro’s cases are dependent on his views of Money of property of Government. Sources: 1} FEE: http://bit.ly... Counter-Case I: Corporate Tax Summarization: Pro continues his claim that Churches are corporations, simply by saying that pay workers. Counter: Pro claims that Churches are corporations because they pay their workers. As I’ve said before, all charities pay their workers too {2}. He claims churches aren’t always charitable. As I’ve earlier said, Churches can lose their tax exemption, such as Scientology. I will further comment that these church workers do pay income tax. Pro sources that Tithes are sometimes required, however nowhere in his sources is this shown to be required. In fact, his Source 2 deals entirely with “Exit Costs”, and admits there are no financial exit costs. There are “social costs” as Mormonism is a sub-culture, and leaving the sub-culture means losing a lot of the friends and family in that culture. This tends to be the same in all cultures/sub-cultures. Pro’s sources don’t show that the actual religion forces any tithing. The Source makes this clear. Voters should go through those sources to confirm. Sources: 2} http://bit.ly... Counter-Case II: “Counter-Case” / “Cases” Summarization: Pro has made several claims, which I shall debunk here. Counter: Pro admits that economic stimulus is endorsement, and therefore is unconstitutional. He further moves to claim that SBTCs could be used. Is that not also endorsement, since they are being given advantage? To say a charity going under is as bad as a business going under in the name of increased revenue is a flawed notion. I will allow Voters to decide how their view these statements. Pro continues claiming that Scotus is right because they said so. Again, Appeal to Authority, as them merely saying something is so doesn’t make it so. If they say our money is government property and taxation is natural, but my statements show the flaws in their views, then that means SCOTUS is wrong, until proven correct subsequently by Pro. Pro failed to show them to be correct, because merely sighting their “authority”. Ergo, he is using an Appeal to Authority.Pro actually claims SS is working fine. By this reasoning, there is no need to further fund them. He says Education is unevenly funded. So instead of evening the funding, he will prefer to increase the budget unnecessarily. This is the very same inefficiency creating the fiscal issue of government. Pro ends his counter-case by saying that the DODs waste could be spent elsewhere. This is largely the point of my statements. Streamline, Restructure, and Show respect for the money the government takes from us. Don’t increase taxes.No, increasing taxation to pay for the debt, rather than simply decreasing expense, is a flawed and philosophically bankrupt notion. Additionally, the debt is not serviced in the way Pro seems to think. We pay interest for a set amount of time until a bond is repaid. Effectively, we need not increase the money going to this interest (in fact, doing so would hurt our credit rating, as people buy debt in order to make a profit. Paying too fast lowers the profit by lowering yearly interests, hurting incentive to purchase bonds). Yes, my source mentions that the deficit increase can hurt the economy. Not the Tax Cut. The Increased deficit. We need merely reduce the expenditure, as I’ve said several times, through increased efficiency and smaller government. Done right, this will lead to decreased or only slightly altered deficits. Thus the cause of economic slowdown will not be present, and lowered taxation will be able to increase GDP growth. As the economy grows, our revenue will ultimately grow, even with lowered taxation. Increased long-term revenue, with decreased expenditure, will eventually diminish the deficit to such as a point that the debt will shrink, perhaps not in absolute numbers, but as a percent of GDP (the current measurement for judging debt). Best Case Scenario, the deficit eventually vanishes as tax revenue increases (from economic growth, not tax rate increase) and expenditure decreases. Obama’s economy, according to Pro, was a success. In reality, his unsourced statement is wrong. Economic growth was less than exciting. Their GDP growth was 2.1% average, much less than the 2.8% average from the preceding 28 years. This is highlighted by the fact that the average for the 28 years included 2 major recessions, and some smaller recessions {3}. Additionally, workforce participation (better than simple “unemployment” charts, which include people who have stopped looking {4}) has decreased under Obama. {5 / 6} Relatively poor economic growth is a sign of issues with Obama’s economic policy. As Pro has failed to list charts or sources, I have nothing further to debunk on this count.As for Clinton, a lot of his success came from reduced expenditure growth, leading to a lower expenditure/gdp ratio {7}. Many point out that he also increased taxes, however as Forbes and Heritage points out, the economic growth actually increased after turning around and cutting taxes a few years in {8 / 9}. It was the growth after this point which was substantial enough to give Clinton his above-average growth. So while Pro says we saw economic growth under Clinton, the reality is that this growth came from decreased relative spending, and in the end, decreased taxes. As Pro failed to present either charts or sources, there is nothing further to say. Basically, as I’ve been saying, the answer is increased efficiency and smaller government, combined with lower taxes, not larger. His comment in the conclusion basically says we should designate Churches as something other than what they are for the Tax Revenue, actually saying it protects Separation of Church and State, when it actually compromises it by giving Government power over Church money, and creating “excessive entanglements” (to quote Pro). He says these entanglements can be avoided by requiring “secular” use of the money. The government created Secularization of Churches is a sign of compromising Separation of Church and State. No, Separation of Church and State is created by not taxing at all. He says it will give the Government more money to use, I say it gives them more money to waste. And eventually they will decide they need even more money to waste. What Charity will they reclassify next? Sources: 3} Realclear Markets: http://bit.ly... 4} Forbes: http://bit.ly... 5} BLS: http://bit.ly... 6} Politifact: http://bit.ly... 7} Tax Foundation: http://bit.ly... 8} Forbes: http://bit.ly... 9} Heritage: http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: Pro has failed to substantiate that Churches are corporations, or to defy my Cases that Churches are Charities. In fact, the subject of the Church makes up only a small part of his Round. Nothing else he mentions matters unless he can prove that Churches can be taxed. He hasn’t. He has failed to show that Churches could lose 501C3 status, or that there is any grounds to remove Religious Tax Exemption. In light of this failure, nothing further about the use of the money matters, and actually suggests a desire to compromise Separation of Church and State and a gross breach of government/taxpayer faith by fraudulently miscategorizing Organizations, for nothing other than increased revenue.The fact is, Pro’s views are founded in his Extreme Authoritarian notion that our Financial Property belong to the Government, which ultimately means our very lives are Government Property (without money, we have nothing). This is flawed and dangerous. It is against the very nature of a free nation, and is not compatible with any Western World. This is made worse if we support his idea that we can give false categorization to increase taxes, which gives further power to government to own us, as they need not even follow their own rules. If his views of our money are not adopted, his arguments entirely fall through. His cases rely on this Economic/Political Philosophy, and cannot survive without it (and barely survives with it).I remind Pro at this point that, per our agreement, he must not post any further arguments from here on. He can only sign the next two Rounds, as this is the final debate round. I have refrained from posting new Cases, and merely defended my already stated Cases/Counters, adding new Counters only in regard to his new statements. Any Cases/Counters/Defenses Pro attempts to post will be disregarded, per this agreement. Taxation is Theft. Vote Con. ==Unitomic==", "title": "Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation.", "pid": "9a66988-2019-04-18T12:07:13Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.4462432861328}, {"text": "thanks for debating with me :)", "title": "Churches Should be Taxed", "pid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.42025756835938}, {"text": "'It is said that death and tax are the only two certainties in life, it's ironic the church dodge both these, the latter quite literally.R John'The anti-theist group I am part of on facebook posted this quote and it really made me want to find out your views on the fact churches are not taxed! I would like to make it clear that I am refering to American churches when I say this. I shall be Pro; Chruches should be taxed. Please no trolling, thank you.", "title": "Churches should be taxed.", "pid": "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.4123077392578}, {"text": "Removing the tax exempt status of churches and religious groups reflects their business-like character. If they are not really serving the community as a whole, they should be held to the same laws that businesses are. The pastor, rabbi, or priest is a CEO. He should pay taxes on his organization to help the Federal Government feed the poor. Particularly if his church is not doing that on its own. There is something wrong when the Federal Government is doing more for the low-income class than the religious groups who bark the loudest about the motivation for doing so. Making them like a normal business in tax world would make sure that they are paying their fair share and not having an unequal market advantage. It would force them to compete better. Churches that are incompetent would fold. Many foolish people would have more time on their hands to actually help their brothers and sisters in their community. Much better than paying your pastor to brainwash you with his interpretation of an ancient religious book he does not really want to obey.", "title": "Forces Clergy to the Same Standard as Average Joe", "pid": "af414960-2019-04-19T12:47:32Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 216.390625}, {"text": "Religious organizations, in my opinion, should not pay taxes from church collections and other donations. Money gotten through collections and donations has already been taxed (it comes from a group of people who have already have been taxed). Additionally, the majority of the money gained through collections and donations is used in the purpose of helping others (examples include Haiti, earthquakes, money used to organize soup kitchens, and so on). Additionally, you will note that in certain countries, such as Ireland, 85%[1] of the population attends church. That would mean the Church in Ireland does have significant impact on the population. Religious individuals, on the other hand, should be taxed. I don't believe that it is fair reverends who earn proceeds through televised programs ought to be allowed to keep any of it, or if they would be allowed, then that income ought to be taxed. Any actual business (such as mass selling, investments, and so on, also ought to be taxed as it is a method of earning). Collections and donations should not be taxed as they are gifts. I apologize in advance for any spelling and/or grammar mistakes and for unclear sentences. Additionally, I apologize for having such a short counter-argument, however, I am short on time. I beg your understanding. [1]http://www.nationmaster.com...", "title": "Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status", "pid": "8a799a1-2019-04-18T19:04:58Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.38377380371094}, {"text": "P1: According to the the first amendment of the United States Constitution, the congress further states the protection of right to peaceably assemble, that is an individual right to come together and collectively express,promote,pursue, and defend common interests,including the freedom of expression. In which Churches are a group of people that assembles through the given rights to gather for their common belief(interest) and is also given the rights to share their expression of belief as well.For this reason,by law,churches are considered as non-profit organizations that have no direct interference with the government,therefore has the rights of tax-exemptions. P2: The congress is not discriminating by giving tax breaks to churches but rather because of tax-exemptions on religious organizations,the congress is executing the established constitution of rights to individuals fairly, allowing the freedom of assembly. C: Tax breaks should not end for religious organizations. Source: http://aclj.org...", "title": "End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations", "pid": "7a73d7d7-2019-04-18T16:29:54Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.3765106201172}, {"text": "Premise: Not all religious organizations enjoys tax breaks, only those our government deems legitimate. Premise: The way in which the government chooses which religious organizations to not tax seems unfair. Conclusion: Therefore, all churches should have to pay government taxes", "title": "End tax breaks for religious organizations", "pid": "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.34927368164062}, {"text": "The separation of church and state would not be as severly violated as it has been in the past. Kentucky has given out Bibles in public schools, a family of Jewish children was repeatedly harassed after complaining about the promotion of Christian beliefs in their school. One of the students was forced to write an essay on \"Why Jesus Loves Me.\" The taxation of churches and other religious institutions would not be as severe as forcing the beliefs of Christianity onto Jews or Muslims. As I said, it would only be .5% taxation. Then they could go on their merry way and do whatever they want with the rest. It's no secret churches have abusing extra money and such. I'm not saying all churches are, just some. Also, the government is not intruding on the ceremonies of the religious, just collecting money. We're not shutting the churches down, we're just taxing them very little.Source: http://archive.adl.org...", "title": "Churches Should be Taxed", "pid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.34194946289062}, {"text": "Thank you so much! You were a good opponent and had a good idea. Just happens to be against the law. whoops. Thank you again!", "title": "Churches Should be Taxed", "pid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.3303680419922}, {"text": "Oh well.", "title": "Churches Ought not be Taxed", "pid": "b80912ea-2019-04-18T17:08:58Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.31692504882812}, {"text": "It seems my opponent has failed to provide any form of rebuttal against my arguments. Very well, I will proceed. I. Property TaxThe Walz decision The U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1, upheld the tax exemption of churches in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). Walz, a self-described Christian who did not belong to any church and owned real estate in Richmond County, N.Y., sued the tax committee over property tax exemption for churches. Walz claimed he and other taxpayers were forced to indirectly subsidize churches.The majority decision, written by Chief Justice Burger, held that the tax exempt status granted to all houses of worship is the same privilege given to other nonprofits organizations:\"The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its 'moral or mental improvement,' should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for non payment of taxes. It [397 U.S. 664 , 673] has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. Source: http://ffrf.org...Importantly, my opponent failed to inform the audience that the so-called luxury home was built using the pastors personal money that he earned from book sales and paid personal appearances around the world. The pastor himself is known as a \"rock star\" of the community with a congregation of roughly 14,000 every week. Furthermore, even though his private home has absolutely nothing to do with the property tax exemption argument my opponent is trying to make, his church has contributed over ten million dollars to the community. This is all within the last eight years. Not only does the amount of ten million dollars in eight years dwarf the amount my opponent is trying to use as an argument, but it also is far more than that community would have received via government spending going-back-to-the-community.Source: http://www.wcnc.com...II. Sales TaxA sales tax is something that can be avoided by most non-profit organizations, not just churches. So to claim \"avoiding\" a sales tax as necessarily a bad thing, perhaps we should also be targeting the boy/girl scouts, or the local gardening club or even our local charity fundraisers. Furthermore, sales tax exemption is a very fine line usually defined on the State level of politics. This implies that your math is incorrect in the sense that not only is your portrayal of an 8.25% sale tax something that isn't verifiable without sources but also that not every state permits every church sales tax exemption. Furthermore, while churches might be exempt from sales taxes in certain states - depending on their legal status, they might be subject to paying a \"franchise\" tax. Thus, in reality, churches aren't always as 'tax-free' as my opponent is implying.III. Capital Gains Tax Once again, my opponent made the mistake of attempting to claim that when churches sell 'stuff' they don't pay capital gains tax. This tax law has several exceptions that even require churches to pay taxes in certain situation. For clarification on those situations I have provided some information: Property used for exempt purposes. Any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property used for the exempt purposes of the foundation is not included in figuring the tax on net investment income. If the foundation uses property for its exempt purposes, but also inci­dentally receives income from the property that is subject to the net investment income tax, any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property would not be subject to the tax. For example, if a tax-exempt private foundation maintains historic buildings that are open for public inspection, but it requires a number of employees to live in these buildings and charges rent, the rent is subject to the tax on net invest­ment income, but any gain or loss resulting from the sale of these buildings is not subject to the tax. However, if a private foundation uses prop­erty both for exempt purposes and (other than incidentally) for investment purposes, (for exam­ple, a building in which the foundation’s charita­ble and investment activities are carried on) that part of the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property that is allocable to the investment use of the property must be taken into account in figuring the tax on net investment income. Source: http://www.irs.gov...Considering that the mall leases space to for-profit companies such as Forever 21, they will not be exempt from capital gains tax. The only real point my opponent can make in the case of the mall is that it was built property tax free, but as with the previous example - the money returned to the local community by the church itself has far outweighed the money 'lost' by tax exemptions. IV. Absolute claims made by OpponentIn closing, my opponent made the bold statement: Churches do not have to account for where their money is spent, unlike any other organization. Blatantly, churches are given extra brakes and exemptions that no other organization is offered.This is far from accurate. As I have shown above, it is not just churches that do not have to account for where their money is spent - but rather, most non-profit organizations enjoy the same benefits of tax-exempt status as churches. The claim made by my opponent is baseless and completely false. While I can agree with my opponent that separation of church and state does not mean churches should go unchecked, it most certainly means that church and state are to remain separated. By allowing the taxation of churches we are doing nothing more than removing that degree of separation that has been necessary to maintain the balance between the two dominating forces. What history has proven, if anything, is that cycles of the past are unknowingly repeated - we must not allow that to happen once more. My only hope is that, once again, I have not failed in reflecting the importance of keeping churches tax free, and ultimately - free from external influence or governance.", "title": "Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government.", "pid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.22201538085938}, {"text": "I thank Zwatt for the opportunity to debate this topic. Since my opponent has made opening round arguments, this gives me licence to open with arguments, too. I am going, at least initially, to use the United States as an example of why churches should not pay taxes. Negation Case A1: The First Amendment In the United States, “the First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances” [1]. It would violate the U.S constitution to infringe upon the free exercise of religion. It would also violate the right to freedom of expression (freedom of speech) in that the government could shut down or reprimand a church that defaults on their payments, which would not allow them freedom to expression. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the US Supreme Court found this very conclusion to be the just one: “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” [3]. Violating the constitution strips humans of their basic human rights, which are natural and require good arguments to explain why they should be infringed upon. A2: Churches are not-for-profit Not-for-profit organisations are not taxed because they are not charging for a service. You can attend your local church, receive a service and not pay a dime. Yes, there are collection bowls, but you are not required to give anything, unlike a business wherein you will not be served if you do not pay. So, my opponent’s claims of “religion in general is a multi-billion dollar business” is incorrect, for religion does not register as a business. Religion meets the ‘tax-exemption’ requirements of 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and hence classifies as a not-for-profit organisation [2]. Therefore, taxing churches would violate this religious legislation which exists to protect not-for-profit organisations since not-for-profit organisations contribute to the public’s wellbeing without charging a price. What my opponent is suggesting is equivalent to taxing charities which also fall under the tax exemption of 501 (c)(3). A3: Disadvantaged and poor people rely on assistance from churches If churches were to be taxed, churches would suffer according to Vincent Becker (Monignor at the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, “[his church] base[s] all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings” [4]. In effect, what this will mean is that the once charitable services performed by the churches would now be eliminated or delegated to local governments. A4: Church members who donate will be taxed twice First, there will be an initial income taxing for the members, Then, the money that is donated will be taxed again the church is taxed. Why is it fair to tax these institutions twice? A5: Small churches will suffer greatly A survey, undertaken in 2010, found that “congregations facing financial strain more than doubled to almost 20% in the past decade, with 5% of congregations unlikely to recover” [5]. If churches were forced to pay taxes on top of that, a lot of church’s existences would be threatened [7]. Counter-Arguments “Yes, of course all churches should pay taxes, there is no legitimate reason why churches should be exempt from taxes” Here, my opponent has committed a Negative Proof Fallacy, in which he shifts the burden of proof onto the people who should be negating [6]. Seeing that he is to affirm, he is the one to give reasons why “churches should pay taxes” (i.e. the resolution). To put this into perspective, it would be like him asking me to disprove that pink unicorns exist (his effective words: show why churches should not be taxed), and if I cannot, then pink unicorns exist (his words: “there is no legitimate reason”). “…just because you claim religious belief does not mean you are exempt from taxes so why should a church be exempt.” As shown earlier, churches are exempt due to not-for-profit status, not due to “claim[ing] religious belief”. “Religion in general is a multi billion dollar business the only difference between a corporation and a church is we tax a church.” As shown earlier, religions are not businesses. References [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.irs.gov... [3] John Marshall, US Supreme Court opinion, McCulloch v. Maryland, supreme.justia.com, 1819 [4] Brian Quinn, \"Should Churches Pay Property Taxes?,\" www.wellsvilledaily.com, Mar. 1, 2011 [5] Nicole Neroulias, \"Study: Churches Inching Back from Recession,\" www.usatoday.com, Apr. 20, 2011 [6] http://rationalwiki.org... [7] Scott Tibbs, \"Should Churches Pay Taxes?\" ConservaTibbs.com, June 24, 2009", "title": "Should Churches Pay Taxes", "pid": "7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.21180725097656}, {"text": "Full resolution: Churches ought to pay taxesThe debate is impossible to accept, apply in the comments if you are interested and I will send the challenge to the applicant of my choosing. First round is acceptance only. No new arguments in the final round. Kritiks aren't allowed. Taxes on churches would mean regular property taxes and commercial income taxes. Basically they lose their tax exempt status.", "title": "Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes", "pid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.1974334716797}, {"text": "It seems that he decided to start arguing from round 1-really no problem- so I have to start with the rebuttals:\"I think they should because it takes money to build the churches and it is important to keep it clean with the taxes you pay\" The main problem is that the money that all US citizens pay are not only used for building churches or keeping them clean. I hate to repeat the same things again and again so I advice you to read all the arguments (especially 7) and you'll relize why I support that. 1) Exempting churches from taxation costs the government billions ofdollars in lost revenue, which it cannot afford, especially in tough economictimes:According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer,PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. New York's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office determined in July 2011 that New York City alone loses $627 million in property tax revenue. Lakewood Church, a \"megachurch\" in Houston, TX, earns $75 million in annual untaxed revenue, and the Church of Scientology's annual income exceeds $500 million. [6] 2) Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution:By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: \"If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith…I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional. \" [1]3)A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines: As Mark Twain argued: \"no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused. \" [2]4) A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion:William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court,declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): \"Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. \" [3]5) The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup \"faiths,\" which benefit at taxpayers' expense:In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties. In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in Schemes that \"exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one person,nonprofit religious corporations\" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend \"seminars. \"The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a \"thriving cult of greed and power\" and \"a hugely profitable global racket,\" was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this \"saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes. \" 6) Churches serve a religious purpose that does not aid the government, so their tax exemptions are not justified:Tax exemptions to secular nonprofits like hospitals and homeless shelters are justified because such organizations do work that would otherwise fall to government. Churches, while they may undertake charitable work, exist primarily for religious worship and instruction, which the US government is constitutionally prevented from performing. [5] 7) American taxpayers are supporting the extravagant lifestyles of wealthy pastors, whose lavish \"megachurches\" accumulate millions of tax-free dollars every year: US Senator Chuck Grassley, MA (R-IA) launched an investigation into these groups in Nov. 2007 after receiving complaints of church revenue being used to buy pastors private jets, Rolls Royce cars, multimillion-dollar homes, trips to Hawaii and Fiji, and in one case, a $23,000, marble-topped chest of drawers installed in the 150,000 square foot headquarters of Joyce Meyer Ministries in Fenton, Missouri. [7] 8) Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional: While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. [8] 9) The tax break given to churches restricts their freedom of speech because it deters pastors from speaking out for or against political candidates: As argued by Rev. Carl Gregg, pastor of Maryland's Broadview Church, \"when Christians speak, we shouldn't have to worry about whether we are biting the hand that feeds us because we shouldn't be fed from Caesar/Uncle Sam in the first place. \" [9]10) The \"parsonage exemption\" on ministers' homes makes already-wealthy pastors even richer at taxpayers' expense: The average annual salary for senior pastors with congregations of 2,000 or more is $147,000, with some earning up to $400,000. In addition to the federal exemption on housing expenses enjoyed by these ministers, they often pay zero dollars in state property tax. Church leaders Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International had three tax-free parsonages: a million-dollar mansion in Atlanta, GA, a two-million-dollar mansion in Fayetteville, GA, and a $2.5 million Manhattan apartment. Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, leaders of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, TX, live in a church-owned, tax-free $6.2 million lakefront parsonage. [10]11) A tax exemption is not a right: Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community. If a church or other religious group wanted to receive tax exemptions because of the charitable work they do, should they be required to make a case for that rather than benefit from the presumption that religion equals charity? It makes much more sense to see tax exemptions as a way to encourage organizations which work for the public benefit rather than personal profit and a means by which taxpayers put themselves at a relative tax disadvantage in exchange for the benefits the organizations provide. What this means, however, is that it is possible for the government to deny tax exemptions to those groups which are not benefitting the public and/or which are working against a compelling public policy — and that may include churches or other religious organizations. Tax exemptions are not a right, they are a privilege which the government bestows based upon the nature of what a group is doing. [11] Sources:[1]. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...[2] Mark Twain's Notebook,1935[3]. https://supreme.justia.com... [4]. http://abcnews.go.com...http://www.irs.gov...http://content.time.com...http://www.nytimes.com...[5]http://supreme.justia.com...[6]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://nypost.com...http://www.entrepreneur.com... [7]. http://www.npr.org... [8]. http://www.irs.gov... [9]. http://www.patheos.com...; [10]. http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org...http://online.wsj.com...http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org... . http://www.nytimes.com... [11]. http://atheism.about.com...", "title": "There should not be tax exemptions for Curches.", "pid": "ffa16c3b-2019-04-18T15:59:53Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.19276428222656}, {"text": "Extend my counter-arguments.", "title": "Should Churches Pay Taxes", "pid": "7f792826-2019-04-18T15:23:48Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.1409454345703}, {"text": "Accepted.", "title": "Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed.", "pid": "48db7620-2019-04-18T18:11:25Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.11746215820312}, {"text": "Okay, I'm really really sorry. I had a big English project, then I got a little sick. and I lost the charging cable for my laptop...... let's just say that it has been an interesting week. If my opponent would like to continue after we run out of rounds, maybe in the comments section, or in a new debate, then I would be willing to do so. I would just like to restate that this is only over property taxes and tax deductions. These are the only major tax differences between churches in non-profit clubs that is worth discussing. \"The reason they should be taxed differently is because, unlike social clubs, churches are charitable. This is evident in the requirements for their respective classifications.\" I think we have to examine what counts as charitable. As a charitable organization or a government agency/public service (like a library or county courthouse or a soup kitchen) money given to them is tax deductible. Similarly, a religious organization is also on this list of tax deductible organizations. Also on this list is 2 types of private organizations. Domestic Fraternal Societies and non-profit cemetery companies. However, restrictions are placed on even these. For the fraternal society, the entire amount you are claiming as a donation must be used for a charitable action, and for the cemetery company it cannot be used for a specific lot or mausoleum. *1 Now, I agree that a church may engage in charitable actions. This is clear to anyone. I was part of a synagogue for most of my life, and I remember every once in a while them passing around a collection plate or asking for canned food. I also remember them using that money to build a new Synagogue, because they didn't have one (they had services in other locations that they rented out or borrowed). Most religious organizations do not use enough money towards charitable actions to be considered a charity. The purpose of declaring something a charity, and refraining from taxing it at all, and then giving deductions for donations is thus. 1. To convince people to use their own money to fund relief and support programs that the community as a whole supports more. 2. To not have to provide services being rendered by that organization. Does a church do either of these? While the community as a whole might more support the church, is it really providing a relief to the community? Is giving my ten dollars to that church really going to do more, or even a comparable amount then if I had given it to a real charity? Should I get the same tax deduction from donating to a soup kitchen that I get from donating to a church? Now I would like to separate religious organizations into 3 categories, to which I will argue separately. The first will be charities that may affiliate with a religion, but function as charities. I have volunteered with the Jewish Relief Agency, which unless you live in the greater Philadelphia area and are Jewish, probably don't know about. It's a warehouse that packages boxes filled with square meals for the week and delivers it to mostly, but not exclusively, needy Jewish people (mostly recent Russian immigrants). They give the majority of their funds to the charity itself, and give a negligible amount (less then 10%) to religious practices. This is a charity and should be treated as such. There are other examples of things that are clearly more charities then religious organizations, though they may affiliate with some religious organizations. Now there are standard churches that participate in large, or exemplary charitable actions. (as in, 30-70% of their income). These are not charities. Though they may partake in many charitable actions, they should be taxed. However, they can receive large deductions from their charitable actions, and may end up paying no taxes at all, or very little. This is great. They should be able to do this, and I, and most people, should applaud them for doing so. But, they are still a religious organization. My donation will do less then donating to a real charity. It should not be tax deducted equally, or at all like it would if I donated it to a charity. The last is a standard church that participates in little to no charity (0 - 20% of income). They may receive a small amount of deduction, or perhaps none at all. Ultimately though, these are religious organizations. They cannot be considered charities. Their money only goes to benefit those who give the money, and do not give any benefit to the outside community (for religious people; remember point number 4 in round 1). I personally would argue that it gives no benefit to those inside the religion, but whatever. It is a social club that prays. That is all that a non-donating religious organization is. We have separated these with private organizations. We have made it so that we do not tax charities affiliated with private clubs, and give deductions to the non-profit clubs so that if they are charitable, they may not have to pay taxes at all. Why can we not do the same with religious organizations? Maybe we shouldn't tax non-profit clubs. I see rife abuse with that potential path, but maybe there is some merit that me, with my limited mortality and comprehension, cannot see. My arguments are based off of equality. The only difference between a church and a non-profit club is that one prays and the other might pray. And yet one gets massive exemptions, while the other must struggle to do massive charity projects if they wish to pay no taxes, or do rigorous hoop jumping to get qualified under tax-exempt status. 1. http://www.irs.gov...", "title": "Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs.", "pid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.08871459960938}, {"text": "The resolution of this debate can only be fulfilled by the government passing legislation. This is because taxation is inherently governmental. Governments, societies, individuals, and all other forms of entities, act (or ought to act) on a utilitarian basis: things that have more benefits than harms ought to be retained, whilst those that have more harms than benefits ought to be abolished. Goodness is determined by the ratio of desirability to undesirability. This is because every entity or being intrinsically seeks to maximize their desirable states (read: pleasure) and minimize their undesirable states (read: suffering.) Things that overall prevent suffering while promoting pleasure are thus good for that being. Because we know that other sentient beings undergo this as well, we can *empathize* with them and thus seek to extend the same principle (preventing suffering and promoting pleasure) to them. Without empathy morality cannot exist, it is contingent. Given that morality in and of itself is a system used to determine whether entities should or should not do something, morality can be used to determine whether a government should or should not make churches pay taxes. I find that the benefits of taxing churches outweigh the costs associated with it, and thus I affirm the resolution. The first way in which church tax exemption brings a societal cost is through the US government being forced to defend itself in lawsuits over tax exemption status to certain institutions (such as Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and other controversial faiths.) Lawsuits against government entities require that the government spend money in order to defend themselves against the lawsuit. The amount of money required to do this is enormous. For example, Texas has spent $3.5 million defending themselves against voter ID lawsuits [1]. This same issue happens over interpretation of tax exemption laws for churches. This can be seen in the Church of Scientology’s numerous and year long lawsuits against the government wherein they can harness millions of dollars in funds; which the government then has to match. In the end, tax exemption law results in millions of dollars in lost money for the US government. My second argument is thus: churches are not like other (secular) not-for-profit charitable organizations. Churches’ primary goal is in the practice and spread of their religion, rather than charity like other non-religious tax exempt charitable organizations. Research has found that around 29% of the average church’s income is for charitable purposes, the rest is used for internal costs such as wages [2]. Other, secular charities though are able to do *more* good with their funds. For example, the Red Cross uses 92.1% of its income for helping people. A property tax on churches would raise around $71 billion dollars per year [3], while the commercial income tax would raise around $6.75 billion. (This is because the median congregation income is $60,000 [6], and thus the income tax bracket becomes $7,500 + 25% [8], meaning $22,500 payed in taxes per congregation. Given there are 300,000 congregations in America, that ends up being 6,750,000,000.) Reallocating money from churches, where only 29% of it would go to help people to secular charities where 92% of it will be used to help people, would be a massive impact on the effectiveness of charity. Significantly more people will be helped through charity. It is important to note the amount of money that $71 billion dollars is, as it is easy to just put it away as another number. $71 billion dollars is more than the top two wealthiest charities in the world combined [4]. Using all of this money for charity work rather than a fraction of it, as would happen without taxes, is a huge impact. Taxes on churches will also give more funds to local governments, and given that local governance is the most important government, the impact of this on people is substantial. Plus, George Washington said that, “I agree with...Ha...yd’s...argument that...churches…should pay taxes.” (1782) [10] Peace and Love [1] https://www.texastribune.org... [2] http://www.newsweek.com... [3] http://bigthink.com...\\ [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [6] http://www.ssc.wisc.edu... [7] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [8] https://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://www.hup.harvard.edu... [10] https://www.amazon.com...;*Version*=1&*entries*=0&linkCode=sl1&tag=worst-products-ever-20&linkId=d6148e5e63820f864ff4057c05fc18e1", "title": "Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes", "pid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.0521240234375}, {"text": "cont 1:Huge churches don\"t need/ the money use it wrong etc. \"Only 3% to 10% of tax emptions used for charity \"In addition to the lack of transparency, it is vital to consider whether any multi-billion dollar operation, religious or otherwise, should enjoy sweeping tax exemptions on their assets or actually needs it. What exactly does the tax exemption promote if an organization already has more than enough money to run its activities from individual contributions? cont 2: misuse of money/lies \"Religious organizations with large entertainment venues. There are churches with pools, skating rinks, bowling alleys, huge gyms, etc. Such things are not required in order to practice your \"faith\". It gives religious groups a very unfair advantage over businesses offering the same services, but which have to pay taxes. \" Also just a little joke thing some of these same tax exempt huge churches claim \"god can pay our taxes\" so if they believe in this they don\"t need these tax exemptions in the first place not to mention they have millions or billions of dollars and they seem to maintain their buildings rather well. 3. Tax exemptions are not justified and poorly monitored There are millions of dollars of undocumented, unclaimed, untaxed church income each year. The figures cannot be accurately calculated by the IRS since most churches do not file the \"voluntary\" paperwork. Preachers are living in million dollar \"church funded\" homes, driving \"church gifted\" Jaguars, and wearing \"church donated\" Rolexes. Whilst enjoying a lavish lifestyle, many are not paying the myriad of taxes that the rest of US citizens are required to pay because church-based money is virtually untouchable, untraceable, and unaccountable. What becomes of the rest of the unaccounted cash millions that filter through the tithing trays? A local church, said to be the largest growing church in America, recently spent $1.2M on Harley Davidson motorcycles as gifts to the top 11 leaders. It is also claimed that they have used over $1M bailing out church members from jail. We are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion \" to the tune of about $71 billion every year. The current laws allow for open money-laundering and tax evasion without the likelihood for consequence or penalty.They have no safeguards to determine how many untaxed dollars are passing though the church doors and officials hands. Once a group claims to be a church, the IRS has no enforcement to determine if any illegal activity occurs unless the evidence is gathered and handed to them first. Although it states that all non-profits must not benefit any individuals, and must not spend a significant amount of time or money lobbying lawmakers, there is currently NO WAY TO DETERMINE, REGULATE, OR PUNISH these illegal behaviors. Major example: Some church leaders have even managed to use the church to hide their assets. For instance, Rev. John Hagee reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San AntonioExpress-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In other words, Hagee hides his millions in assets in his church and escapes taxation on his own personal wealth and property.", "title": "A resolution to remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S.", "pid": "7dd07516-2019-04-18T15:38:12Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.0494384765625}, {"text": "I think they should because it takes money to build the churches and it is important to keep it clean with the taxes you pay", "title": "There should not be tax exemptions for Curches.", "pid": "ffa16c3b-2019-04-18T15:59:53Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.01602172851562}, {"text": "Agreed, a country must raise taxes to run a government though I question my opponents comment on the fact that pillaging is now illegal is a bad thing. I, personally, enjoy the fact that people can't run around burning and stealing. I also concede that there was a, emphasis on a, single group of Baptists who were trying to use the situation in Haiti to there advantage. However, the information that did not get to the media were all the other parishes that collected and sent money for actual aid to refugees. As far as the Jewish Orthodox Union using money for illegal activities is something that ought to be fixed, but you'll note that the Catholic Church does not use their tax free status for illegal activities. If you suggest that one example of someone(s) doing something bad ought to influence laws for everyone, then we ought to all be in single cells. there are people who use the ability walk outside so that they might steal from others which is certainly illegal. Your logic dictates that we should not be allowed outside. Islam is a religion of peace. Therefore, if a mosque is truly Islamic, donations will not be used aid terrorists. If it is a mosque of radical Islam, then the UN ought to be acting in order to shut down a terrorist cell. Additionally, I would like to point out that single examples should not influence all other examples. Furthermore, laws for taxation differ from country to country. I would like to point out that there are countries where a Church Tax[1] is imposed. So in certain countries, such as Denmark[1], you would first be speaking out cutting government support to the church. Also, I would like to point out that corporations such as Wal-mart con the government out of millions[2]. Isn't that a slightly bigger problem ( Wal-mart is also guilty of sexual discrimination, employment of illegals, and many other crimes[3][4]. I am much more fine with the church getting free money then with Wal-mart getting free money.) In conclusion, there are many counter-examples to the ones referring to the usage that my opponent has provided as to the activities of religious organizations, I have provided examples of other organizations that steal more money from the government than the church does and conduct other illegal activities, and I have pointed out that many governments grant financial support from the treasury to churches. Again, I apologize for any mistakes, and thank you. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org... [3]http://www.reuters.com... [4]http://www.foxnews.com...", "title": "Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status", "pid": "8a799a1-2019-04-18T19:04:58Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.009765625}, {"text": "The government has also a responsibility to refrain from overstepping. The biggest hole in your argument is the idea of separation of church and state. Just as the church shouldn't rule the nation, the nation shouldn't rule the church. Regardless of whether the church should allow women to preach or not is not the business of the government and for the sake of freedom they need to let it be.I am using the word \"Church\" to refer to all religious institutions.I believe that men and women are equal, but different. I believe my ramble was quite confusing, but regardless unimportant to this argument.I am a girl. 61% of church goes are female.http://churchformen.com...", "title": "This House Would deny tax-exempt status to religios-institutions failing to appoint women equally.", "pid": "43bad6be-2019-04-18T12:01:38Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.94607543945312}, {"text": "Case 1.Huge churches don\"t need/ the money use it wrong etc. \"Only 3% to 10% of tax emptions used for charity \"In addition to the lack of transparency, it is vital to consider whether any multi-billion dollar operation, religious or otherwise, should enjoy sweeping tax exemptions on their assets or actually needs it. What exactly does the tax exemption promote if an organization already has more than enough money to run its activities from individual contributions? \"Religious organizations with large entertainment venues. There are churches with pools, skating rinks, bowling alleys, huge gyms, etc. Such things are not required in order to practice your \"faith\". It gives religious groups a very unfair advantage over businesses offering the same services, but which have to pay taxes. \" Also just a little joke thing some of these same tax exempt huge churches claim \"god can pay our taxes\" so if they believe in this they don\"t need these tax exemptions in the first place not to mention they have millions or billions of dollars and they seem to maintain their buildings rather well. 2. Tax exemptions are not justified and poorly monitored There are millions of dollars of undocumented, unclaimed, untaxed church income each year. The figures cannot be accurately calculated by the IRS since most churches do not file the \"voluntary\" paperwork. Preachers are living in million dollar \"church funded\" homes, driving \"church gifted\" Jaguars, and wearing \"church donated\" Rolexes. Whilst enjoying a lavish lifestyle, many are not paying the myriad of taxes that the rest of US citizens are required to pay because church-based money is virtually untouchable, untraceable, and unaccountable. What becomes of the rest of the unaccounted cash millions that filter through the tithing trays? A local church, said to be the largest growing church in America, recently spent $1.2M on Harley Davidson motorcycles as gifts to the top 11 leaders. It is also claimed that they have used over $1M bailing out church members from jail. We are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion \" to the tune of about $71 billion every year. The current laws allow for open money-laundering and tax evasion without the likelihood for consequence or penalty.They have no safeguards to determine how many untaxed dollars are passing though the church doors and officials hands. Once a group claims to be a church, the IRS has no enforcement to determine if any illegal activity occurs unless the evidence is gathered and handed to them first. Although it states that all non-profits must not benefit any individuals, and must not spend a significant amount of time or money lobbying lawmakers, there is currently NO WAY TO DETERMINE, REGULATE, OR PUNISH these illegal behaviors. Major example: Some church leaders have even managed to use the church to hide their assets. For instance, Rev. John Hagee reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San AntonioExpress-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In other words, Hagee hides his millions in assets in his church and escapes taxation on his own personal wealth and property. Response to what opponent said: This will not be directed at Catholic churches is his main argument and I agree with that so we agree on one thing. Also I personally go to a poor church with like 18 members and it is Apostolic so yeah I know where you are coming from. My solution to what your suggesting would to be just to remove tax exemptions from of course churches with a decent income but with poorer churches give them maybe 5-10 years before removal and time can be extended a bit if church is starting from scratch. It still would be removing their tax exemptions but after a period of time.", "title": "remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S.", "pid": "ca561f99-2019-04-18T15:37:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.9395751953125}, {"text": "I would not be debating with you if every priest was driving a Ferrari 458. But obviously that just not true. Do you really think we would not be paying the same amount of taxes, if we made churches pay taxes? Organizations like the Red Cross would cease to exist. Making the Government responsible to fill in. Where do you think the Government is going to get that money from? That's right, you and me. Organizations like the Red Cross and YMCA are able to do what they do,because they don't have to worry about taxes. By Taxing Churches you are actually hurting people not helping, not only that, risking the chance of our taxes going up to continue the programs these organizations already do.", "title": "End tax breaks for religious organizations", "pid": "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.92982482910156}, {"text": "Religious organizations within our nation should be taxed just as any other businesses and individuals are taxed. The Us Constitution of the United States of America clearly was written to eliminate the granting and to eradicate any possibility of religious powerhouses, and any theocratic influences to be held over the interest and over the values of America and its people. The constitution was written as one nation, under god; so that the government would not grant religions extra privileges.", "title": "Churches should be taxed!", "pid": "541c0fdb-2019-04-18T14:17:03Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.91400146484375}, {"text": "When we look at the religions of today, we see increasingly grand and decadent churches, mosques and synagogues, while at the same time we see secularism rising exponentially [1,2], and all of this begs the question: why should a purportedly secular government not be treating religions like the rest of us? Why are religions considered tax-exempt while businesses and individuals are taxed? But firstly, what is our tax system and why are some organizations not taxed? A tax system in a Western Democracy is a simple on a principled level. The purpose of taxation is so that public services can be made available to all. But in our tax system we allow certain organizations to be let off the hook when it comes to taxation because we believe that these organizations operate to benefit the community as a whole. We can see this particularly clearly when we consider that the organizations that are tax-exempt are predominately charities, trade unions and art organizations [3]. The standard for tax-exemption is clearly the overall public benefit to everyone of the society. In the instance of religions, given that recent surveys suggested there were as many as 45 million people in the United States who were not religious, we think that religious organizations don't help the wider population, and for this reason they should be taxed. Secondly, we believe in the separation of church and state and that allowing religions to be tax-exempt effectively violates this separation for two main reasons. Firstly, we think that not taxing religions gives them in-principle support, which a secular government should not do. Secondly, on a practical level, in the current situation we see a government that is forced to decide which religions are valid and which are not. Currently, our government must decide whether it should tax religions such as scientology [4] (which is currently untaxed by the United States but is by major nations such as France), which many consider to be criminal. Scientology has allegedly abused its members [5] and been involved in other criminal activity. I would ask my opponent: under his model, would religions like this be taxed, or would the government continue to allow a seemingly immoral organization off the hook? Thirdly, we see that religions often have a negative effect on their community. I have already discussed scientology, which is an important example. But even more mainstream religions have a negative impact. Consider America's most widespread religion, Christianity [1]. We think it has a negative impact in twomain ways. Firstly, we say that the church has been accused of worldwide instances of abuse, and that it has even been threatened by legal action in a trial of war crimes in regard to this abuse [6]. Allegations of abuse of children to the highest levels, and the admission by the Pope that he personally has covered up these scandals [6] show the widespread nature of these practices. The government should not be treating these organizations as charitable, or as benefiting the whole community. Secondly, many Christian doctrines take part in inherently prejudiced practices; in some doctrines women are not allowed to become priests, and moreover the religion as a whole has moved against gay marriage [7]. Because religions have a net negative impact on society as a whole, we should tax them, as we do ordinary members of society. I wish my opponent luck for the next round. https://www.cia.gov... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.nytimes.com... Robertson, Geoffrey, The Case of the Pope; Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "That we should tax religions.", "pid": "1e5d5fcd-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.90292358398438}, {"text": "I define \"tax\", as \"A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions\" (Marriam-Webster)I will wait for the Pro to make their case before posting my own.", "title": "Churches should be taxed.", "pid": "2f656c50-2019-04-18T18:20:05Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.89996337890625}, {"text": "Churches should receive donations tax free. However, this should not exclude them from the various other forms of taxes.(Image via The Washington Post) I. Property TaxChurches are not required to pay property taxes on their land or buildings. A pastor in Weddington NC purchased a $1.4 million mansion in October of 2013. The mansion features 16,000 square feet with 7 ½ bathrooms, according to building permits. The land cost another $325,000, for a total cost of more than $1.7 million. In the year 2013, this luxury home managed to skip out on roughly $344,690.00 (Calculated via http://www.iras.gov.sg...) in property tax.(Picture of pastor's home in Weddington NC. Via WCNC News) II. Sales TaxWhen churches buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. From a $2 box of pencils to a $3,000 big screen television churches are not required to pay one cent. Lets take the television and do the math. At an 8.25% sales tax, the $3,000 television would equal to $247.50. Lets be realistic however, what church only has a television inside of it? Take this time to use your imagination. Think of the average American church, and ponder at how much money in sales tax is being avoided.(Picture of the inside of a church) III. Capital Gains TaxWhen they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. A Mormon mall named the City Creek Center, located in Salt Lake City (2 Billion Dollar Tax Free Project) is one such place that profits from a lack of capital gains tax. It does not take someone with a degree in finance to fathom how much money a super mall like this profits, again tax free. (Picture of City Creek Center) IV. Why these numbers matterThe substantial amount of money that churches across the country avoid via taxes, is mind blowing. A recent study conducted by the Council of Secular Humanism, compiled numbers into an easily readable chart. 72 Billion Dollars a Year in tax exemptions. You could feed 3,600,000,000 starving people a day, or 9,863,013 people for an entire year! Did I mention that is three square meals a day?V. Why churches should pay taxes?To simplify, churches are earning astonishing amounts of money through various flawed tax exemptions. Churches do not have to account for where their money is spent, unlike any other organization. Blatantly, churches are given extra brakes and exemptions that no other organization is offered. Separation of church and state does not mean that religious establishments should go unchecked. No, separation of church and state is to protect religious beliefs from governing our politics. Tax exemptions should only be applied to donations to the church.Thank you.", "title": "Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government.", "pid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.85800170898438}, {"text": "Churches need to be taxed. Consider that for every tax dollar a religious organization does not pay, you and I pay it on its behalf. Many are among the wealthiest organizations in the world: by 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches\"was approx. $110 billion. In New York City alone, the amount was $3 billion in 1989. A 1986 estimate showed religious income in that year of approx. $100 billion, or about\"five times the income of the five largest corporations in the U.S.\"\"All tax free. There are many other organizations the needy can turn to.", "title": "End tax breaks for religious organizations", "pid": "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.83975219726562}, {"text": "You are right to say that Churches save money by having tax exceptions. But any money they do make is going right back into the community. These organizations are responsible for soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and after-school programs for poor families. Religious leaders do not get to pocket the money for themselves. Religious organizations are among some of the top non profit organizations in the US ( YMCA, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Charities USA, etc. ). Think about the consequences of taxing these organizations. All that money that would be going to the needy, would instead, be going to the IRS.", "title": "End tax breaks for religious organizations", "pid": "f0d9c7b8-2019-04-18T16:34:21Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.83010864257812}, {"text": "vote me", "title": "remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S.", "pid": "ca561f99-2019-04-18T15:37:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.790771484375}, {"text": "I understand your outrage at the violation of church and state that has occurred in schools across our nation. I agree that it is indeed a severe problem, especially as it pertains to the punishment of young and innocent children, still developing their ideas about the world and finding their spiritual and religious truth. However, I fail to see the relevance of these instances to our topic. Yes it is a violation of church and state but so is the taxation of churches. The severity of one does not negate the other, nor does it lessen the impact on our society. Let me give you an analogy to clarify my point. Let us say you are a kid at school and there is a bully in your class. His favorite color is red, and he picks on all the kids who don't wear red shirts. Sometimes he makes kids in class wear a red shirt even if they don't want to. You see this and know it is wrong. You should take action. But say you decide to take some of his lunch money every day. You are physically able to take this kid's money. But should you? No. Just because what he does is bad, doesn't make your bad actions good. It is against the rules. It is not right. Similarly, it is \"against the rules\" for the government to tax churches. They may have violated the separation of church and state themselves, but you would also be violating it. You wrote that \"It's no secret churches have abusing extra money and such. I'm not saying all churches are, just some.\" This is not justification either. You cannot take someone's money because they are not using it well. Even if it somehow was justification, which it is not, if you were to only tax those that do misuse money it would be discrimination. But to enact a widespread tax on all churches regardless of their abuse or not because some churches, which may not even be in the same city or state have misused money? If you are trying to reach fairness, this is not it. Another point, it seems as though you are focusing this primarily on Christian establishments, not synagogues or mosques or temples as well, but singling out Christian churches. If you tax only religious organizations of a certain religion, that is discrimination. May I remind you of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;\" Throughout many decades and conflicts, this has been clarified and interpreted by the Supreme Court. In 1947, Justice Hugo Black said \"The \"establishment of religion\" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another... No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.\" Your proposition violates most of this. Should your proposition only affect Christian institutions, that would be classified as aiding or preferring one religion over another. He clearly states that \"No tax in any amount...can be levied,\". Your idea is a violation of church and state. Against the law. Any violation of the law, no matter how small or what other violations have occurred elsewhere, is in violation of the law.", "title": "Churches Should be Taxed", "pid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.77964782714844}, {"text": "Originally Con's retort was a dense, tightly worded rebuttal to Pro's contention that the centers he proposes be women only, but after obliterating the 8,000 character limit, a different tack was required. Despite the obvious levity of the debate, a meaty issue exists, one which becomes heartier as one travels eastward over the Atlantic. While Con is a lot more familiar with the issue of the church and taxation in America, the question was poised in merry England, and home field advantage is acceded to Pro. The debate shall be limited to the taxing of religious institutions in England, as England's maintenance of an established church, her lack of a separation between church and state, and the differing legal and tax systems between England and America would make any attempt to discuss both devolve into two debates. However perfectly luscious Pro's suggestion of the destination of the earmarked funds may be, to what purpose the ring fenced funds are destined is relatively immaterial to the primary issue and will not be directly addressed by Con. Religious entities are one of the thirteen classes of charitable bodies recognized in the Charity Law which are exempt from most taxes in England[1]. Such entities are considered to provide a public benefit. The failure of Pro to mention taxing not-for-profit institutions other than religious ones allows us to deduce that Pro does not advocate the doing away with the Charity Law , or amending it in a manner other than removing religious entities from the Charity Law's recognized list. To do so, it is incumbent on Pro to prove that religious institutions do not provide public benefits in a manner which is inconsistent with the public benefits provided by other, non-religious not for profits. Pro will be hampered in proving this. Pro must not only discard the tangible social services which religious institutions dispense, the maintenance of historical buildings and the providing of a center for a community, but also contend with the spiritual services they provide. Psychologists generally regard spiritual wants as a human need[2]. A certain percentage of the population fulfills this need religiously. Even if one can personally write off religion as needless hocus pocus as easily as Mr. Bradlaugh could and instead fulfills his or her spiritual needs via a lager and the bi-curiosity of an assertive vegan Asian girl, one cannot be so contemptuous as to think that they know the best manner in which others ought satiate their spiritual needs. Just as some citizens of AR 72046 [3] find benefits from the not-for-profit services of The American Legion Post 168, The England Youth Athletic Association or the Sunny Day School Inc. (Childcare), some also find benefits from the one of the seven not-for-profit religious entities there. Con can state, from at least personal experience, the benefits provided by an American Legion Post are as much spiritual as they are anything else. Pro maintains that religion uses fear mongering tactics to cull money from their congregations. Fear mongering, naturally, cannot be construed as a public benefit. It is granted that the church makes itself feel needed, but hardly is such unique to the world of charity. Making one feel needed is not the same as fear mongering. Breast Cancer awareness has scared so many athletic teams so quickly into wearing so much pink that only Palermo's Rosanero can be assured of being ahead of the curve. But making one feel needed is different than fear mongering and with semantics aside, are religious institutions particularly more proficient in this area when it comes to squeezing pennies out of pensioners? Certainly a plausible case could be made for a good deal of its history. From its apogee of fear when Pope Innocent mildly humiliated poor King John (perhaps thereafter being humiliated in quick succession by the French and then his own drinking buddies was the harsher medicine), the Church has admittedly made good use of scaring the hell out of (or into) its flock and its less than enthusiastic followers. This fear, however, has been on the wane for quite sometime. Earthly fears started replacing heavenly fears as Henry, Mary, Elizabeth and Cromwell ran amok. The Age of Reason laid out the framework for removing these fears from aristocrats and the industrial revolution democratized them, enough so by the 1880's, even the Conservatives had to finally concede Charles Bradlaugh his duly elected seat in Parliament[4]. People questioned religion through science. In the generation between Lyell and Lord Kelvin the earth aged ten-fold. Darwin made folks question the literal handiwork of the creator and from that people questioned the bible. Science unfolded the mysteries of the universe. Church attendance went into a long decline as it fought a rearguard action against secularism. By 2010, only about a million souls still shuffled into the Church of England houses of worship on a weekly basis, representing just 2% of England and 4% of Anglicans[5]. These people, well worn end-notes of a 1,500 year old rolling saga, will weather no opprobrium should they not attend nor tithe. Failing to do either so earns no serious threats of eternal damnation from the pastor nor social stigma from society as a whole. In fact, in some urban areas, the stigma may go in the opposite direction. They attend because they genuinely want to and give donations because it serves their interests, and gives them greater benefits, than other alternatives (it is granted, however, that a good many pew occupants may be henpecked husbands intent on avoiding the wraith of their better halves, but that's hardly the church's fault, unless of course the church married them in the first place, which incidentally, is also becoming a rarer and rarer thing [6]). If the Church is reduced to making a few fence sitters pony up some spare bucks on Pascal's Wager, then so be it, but that's far from fear mongering. And even should an unlikely case be made that the church scares its followers into donating by fear mongering, the collection plate isn't the church's primary source of income. About 20% of its income is made this way, with a similar block made by Gift Aid[7]. The remainder comes from investments, rents and fee based services. In England, the Church and other non-profits are not taxed on these sorts incomes, while in America they are in certain degrees[8]. Even Italy is considering it[9]. Taxing such is a potential source of income for Pro's ideas, but that's a different discussion, as well as Disestablishment. I will be looking forward to an intelligent and entertaining continuation of this matter in round 2. [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk... [2] http://www.max-neef.cl..., pg. 32 [3] http://www.taxexemptworld.com... [4] http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk... [5] http://www.churchofengland.org... [6] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [7] http://www.churchofengland.org... [8] http://www.irs.gov... [9] http://www.nytimes.com...", "title": "The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres", "pid": "37eb35dd-2019-04-18T18:23:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.7520751953125}, {"text": "No additional arguments to rebut as Pro has forfeited.", "title": "religious and ethnic charities should be discouraged and not be eligible for tax relief", "pid": "21c1355b-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.71282958984375}, {"text": "At a time when ordinary people are being told to tighten their belts and to expect massive reductions in public spending in order to repay the huge government debt incurred as the result of the financial crisis, there are two groups of people who continue to live it up: 1 - The greedy and incompetent investment bankers who caused the financial crisis in the first place and who, nevertheless, continue to use the governments' recapitalisation handouts to pay themselves obscene bonuses. 2 – Religious organisations. While the United States and the European Union are responding to the bankers' abject failure to show self-restraint by imposing restrictions on their bonus payments, they have done nothing to redress the fact that religious organisations are ripping the rest of us off by not paying any tax. [1] So while decent, hard-working families struggle to make ends meet, televangelists such as Creflo Dollar continue to swan about in their brand new Rolls-Royces [2] and Catholic priests carry on living the life of Reilly in their tax-free, all-expenses-paid parochial houses. [The YouTube clips are humorous, of course, but there is many a true word said in jest.] And how many hard-working, God-fearing family men can afford to hire young sex-workers to accompany them on luxury, ten-day tours of Europe? Not many, but Baptist Minister George Alan Rekers can. [3] That's partly because he doesn't pay any tax. (In the interests of full disclosure here, by the way, I should point out that Rekers denied knowing that his companion was a male prostitute, even though he hired him from rentboy.com). To put this matter into perspective, The Church of England (CofE) rakes in �1 billion ($1.52 billion) every year tax-free and yet its own website states that even though \"over �200 million is given tax-efficiently each year through Gift Aid\" and \"a further �60 million is recovered from the Inland Revenue in tax.\" [4] In other words, the CofE not only avoids contributing to the public purse, it is actually jewing �60 million pounds a year out of it! And things are even worse in Germany where citizens are subject to the ‘Kirchensteuer' (Church Tax) which nets protestant priests over EUR8 billion (�7 billion / $10 billion) every year. [5] A similar situation exists in Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Finland and Iceland where citizens are also forced by law to give a percentage of their income to the church. It seems to me that, with religious observance on the decline to a point where, according to the CofE's own figures only one million people – just 1.6% of the British population - go to church on Sundays [5], the church is becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's more enlightened society. And yet the churches are still growing fat at the expense of ordinary, hard-working citizens who have to make up the shortfall in tax receipts. This is a scandalous and outdated state of affairs and I believe it is high time that churches paid their way and, therefore, I duly affirm that religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status. Thank you. [1] http://www.irs.gov... [2] http://www.cbsnews.com... [3] http://www.independent.co.uk... [4] http://www.cofe.anglican.org... [5] http://www.kirchensteuer.de... (in German) [6] http://www.cofe.anglican.org... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...", "title": "Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status", "pid": "8a799a1-2019-04-18T19:04:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.50827026367188}, {"text": "An example might be an emerging group that informally meets at someone's home. They do not have the tax benefits that official churches have because they do not have the lobbying power or the time to negotiate a charitable status from the gatekeepers in government. Removing the tax favoritism that most churches enjoy would simply level the playing field and make sure new religious philosophies that are beneficial do not get squished because of political favoritism. Many of the early religious reformers had to flee persecution because they did not have the political mojo of the larger denominations. Removing the larger groups' tax-exempt status would force them to stay relevant and profitable to the community.", "title": "Some Emerging Religious Groups do Not Have the Political Connections to Qualify", "pid": "af414960-2019-04-19T12:47:32Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 215.470458984375}, {"text": "Why churches of all religions should not be taxed by the government. I. The Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....\" and Article VI specifies that \"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (http://www.law.cornell.edu...) Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. First and foremost, the establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The implications of such a law to protect the interests of a country that is known for mixing cultures, traditions, and beliefs are more important than ever. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. How is this related to taxation? A local pastor in the Western Appalachian Mountains builds a one-room log cabin near his small mountain community made up of local miners and traders. He is a man of God and desires to share his faith with his small community, a congregation of roughly 15-20 people. Knowing he doesn’t collect much from those who can barely afford to pay he opens his mail to find that the State and Federal government are now taxing him for his one-room church. The price is simply too high to afford and thus he is forced to close the doors or suffer the wrath of the IRS. In this instance, not only did the government shut-down his freedom to express his religion, but it crushed the possibility of giving this small community a safe place where they might hear words of inspiration. Without the Constitution, where would we be as a Nation? Would we truly have come to take these freedoms we have now for granted? Let us not forget that we fought against the Monarchy to set ourselves free from oppression from governmental entities who abused their power. We have fought for the right to build our temples for worship, we fought for the right to stand on our church stages and preach our beliefs to the masses without the government standing over our shoulder telling us what or what-not to say. If we truly relinquish the power back to the governments by allowing taxation, what more does that accomplish other than handing over one of the last safe-zones we truly have in this Nation of ours? Freedom from Governmental control and impressions. II. Safe-Zones As an American who is now living in a society engulfed in Post-9/11 paranoia, I’ve always taken comfort in one thing: The fact that if another great world war consumed our planet, that there will always be one building left standing- The Church. It is now a well-known fact that no matter how great the tensions or however great the animosity was between warring nations, the unspoken agreement to avoid churches during bombing raids was carried out and practiced. No matter how differing these nations were in terms of cultural traditions and beliefs, we were able to find a common ground upon which everyone could agree that in the game of war, churches were not to be touched. But why weren’t the churches bombed? For some reason, the most untouched buildings in every country throughout the time of WW2 was that of religious organizations. Firstly, unlike political ideologies or cultural traditions, churches and religions transcend beyond the scope of political influence. Secondly, I believe the morality in soldiers during a time when churches meant more to them than the enemy should not be ruled out – even soldiers feel empathy or a personal respect garnered within them since childhood if they themselves grew up with the tradition of attending church. III. Most churches are used as places of worship for religions that predate modern government. Respect your elders. While one can argue that most churches were built after the American government was formed, the fact remains that the church buildings built represent something far older than any form of our federal government. If we look at all the main religions practiced in America today we have: Christianity – A tradition continually practiced for about 2,000 years. Judaism – A tradition continually practiced for about 5,700 years. Buddhism – A tradition continually practiced for about 2,500 years. Islam – A tradition continually practiced for about 1,400 years. Hinduism – A tradition continually practiced for about 7,000 years. American Federal Government – 227 years old… The fact remains that a majority of church buildings we see today are built upon the foundation created by these age-old religions. In medieval Europe we see the destruction brought about by letting the church gain so much influence that it, in theory, was able to control the direction of the society at that time. With that being said, the balance that has seemed to work in our own modern society is one of equality and separation. By remaining free from governmental influence, the majority of world religions have been able to spread to provide a safety net for those fearful of the unknown. To provide individuals with the freedom to continue on their journeys throughout life knowing that they have a safe place to return if the pressure of life ever overwhelms them. This goes both ways, by remaining separate – the government has been able to remain in power over the influence of the people in terms of shaping the direction we head as a Nation. History has proven that in order for a balance of harmony to be achieved between the church and state, in terms of dominating society’s direction of progress, a separation is necessary. The issue we face now is being able to learn from the mistakes we made as a collective throughout history. We have broken the cycle of war for influence between the two and in doing so, we have been able to achieve more technologically, scientifically, and emotionally than ever before in history. To repeat the mistakes would make us no better than those who have come before us, in the name of progress we have finally found a synthesis between the two that actually works, and I will forever stand by my position that we should continue on this path of separation if we are to continue on our path of forward progress. IV. Desperate times call for desperate measures? I like to call it how I see it: The American Government spends more funding on War-time efforts than the next 10 most powerful nations combined. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com... With that said, what good does handing more money over to the government really achieve? Do you honestly believe that money will be used for rebuilding our infrastructure? Do you really believe that money will be used by the government to feed the homeless or help the poor? On September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld came out to a press conference and made a startling, if not, horrifying revelation: The Pentagon had lost 2.3 Trillion dollars. That’s right, not billion – but TRILLION. This isn’t “lost” as in, profits lost, but rather “lost” as in *poof* it disappeared with no apparent traces to follow. I will provide the link so you might hear it from the horse’s mouth directly: (Please see Youtube video). http://www.youtube.com... It is not uncommon for a church to host community events – for instance, as a young child growing up in a Baptist church one of my fondest memories was heading to the local housing projects with my fellow church members and giving the families there free Thanksgiving turkeys so that they would be able to enjoy a meal for the holiday. The money used for such a charity event came from nowhere but the weekly contributions we made to the church. We cannot deny the fact that a majority of churches use their profits for good rather than selfish reasons. A majority of the time, these profits are spent on either people of the congregation in need or the church itself if repairs to the building or renovations are necessary. We musn't forget that churches are business’s as well, if they can’t receive funding from the government, why on earth should they be left with nearly nothing after the proposed taxes? I do not believe the corruption of the majority of churches outweigh the corruption of the federal government. The profits the federal government would make with the taxes would be better spent by the churches who would truly be able to help their local communities with the additional funds. Ultimately, It will be up to the audience to determine whether our nation has stooped so low in its economic woes that we must now tax the only organizations left in our world that truly supersede that of our own government in terms of personal guidance and safe haven. By opening the door to government oversight, we are allowing our houses to be raided by a foreign entity. The moment our churches are taxed, we forfeit our right to use them as neutral zones if there was ever another great war to break out. We forfeit our right to speak our minds and practice our faith in the security of closed doors. We cannot allow our only common ground with the nations of the world to be raped of its dignity by allowing government influence to enter its realm of authority. Remember, it is our freedoms that we fought for that allows us to develop thoughts freely without governmental control. We won our right to remain separated from government influence- at the cost of countless human lives, all of whom we are descendants from. To allow the taxation of church would mean that all their lives lost would have been in vain. Taxation is nothing more than a quick fix to a problem that requires a much greater, long-term solution. We must stop being enablers with these quickfix tax solutions and fix the issue at the root cause - responsible spending.", "title": "Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government.", "pid": "5efc5feb-2019-04-18T16:38:30Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.46234130859375}, {"text": "Apologies accepted, but no, formal debates are hard for me, which is why I accept so few. We can continue in the forums if you wish. [some churches are not charitable, seems to be Pro's main argument] Not in the conventional sense, no. However, a social club \"may not hold itself out as providing goods and services to the general public\" (my first source), thus, it is not a charity, ever. Further, social clubs require membership, as opposed to churches which ask for donations. We have separated these with private organizations. We have made it so that we do not tax charities affiliated with private clubs, and give deductions to the non-profit clubs so that if they are charitable, they may not have to pay taxes at all. Why can we not do the same with religious organizations? How can you expect an organization to pay property taxes if there is no revenue? It's not like they can increase tithing? Conversely, since social clubs \"must be supported by membership fees, dues, and assessments\", they can raise the necessary money, or go under. Lastly, churches have limits and restrictions on how they lobby, while social clubs do not. These differences categorically make the institutions unequal, and since they are unequal, similar tax treatment is not required. \"Maybe we shouldn't tax non-profit clubs. I see rife abuse with that potential path, but maybe there is some merit that me, with my limited mortality and comprehension, cannot see. My arguments are based off of equality. The only difference between a church and a non-profit club is that one prays and the other might pray. And yet one gets massive exemptions, while the other must struggle to do massive charity projects if they wish to pay no taxes, or do rigorous hoop jumping to get qualified under tax-exempt status.\" I would argue the biggest difference between a church and a social club is that you have to pay to benefit from the club, where you are not assessed a fee to pray. Also, I am not sure what Pro is arguing about exemptions and what his source has to do with anything regarding tax treatment of these groups. Pro's source has to do with limitation to the amount given, not what is done with that money. In both cases, regardless of how the money is spent, the revenue is not taxed.", "title": "Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs.", "pid": "32e89ba9-2019-04-18T16:30:48Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.44924926757812}, {"text": "Vote me for conduct due to forfit", "title": "remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S.", "pid": "ca561f99-2019-04-18T15:37:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.43533325195312}, {"text": "Religious institutions essentially evade 71 Billion dollars in tax revenue each year. The congregations of Christian religions tithe so why not pay some of that to the state and federal like everyone else. A church should not be considered special in comparison with other citizens of the United States.", "title": "Religious institutions should be taxed like everyone else.", "pid": "18e421a8-2019-04-18T17:25:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.4126434326172}, {"text": "In the past, if a king needed money he would assemble a fleet of frigates and galleons that would be bristling with guns and canons. He would load these ships with cargos of soldiers and send them across the Atlantic to the New World to rape and pillage newfound civilisations, and plunder their gold and have it repatriated back to Europe. Unfortunately though, these days the United Nations take a dim view of such activities and it is, therefore, necessary for the government to collect money from the general populace instead. This inevitably leads to the double-taxation my opponent referred to. You pay tax on the money you earn and when you buy something with the money left over the recipient pays tax on the profit from the sale. But my opponent suggests that churches shouldn't pay tax because they \"help others\" in places like Haiti. I looked into this and discovered that a Baptist group from Idaho did indeed travel to Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake to \"help others\" - they were arrested and accused of attempting to traffic 33 children out of the country. [1] Presumably their intention was to sell the youngsters on to paedophiles rings in America and if they had not been caught they would have succeeded in their mission – their mission being to \"help others\" sexually molest vulnerable children. Meanwhile the Jewish Orthodox Union uses their tax-free donations to fund the Institute for Public Affairs [2] which is an American lobby group that opposes humanitarian aid being sent to victims of military aggression in Palestine, rejects the United Nations and international law and supports the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem and the illegal Jewish land grabs in the West Bank. At the same time, there are widespread concerns that tax-free donations made to mosques may be channelled into the hands of Islamic terrorist groups. [3] With regard to countries such as Ireland where church attendances are higher, the income from tax paid by the churches would be very helpful in reducing their budget deficits and allow them to spend more money on schools and hospitals. In conclusion, the activities of religious organisations may seem worthy and noble by some: Christian paedophiles; racist Jews; Islamic terrorists and others; but not everybody welcomes having to pay more tax to make up for the shortfall in receipts from tax-exempt churches, temples, mosques and synagogues. Thank you. [1] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] . http://www.ou.org... [3] . http://www.foxnews.com...", "title": "Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status", "pid": "8a799a1-2019-04-18T19:04:58Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.39913940429688}, {"text": "Pro will be going first this is just for clarification purposes 1. Don't accept debate if you just want to troll 2. Reference the resolution 3. don't miss rounds if possible", "title": "resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES", "pid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.3311004638672}, {"text": "I accept this debate, and as per the rules put forth by Con, I will begin by arguing that the United States should remove tax exemptions from religious institutions. In America, approximately $71 billion worth of tax exemptions are provided to religious institutions each year [1]. Basically, the government is subsidizing religions, making everyone pay for them to continue to run. There are multiple reasons why this is problematic. In America, there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. With the government subsidizing churches, the line between church and state starts looking skewed. For example, with all of the push from the right wing against Obama, churches were actually telling their constituents that God wants them to vote a certain way, or more specifically for a certain candidate [2]. The institution that claims to hold the answer and the key to everyone\"s afterlife should never begin to tell people that God wants them to vote a certain way. More specifically, threatening eternal hellfire if you vote for a specific person is wrong on almost every level. When you start to look at the exemptions, it very much resembles what is going on with tax loop holes with large corporations. These large companies (and religions) will benefit by a certain party in power, because that party pushes to maintain or increase the exemptions, therefore increasing the wealth of the organizations. In return, the organizations give back to the party. In the case of corporations, they provide political \"donations\" to the parties. Once again, in return, they get a party who is willing to push for legislation to make them more money. In the case of religions, they make money from the exemptions and in return, they push specific political ideologies. It is a constant circle in which both sides benefit (one gets more votes and the other gets more money). It is also problematic because in providing all of these exemptions, it is costing more tax dollars to the majority of the population. It would be one thing if only people of a certain faith were paying for their church to grow in terms of both wealth and power, but when everyone has to pay money, regardless of religious beliefs (or a lack of such beliefs) then there is a serious problem. Consider that certain religious organizations are very vocal against certain other groups. Why should a homosexual atheist have to pay money to subsidize the building of a church that preaches to disallow gay marriage or even to criminalize homosexuality? To liken religious institutions to corporations even more, let\"s look at a list of the ten wealthiest religious leaders in America [3]. Why does any man, preaching the teachings of Jesus Christ need be worth $18 million and have two mansions, or have a $1 million annual salary and own a $1.4 million mansion? Isn\"t Jesus the one who said \"Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God\"? It almost seems humorous, how hypocritical the extreme right wing has become in America. They are so against paying taxes or have the government be in control of anything, unless the tax money they pay goes towards religion (not just our own religions, but everyone\"s) or military. The people who are the most anti-tax and anti-government are the most willing to have government funding religion, and the people who should be most against fighting and killing (war) and against government growing in strength and power, are the ones most willing to put trillions of dollars into the building of massive, deadly weapons to go kill countless numbers of others. There should not be tax exemptions for religious institutions because it goes against the idea that the church and state are two separate entities in the sense that they both become politically motivated to work together in order to benefit each side. Religions should get their money from the people who are willing (or threatened, by threat of eternal damnation) to donate to the church to which they belong. [1] http://www.patheos.com... [2] http://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://rollingout.com...", "title": "resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES", "pid": "a84c3c83-2019-04-18T15:40:29Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.3279571533203}, {"text": "If I were President, I would tax churches only .5%. Think about it. If a church makes $100, we (the government) are only taking fifty cents of that. If five churches make $100, the government will only get $2.50. \"What does the government get out of this?\" you may ask. Well, where I live, in Ohio, there's at least ten churches in about 10 square miles. And they make (most likely) more than $100 dollars. Churches can go on their missions that don't really help, and the government gets more money to pay off China. Everybody wins.", "title": "Churches Should be Taxed", "pid": "c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.2816162109375}, {"text": "This is my response for Round 4, the final round of the debate. I’d like to thank Thett for coming out of retirement to debate this with me. Since this is my final response for the debate, I will not be introducing any new arguments to the debate. I will be mostly responding to what Thett says in R3. Religion is a social good The first point of contention that Thett brings up here is in claiming that churches will have to hire armies of lawyers to pay their taxes. This isn’t true, as the only reasons for hiring a tax attorney is for if you are in debt with taxes, issues with tax returns, facing criminal investigation, or are going to US tax court [1]. None of these would likely happen under my plan, thus this argument doesn’t work. Next Thett argues for his notion that churches will have to “change their business model” and thus the bottom line of churches will have to shut down. That churches have operated under the model that they don’t have to pay taxes and thus altering the model to having to pay taxes will make churches shut down. I find this notion unwarranted because it assumes that churches or church leaders are extremely irresponsible with money. It assumes that church leaders will literally forget that their is a church tax, then spend the entirety of their budget, and then not be able to pay the taxes. The possibility of this happening, realistically, is extremely low. The amount of churches that will actually be affected by this mismanagement of money is so low that I find it silly to see this as a feasible impact for Con’s side. Regardless, dividing $26,000 among 50 congregants is $520 per congregant, or around 0.01% of the average income [2]. Given the average giving to church per congregant is $1,038 [3], paying all of the taxes will be no problem. The only impact left on Thett’s side for this is the implication of mismanagement of money, which is a slim impact at best.What does “changing their business model” even mean? And what makes having to change it bad? I don’t see any negative impact in changing a “model” that would cause churches to close. The link between taxing churches and churches closing doesn’t work, since it is unwarranted and proven to be sustainable by congregation members. The only way a church can close is if they cannot pay off expenses (since it isn’t for-profit, it's for-religion, profit of a location is irrelevant) and I have shown that congregations will be able to fairly easily. Lastly, Thett calls for me to justify church taxation. This seems strange to call out this late in the debate, but I justify taxing churches through my framework and every argument I have made. By my uncontested framework, if taxing churches is a greater societal good than a harm then taxing churches is justified. That is why taxing churches is justified. Even regardless of that, Thett’s quick argument about the government providing roads and police protection ignores the fact that churches also take advantage of police protection and road transportation. Thus, by Thett’s own argument churches ought to pay taxes. Economic Benefits Alright, here I messed up big. Thett is right, legitimate operating expenses are tax deductible, did not know that until now. This essentially destroys most of my case, since by my own argument, 71% of income goes to operating expenses while the rest, 29% goes to charity. It isn’t exactly realistic that a church would only spend money on two things, and the third thing they spend it on would be taxable. But I said what I said, and since this is the last round I cannot take that back. That means that based on an income tax, the government would be getting a portion of the 0% of taxable profits, or 0$. This means that my income tax part of my case is negated, making the amount of money the government gets through my plan is $7.9 billion through property taxes. The next point of relevance comes when Thett argues that I can’t just assume that the money collected in taxes from churches would be donated to charity. Thett argues that it is not realistic to believe that the government would spend the money on charity. Since I am the affirming side I am allowed to put forth a plan in which to affirm the resolution, as long as it affirms the resolution I am allowed to use that plan. My plan, as I stated earlier, is to donate the collected money to charity. This is allowed and will happen under my plan. Church and State Thett responds to my argument by saying that the majority of Americans believe that religion should not play a role in politics because the Pope had to apologize after criticizing Trump. This argument doesn’t work, it's an appeal to popularity. Just because the majority of people believe that religion should not play a role in politics doesn’t mean that religion shouldn’t play a role in politics. Thett further argues that all it takes is one religious endorsement contrary to public good to sway the election and produce a negative result, and thus negative impact. This doesn’t work since endorsements are a neutral value. A religious organization could just as easily endorse a candidate for the public good than a candidate against the public good, and thus there is no impact either way here. It is a neutral value. The notion that a government relies on the church for legitimacy makes no sense and is unwarranted. The only way that Thett has proposed that religious organizations retaliate against the government is through getting involved through politics through endorsements, which as I just showed has no case. Thett’s entire argument based on separation of church and state relied on the church getting involved in politics through endorsements, which I proved is neutral. Thus Thett’s argument here is negated. Conclusion Through my plan $7.9 billion is raised in taxes. Given that $28 billion is used to save 6 million lives, $7.9 billion will be used to save 1.7 million lives. Even if we accept Thett’s unwarranted link between churches closing and taxes, and then accept that the link is logically sound, the argument still doesn’t work because reduction in people attending church leading to an increase in stress and depression is outweighed by the 1.7 million lives that are saved. In order for Thett’s impacts to outweigh mine, about 6 people would have to die per congregation as a result of taxing churches (1.7m/300k.) This is not realistic given Thett’s argument, thus I win this debate. Peace and Love [1] https://www.supermoney.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://amiccs.com...", "title": "Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes", "pid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.26220703125}, {"text": "P1: It is made clear in the American Bill of Rights Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, churches and other religious establishments should not have benefit over its people nor should Congress discriminate when it comes to tax breaks. P2: By allowing churches and other religious establishments to not pay their taxes, the burden is then shifted to us as regular citizens to have to pay those taxes for them. That means an extra percentage taken out of our hard earned paychecks to cover the loss of taxes not paid by these religious establishments. The money has to come from somewhere and if its not equally being attributed then someone else has to pay for. C: Tax breaks should end for religious organizations. 1) taxthechurches.org 2)taxthechurches,org", "title": "End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations", "pid": "7a73d7d7-2019-04-18T16:29:54Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.20480346679688}, {"text": "I would like to express my sincere thanks to frappe for accepting this challenge and for responding in such a eloquent and informed manner. I would also politely request the voters to acknowledge that my opponent extended me the courtesy of \"home ground\" in basing his rebuttals on the British, rather than the American, model of society: I certainly didn't anticipate this but I am very grateful. With regard to the role of churches in society, and the alleged benefits my opponent contends they provide, I would like to respond as follows: Con acknowledges that church attendance in Britain has decreased to a point whereby only a tiny fraction of citizens regularly attend church services, and those that do are mainly elderly which means that attendances is in terminal decline. Indeed, far more people obtain their spiritual sustenance from psychics, astrologers and fortune-tellers. These mystics and soothsayers provide spiritual comfort to their impressionable clients in exchange for money -they earn a living by giving their customers emotional support in exchange for cash, a bit like churches do, but unlike churches they pay tax on their income: when a punter crosses Rosie Lee's palm with silver, the crystal ball-gazing gypsy will dutifully record this financial transaction and scrupulously declare her full earnings when she diligently files her tax returns (gypsies are notoriously honest people) - and these taxes are used to benefit wider societies by paying for teachers, nurses, police officers and so on. Despite the lack of spiritual adherents though, the churches are making money hand over fist, mainly through their property investment portfolios: the Church of England alone netted a cool 19.1% on their �4.3 billion / $6.9 billion investments last year (1) - tax free, of course - but these windfalls do not benefit wider society at all because they either reinvest the money or spend it on providing themselves with munificent stipends and lavish, grace-in-favour accommodation. With reference to preserving historic buildings, the churches certainly have a moral responsibility to do this, but it is a responsibility they continually fail to discharge. The Church of England is one of the largest land-owners in Britain but if a parish church becomes uneconomic due to falling attendances, they will ruthlessly sell it off to the highest bidder. In rural areas, churches tend to be converted into luxury apartments (2) for affluent commuters while churches in urban areas are often converted into pubs: my old local pub in Muswell Hill, North London and also my old local pub when I lived in Aberdeen, Scotland were both formerly churches (3,4) - whereas in times gone by the vicar would have dispensed blessings the bartenders now dispense beers, wines and spirits from the same spot. Some parishioners may feel this is sacrilege, but the churches don't care about that: for them religion is all about one thing and one thing alone; cold, hard cash The poor and needy? Their welfare is the responsibility of the state and charities, not the churches, at least not as fare as they are concerned. Which brings me neatly to the issue of their charitable status. Charities are typically run by volunteers, with a small number of paid staff on modest incomes: and these employees certainly do not live in grand houses and drive flash cars like so many vicars and priests do. Indeed, in America where televangelism is a $2-3 billion, unregulated, untaxed industry, pastors are even more extravagant. For example, preacher Kenneth Copeland \"lives in an 18,000 square foot home outside Ft. Worth, Texas worth $6 million. It has beautiful water views that comes complete with a boat house. But that's not all. Copeland is an avid pilot, and his pride and joy is a $20 million Cessna Citation jet. It's the fastest private jet money can buy. He said he needed it to better serve the Lord, and proudly did a fly by for his followers after the church bought it.\" (5) If it was revealed that donations to a charity were being used to fund lavish lifestyles of charity workers rather than being spent on good causes, there would, quite rightly, be a public outcry and the organisation would, in all probability, loose it's charitable status. So what's so special about the church? Why are they allowed to use their income to feather their nests tax-free? The answer is undue reverence for an ancient institution that no longer has any relevance to the vast majority of people in 21st Century Britain. To conclude, I am not arguing that there is no place in society for religious organisations, merely that they should pay their way like any other for-profit organisation and that the should be subject to tax. Thank you. (1) http://www.guardian.co.uk... (2) http://www.locationworks.com... (3) http://www.oneills.co.uk... (4) http://www.pbdevco.com... (5) http://www.insideedition.com...", "title": "The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres", "pid": "37eb35dd-2019-04-18T18:23:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.1811065673828}, {"text": "I don\"t understand how your debate relates to the topic. Did you accidentally put this on the wrong debate? If so fell free to tell me in the comments of this debate. Anyways, Churches make money, And don\"t donate that much away. The should be taxed for what they make. That is all I have to say.", "title": "Churches Paying Taxes", "pid": "3f1c75e-2019-04-18T11:15:58Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.1656494140625}, {"text": "Rules: 1. make sure your not a troll 2. Don't forfeit please 3. have fun this is just to help me gain more arguments neg. I have a good one but would like to see if their are any more. 4. resolution specifies U.S. so stay on U.S. 5. have fun", "title": "remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S.", "pid": "ca561f99-2019-04-18T15:37:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.04962158203125}, {"text": "Church should not pay taxes because they are the center for religions. People rely on them to help themselves worship gods and to live through and with their religion but I am a simple cow with not much knowledge of pigs. Pigs are a mystery to me they are always bouncing around with their big fat pig butts. I am attracted to pigs but I am to nervous to tell anyone because my mom and dad are very strinkt. They are kind of strange and they really confuse me some times, But I really like cows and butterscotch and yeah Japan! ALSO I MAY WARN YOU THAT THIS SITE IS JUST A LOT OF WORDS SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE READING GO TO THE BOOKSTORE DWEEB! * Also, You better floss! I mean the teeth kinda floss don't do that garbage in my face! Source(s): https://sites. Google. Com/madisoned. Org/archived-candy-club/", "title": "Churches Paying Taxes", "pid": "3f1c75e-2019-04-18T11:15:58Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.00601196289062}, {"text": "religious charities serve the purpose to provide charity to the needy within their own religious communities. we live in a secular society in which we strive to ensure that all citizens possess the same rights and obligations as each other, irrelevant of religion race standing etc our government has a duty to uphold this secularism in the interest of maintaining a fair society. our govt can certainly not support organisations such as religions whose interests serve only divided segments of our citizens. if a religious organisation wants to organise charitable collections, then they must be audited to ensure that the benefit of the charity goes to a wide spectrum of a nations/communities' people and certainly not distributed as loyalty/reward points to a private members' club.", "title": "religious and ethnic charities should be discouraged and not be eligible for tax relief", "pid": "21c1355b-2019-04-18T15:25:22Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.00506591796875}, {"text": "In this round, I will be providing rebuttal to Thett’s offensive arguments and defending my own arguments against Thett’s rebuttals. Framework Thett begins by expressing surprise at a purely utilitarian framework rather than higher principles such as separation of church and state. Separation of church and state is not a higher principle. Maybe the purpose of establishing a utilitarian framework was unclear: my framework establishes a system in which impacts are weighed; not a common ‘theme’ of arguments. My framework argued (and was never contested) that impacts ought to be weighed based on the goodness to badness ratio; goodness being the creation of more positive mental states than negative ones. Because Thett never contested my framework, separation of church and state only becomes a ‘higher’ principle in that its impact weighed in positive to negative mental states outweighs any other impacts; or, in the sense of a ‘principal’, categories of impact (such as economic growth, unemployment, crime, and such.) Thett’s claim at the end of this section that if religion is proved as an overall benefit and taxes would harm the prevalence of religion, he would automatically win, is simply untrue. By my established framework, as long as a higher impact is created by taxing churches (a higher impact than harm done to prevalence of religion), I win the debate. Religion is a social good I do not contest the health benefits of being religious. Thus, I concede all of what Thett says here; with the exception community gatherings since that can easily be done at public schools rather than churches. This entire contention only gains impact if Thett can show that taxing churches would result in less religious attendance through the inability of people attending church (because the local church closes down.) I find that this link is unwarranted, and extremely weak at best. If you go back and read through the debate, the only times Thett addresses churches shutting down is through unwarranted claims. There is the exception of bringing up 26,000 Catholic properties in America, of which I address and negate in my second to last paragraph of the next contention. Thus, the link between taxing churches and decrease in health is nonexistent as it is thrown away on the basis of a bare assertion fallacy. Regardless, even if a link did exist and this argument had any impact, the amount of good that could be done with $14.6 billion (see next contention) far outweighs the amount of good that attending church does. $14.6 billion could save millions of lives through preventing starvation and crime. These impacts outweigh decreased stress and lengthened lifetimes. This entire contention is negated on two layers. Economic effects The beginning of this contention is spent attacking my source for the statistic of $71 billion raised from taxing churches. The source can be seen here [1]. I will start at the beginning of the calculation and go step by step until I reach the conclusion. The average church property value is estimated at $1.7 million. This is reached from averaging the property values of 47 different churches in Tampa, Florida. I think this is a reasonable estimate given that the median household property value in the US is $189,400 [2]. The median household property value in Tampa is $165,200 [3]. Because churches are zoned for commercial properties and are only able to be built on residential properties after obtaining a variance, most churches lie on commercial property [4]. And since residential and commercial property values are proven to exhibit strong correlation [5], and commercial property values tend to be significantly higher in value than residential properties [6], the estimation would follow a national trend. As my source [6] explains, it is standard to have a residential property sell for $100,000 and a commercial property of the exact same size across the street sells for $1,000,000. As logic shows, the $1.7 million statistic is reliable. The average property tax on households is 1.29% [7] and commercial property taxes are 20% higher [8], which puts the tax at 1.55%. Thus the average church would thus pay $26,350 in taxes. Given there are 300,000 churches, that ends up being $7,905,000,000. That’s $7.9 billion. Since under the resolution I am only arguing for commercial income tax and property tax, I drop the prior $71 billion to $7.9 billion. Thus my overall money raised from church taxes is $14.6 billion. Thett’s next point is that a tax would shut down thousands of churches and thus lose many jobs. First of all the entire assertion that churches would close down or jobs would be lost is unwarranted, as I explained earlier. But regardless, even if jobs are lost, since the money is reallocated to secular organizations, the same number of new employees are hired at the organization than were lost at the church. This compensates for any lost jobs. Thett makes a sidepoint in the second paragraph noting that 71% of church expenses are on operation costs, which he argues would be tax deductible because internal operations are essential to spending on charity. Thus, the government would only get a portion of that already donated to charity. And since my plan would use the taxed money to donate to charity, my plan would seem pointless since I am taxing charity donations to spend on charity. This argument does not work for a few reasons. Firstly, it assumes that all churches, or even the majority of churches are non profit organizations. This is not true, just as the Ford Motor Company donates some of their income to charity does not make their internal operating expenses tax deductible, neither does a church’s. These internal operation expenses are for religious practice, such as worship, rather than operations relating to charity. Thus, these internal operations would not be tax deductible. The only exception for this is when the church files to be classed as a non profit, or a 501(c)(3) organization. When this happens no income can be used for “private purposes” [9]. This eliminates the ability of a church to function as a church, and thus no longer becomes a church since it provides no worship services, guidance, or whatever. All profit is donated to charity except for money spent to maintain the donation of money (operating expenses.) My plan would not tax these non profit organizations, only churches. And churches are inherently for profit, as my logic just showed. Thus, my tax would take away X amount of money, of which 29% would ordinarily be used for charity, and I would donate it to charity making 92% of it used for charity. Based on my uncontested framework, my plan wins out here. The other option is that the church’s donations to charities are written off on their taxes, and thus I am only taxing the remaining taxable income: 71% of their income. The tax on that income would then further be spent on charity due to my plan, and again, based on my uncontested framework, my plan wins out. Thett goes on to cite the Catholic church in spending 93% of their $170 billion budget on charity. This is all true, and it is of course good. But the claim that church taxes would “tax them out of existence” is unwarranted, as I explained earlier. What will happen is a portion of their budget will be deducted in taxes, which then, according to my plan, will be reallocated to secular nonprofits, of which are just as or more utilitarian in spending their money. It's important to note that using the example of the Catholic Church is cherry-picking, and a more topical example would be the national average, which is 29% of the money going to charity. Taxing and reallocating it would make 92% go to charity. More lives are saved, diseases cured, and homes built through my plan. But even regardless of this, as I said earlier, any money that the Catholic church uses for charity is tax deductible. This means that only funds used for non charity related uses, such as worship, guidance, or whatever is actually taxed. Saying that hospitals would close, or any other negative affect to charity is simply untrue, a tax would only harm the worship part of church. Separation of Church and State Thett’s argument here is that the church and the state have a truce of mutually assured destruction. The problem with this is that is makes the unwarranted assumption that churches would retaliate, or that their retaliation is bad. Neither of these are true. First of all, the head of the largest religious institution in the world endorses church taxes for noncharitable churches [11]. Secondly, taxes won’t significantly harm religious organizations, and Thett has given no argument that it would, so significant retaliation is unlikely. Regardless, the only retaliation that Thett brings up is in endorsing candidates. I don’t see this as a bad thing, as religious institutions have every right to exercise their free speech and endorse candidates. There is no negative here, or at least no negative that Thett has argued for. So the idea that taxing churches is bad because it will result in churches retaliating by endorsing candidates has no impact for Thett since he failed to show why churches endorsing candidates is a bad thing. There is no arguable difference between the Catholic Church, Bernie Sanders, or the NAACP endorsing someone for president. None of these are bad things, this argument has no impact. Also, the claim that the tax exemption status would just be returned is outside the scope of the resolution since it is a should proposition, not a *would*. Suing the government because your taxes went up due to a newly passed law has no ground. The government does not have to spend any money defending that kind of lawsuit since there is nothing to sue over. There is room for debate in what's defined as a church though, and these are funded by wealthy organizations making the cost of these courses more expensive. Sources in comments", "title": "Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes", "pid": "f2f7c9c0-2019-04-18T12:43:51Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.96044921875}, {"text": "As my opponent has forfeited the last round, my arguments extend to this round.", "title": "That we should tax religions.", "pid": "1e5d5fcd-2019-04-18T19:02:10Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.9507293701172}, {"text": "I accept your open challenge", "title": "Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions.", "pid": "439c18e2-2019-04-18T12:33:35Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.9474334716797}, {"text": "The reason why religious institutions should not be taxed is because of the first amendment. The first amendment states the following-\"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. \" The problem with taxes is that not every religion will be taxed the same. If a religion is taxed less than another than that could be viewed as respecting an religion over another, which is against the first amendment. Also churches use the tithes as ways to build churches, temples, and/or meeting houses to areas that don't have such buildings. With taxes that could be prohibiting someone from worshiping by taking the money that could go toward building a church house and giving it to the government. Also the separation of state and church which means that both are separate and taxes don't follow this rule. I pass it to my opponent. sources . http://www.law.cornell.edu...", "title": "Religious institutions should be taxed like everyone else.", "pid": "18e421a8-2019-04-18T17:25:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.92037963867188}, {"text": "Just to clarify, my stance is that churches should NOT be exempt from any form of legislation which, in this case, involves legislation regarding homosexual rights.", "title": "Churches should be excluded from gay or lesbian laws", "pid": "f1173c1a-2019-04-18T17:52:03Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.91912841796875}, {"text": "Fiirstly, please be advised that I am an equal opportunities debater and this challenge may be accepted by any member regardless of their age, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or gender although contributions from young Asian bi-curious women are particularly welcome as they are under-represented on this site. Now, here is my opening argument: Churches make money by cynically exploiting the fears, prejudices and insecurities of their congregations: but there's nothing illegal about that; that's capitalism. However, unlike most other organisations, churches do not pay tax on their profits. If they did, though, the income raised could, and should, be ring-fenced by the government and used to fund women-only, lesbian-friendly drop-in centres that could provide free or subsidised: * Feminist-orientated assertiveness training courses * On-site caf�s serving vegan wholefood dishes, Free Trade herbal teas and sustainably-sourced organic wines * Multi-ethnic women's rights awareness meetings * In-house spas providing holistic therapy treatments using only cruelty-free, carbon-neutral cosmetic products * Lesbian and bi-sexual bonding sessions * Clinics providing free contraception and abortions-on-demand for victims of male sexual oppression These drop-in centres would give women much-needed non-judgemental, eco-friendly, multicultural, ethically-aware refuges where they could find sanctuary from the conservative and regressive social doctrines that dominate mainstream society and perpetuate the exploitation of women by men. Furthermore, this scheme would be wholly in keeping with the Christian ethos of giving alms to strangers and would, therefore, command the full support of the preachers, pastors, vicars and priests who represent the various churches and who, in the true spirit of Christianity, would be delighted to forgo such worldly decadences as luxury cars and houses in order to support women in need. That's why the government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres. Thank you.", "title": "The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres", "pid": "37eb35dd-2019-04-18T18:23:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.90420532226562}, {"text": "Pro posited that the status quo be changed, and that religious entities should be, in essence, removed from the list of not-for-profits (NFPs) recognized by the Charity Law. To do so, Pro would have to either prove that religious entities fail to provide public benefits or prove that they operate in the manner similar to a for-profit institution. It is Con's contention that Pro failed to provide cited arguments proving such. Pro began with the Church of England's suffering attendance levels. Con previously noted such to demonstrate that England is largely a secular society and that Pro's assertion that the Church gets by on fear mongering was an unrealistic one (indeed, when Durham Cathedral asked its visitors for �5 donations to cover the building's �60,000 weekly maintenance bill, patrons responded with an average donative of 32p[1], which mathematically works out to a one way ticket to hell for 94% of the visitors). Pro did not attempt to counter this, but instead pointed to the declining attendance as an indicator of the Church's declining relevance and that greying of remaining worshipers only serves to show that this trend will continue. Con counters that firstly, such an argument in no way demonstrates that a public benefit is not being derived by those who still attend church every week. Secondly, those deriving spiritual sustenance is not limited to those who fill the pews every week. While only 4% of Anglicans attend on a weekly basis, nearly twice as many visit at least once per month and on the holidays the benches do fill, with Easter and Christmas seeing 1.2 million and 2.3 million respectively[2]. Pro then states that more people fulfill their spiritual needs via mystics and fortune tellers than by the Church. A dubious claim which Con would contest should it make a difference, but Con only seeks to amend it by remarking that in our creature comfort society, capitalist services such as soothsayers, reality television and shoe shopping (i.e. Mrs. Frappe) provide more spiritual sustenance than the representatives of Yahweh, Shiva, Athena and Woden combined. The rub is that such are provided by for-profits entities and the recipients of these incomes can freely use profits for personal gain (and therefore taxed). If Pro wishes to lump the church into that little tangle, then Pro must prove that the Church operates like a for-profit entity, if not in letter, at least in spirit. Unfortunately Pro does not expand on this any further than to mention vicars riding around in nice cars, bishops living high on the hog and Kevin Copeland flying about in planes. With the exception of the latter, no hard data is cited. Mr. Copeland belongs more on Jersey Shore than he does anywhere near a non-profit. He is an example of excess and no one disagrees that excesses occur. And Copeland is not alone. Charity Navigator's 2010 CEO compensation study (Copeland is American, so forgive the American data) noted that the Educational Media Foundation won the \"most generously compensated CEO of a religious non-profit in America\" award, by giving their CEO $648,537 worth of benefits in 2008. That pales, however, next to the New York Philharmonic, which doled out $2,649,540 to its CEO, even though both organizations had similar levels of total expenses [3]. And in weeding out the outliers, median CEO pay paints a more striking picture. Out of the nine types of charitable institutions, CEOs of religious institutions averaged $90,000 per year, trailing far behind charities of Public Benefit ($168,490), Arts, Cultures & Humanities ($190,550) and Education ($272,645) [4]. With the Archbishop of Canterbury's salary at �55,660 (plus benefits) [5] a case for religious institutions being any more profligate than other non-profits with its compensation seems untenable. Pro then notes the muscular income the Church makes off its investments. The church makes a pretty penny from its investments, no doubt spurred on by its tax free status. To be sure, a wonderfully pregnant trove for a modern King Henry to do a little church sacking to fill the coffers, but it is relatively immaterial to this debate, for this debate concerns itself with the tax exempt status of religious institutions, not the nuancing of England's Charity Law regarding NFP investment incomes. All NFP's take advantage of this, so what is so egregious about a religious entity doing the same? Pro then notes that it is a moral obligation for the Church to maintain historic buildings, a moral obligation that in no doubt is a public service (though some of that lavish living money is going to have to make up the �4.68 per visitor shortfall Durham Cathedral has got going on). Pro then insinuates that the church is derelict in this duty because it has decommissioned some churches into condos and pubs. Does Pro suggest that such parishes be kept open, when it is obvious to even the Church that the declining attendance levels no longer warrant the maintenance of the buildings or staff? Any NFP has the right to focus its resources in a manner which best allows it to provide services. Pro's last argument maintains that \"Charities are typically run by volunteers, with a small number of paid staff on modest incomes\" and then implies that the church does not do so. Again, unfortunately, Pro does not cite any data about how non-religious charities conform to this or how religious charities fail to do so. Many charities which do fit the bill Pro has suggested derive income by hiring outside for-profit consultants to fundraise. The Cancer Survivor Fund received $1,107,250 in contributions in 2010, but had $1,005,072 in fund raising expenses [6]. That's a lot of lawyers, accountants and executives getting well on donations. Even Andre Agassi's Foundation for Education (with celebrity do-whop Sir Elton John) paid for-profit fundraisers $2,014,469 to raise $7,536,463 in contributions [7]. Lucky for the Rocketman the foundation also made about $13 million in tax free investments. Perhaps, more interesting are the NFP's that don't fit Pro's vision of a typical charity [8]. Con concludes by begging the same question that Pro did. \"What's so special about the church?\" What evidence has Pro provided that demonstrates that the Church does not operate like an NFP, or that it fails to provide a public benefit? As Con has shown, Pro has made no systemic argument to support such. Con would also like to point out that most of the discussion has centered the Church of England and has ignored the smaller religious institutions of England. Are they to be taxed as well? Con is sympathetic to Pro's argument of declining relevance, but that points better to Disestablishment than it does to declaring religious institutions for-profit entities. Thank you. Despite Con's arguments, Con still hopes that Pro is successful with his centers. [1] http://www.anglican-mainstream.net... [2] http://www.churchofengland.org... [3] http://www.charitynavigator.org... [4] Ibid [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [6] http://www.charitynavigator.org... [7] http://www.charitynavigator.org... [8]http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk...", "title": "The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres", "pid": "37eb35dd-2019-04-18T18:23:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.89517211914062}]}
{"idx": 18, "qid": "19", "q_text": "Should gay marriage be legal?", "qrels": {"1aa165a9-2019-04-18T19:19:46Z-00005-000": 2, "369e4f3a-2019-04-18T19:20:56Z-00003-000": 2, "4494bc81-2019-04-18T15:15:51Z-00003-000": 2, "452c0de8-2019-04-18T19:19:05Z-00005-000": 2, "4686f91-2019-04-18T15:19:05Z-00006-000": 2, "4e10f154-2019-04-18T19:21:24Z-00002-000": 1, "5e01dc21-2019-04-18T12:23:21Z-00004-000": 0, "63346ee3-2019-04-18T18:10:40Z-00002-000": 2, "1ac1769f-2019-04-18T17:39:53Z-00000-000": 0, "5d03ca92-2019-04-18T18:09:51Z-00004-000": 0, "d00db280-2019-04-18T16:05:57Z-00006-000": 0, "c015ffd5-2019-04-18T18:13:51Z-00003-000": 2, "fc2305a5-2019-04-18T14:29:15Z-00001-000": 1, "f54ab53a-2019-04-18T12:48:18Z-00003-000": 1, "f54ab53a-2019-04-18T12:48:18Z-00006-000": 0, "ea2e9abe-2019-04-18T17:35:59Z-00005-000": 0, "ea2e9abe-2019-04-18T17:35:59Z-00006-000": 1, "ea2e1abf-2019-04-18T18:45:35Z-00006-000": 0, "ea2e1a62-2019-04-18T19:39:51Z-00001-000": 2, "de756082-2019-04-18T19:21:02Z-00000-000": 0, "d9e8f6e2-2019-04-18T19:03:35Z-00005-000": 1, "d01da9c8-2019-04-18T18:53:03Z-00005-000": 1, "63347646-2019-04-18T17:41:45Z-00005-000": 2, "d00daa82-2019-04-18T19:16:31Z-00000-000": 0, "c7743ad-2019-04-18T15:32:26Z-00006-000": 2, "c27d9933-2019-04-18T18:31:01Z-00000-000": 0, "c015fff4-2019-04-18T16:39:13Z-00005-000": 0, "bf9475f7-2019-04-18T17:15:49Z-00002-000": 2, "633484ce-2019-04-18T17:00:33Z-00003-000": 2, "3138dd6d-2019-04-18T16:51:12Z-00004-000": 2, "6334dfa0-2019-04-18T16:32:19Z-00003-000": 2, "6334eb40-2019-04-18T16:07:52Z-00004-000": 1, "6335541e-2019-04-18T14:59:13Z-00002-000": 2, "6e4913a2-2019-04-18T18:20:20Z-00002-000": 1, "73289150-2019-04-18T19:34:17Z-00002-000": 0, "7692e3ab-2019-04-18T18:06:02Z-00009-000": 2, "771495df-2019-04-18T16:41:49Z-00004-000": 2, "9d395e54-2019-04-18T15:45:06Z-00004-000": 0, "9f08d1d3-2019-04-18T18:50:39Z-00005-000": 0, "633485c6-2019-04-18T16:57:18Z-00003-000": 1}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Gay Marriage should be a legal form of marriage for the simple fact that disallowing LGBT groups to marrying is taking a right that should be theirs. I'll let you go first, as I am contending that there are no substantial legal reasons to disallow same-sex marriage, and thus it should be a right for any LGBT couple to marry.", "title": "Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.", "pid": "14339ab0-2019-04-18T19:35:57Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.98336791992188}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be legal. There is no valid reason homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as as any other citizen of the United States.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal.", "pid": "5b95326a-2019-04-18T16:00:23Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.83631896972656}, {"text": "Everyone, men and women, without any limitation due race, nationality or religion should have the right to marry and to found a family. I believe that gay marriage should be acceptable in all places around the world because it shouldn't matter how old or what gender you are, love is love and no one should tell you otherwise. Therefore, gay marriage should be legalized.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legalized.", "pid": "fe5e045a-2019-04-18T15:15:22Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.6935577392578}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 sates. There is nothing wrong with two people loving each other that are the same gender. These people deserve their chance at love and the government should not hold them back.", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legal.", "pid": "d00d2f7a-2019-04-18T17:48:12Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.66128540039062}, {"text": "Hi, I'm Kyle, and I believe that gay marriage should not be legalized. Gay marriage should not be legal because gay couples are not able to reproduce. According to a study conducted by Robert Miller in 2012, 80% of heterosexual couples were married for the main purpose of reproduction. In the next rounds I would like this to become a deeper debate.", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legal.", "pid": "d00d2f7a-2019-04-18T17:48:12Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.63595581054688}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be legal.", "title": "Gay Marriage", "pid": "6335cb84-2019-04-18T12:35:52Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.63150024414062}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be legal.", "title": "Gay Marriage", "pid": "6335cba3-2019-04-18T12:35:45Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.63150024414062}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be legal. why shouldn't it? love is love it doesn't matter if its the same sex. Your taking away their constitutional rights! PEOPLE that are straight get married and divorced all the time gays just want to get married once. YES I believe that gay marriage should be legal through out the U.S.", "title": "should gay marriage be legal", "pid": "933d85b9-2019-04-18T16:11:47Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.59996032714844}, {"text": "I believe that gay marriage has become a highly controversial issue which people have blown out of proportion. Exclude the fact that these people are homosexual. They are people just like the rest of us and if it makes them happy to be together, then who are we to deny someone of their happiness? Gay marriage should be allowed throughout the United States.", "title": "Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized", "pid": "14341634-2019-04-18T18:25:02Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 217.58151245117188}, {"text": "I personally believe that Gay Marriage should be legal throughout the U.S. with no government restriction whatsoever. I am open to any and all opposition, and this first round will be dedicated to anyone who wishes to challenge my point. Good luck to whoever wishes to oppose my point.", "title": "Gay Marriage be legal in the U.S. with no government restriction.", "pid": "26750601-2019-04-18T16:40:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.56021118164062}, {"text": "Homosexual adoption is a good point. However, gay marriage should not be legalized because we need to preserve the tradition of heterosexual marriage. Tradition is that heterosexuals should be allowed to be married, but not homosexual couples.", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legal.", "pid": "d00d2f7a-2019-04-18T17:48:12Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.54550170898438}, {"text": "I believe Gay marriage should be legal all over the world. It isn't a sin and it isn't wrong.", "title": "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal", "pid": "9bfef25f-2019-04-18T13:27:14Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.5254669189453}, {"text": "Marriage is a social union between two people in love, no one should be denied these rights.", "title": "The US government should legalize homosexual marriage.", "pid": "56fcb3c3-2019-04-18T18:54:38Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.518310546875}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be legalized because this is a step forward to more equality. Gay people should have the right to formally be able to call the love of their lives their spouses. The Bible might state that gay people shouldn't be married or even together but the Bible and a few Christians have a few twists with this statement (I'm a Christian myself so don't take this to heart ). There will be elaboration on these statements but I'm interested in my opponent's response.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legalized", "pid": "630bc9f5-2019-04-18T16:38:01Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.51715087890625}, {"text": "I've been trying to challenge some few individuals on this topic, but none of them seem to accept for whatever reasons. So I guess I'll just make another open debate. I intend to argue that any LGBT marriage should be legalized, and thus when I say \"gay\", I am referring to LGBT. My sole argument is that gay people have the same rights to marry as do heterosexual people. The word \"marriage\" does not need to be a definite prerequisite - the only thing that should happen is for gays to have the same rights as heterosexuals. Civil unions can be an appropriate alternative, but only until it has the exact same rights as marriage (of which it currently does not). I will allow my opponent to go first and I will refute his/her arguments accordingly.", "title": "Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.", "pid": "14339acf-2019-04-18T19:31:22Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.49041748046875}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be legalized; it's a civil rights issue, plain and simple. However, I would be interested to hear a strong argument against it.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal", "pid": "ea2e9a80-2019-04-18T17:42:23Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.48675537109375}, {"text": "I accept.Cheers! :)", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legalized.", "pid": "4366841b-2019-04-18T15:33:58Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 217.46896362304688}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be legal nationwide here in the United States. Having illegal marriage is discrimination. Everyone is equal. People should be allowed to marry anyone they want to. If straight people can marry who ever they want, then gays should be able to marry who ever they want. The reason why so many people don't want gay marriage legalized is because it is against God. People get offended when they see same sex couples for that reason. Truth is, if you don't like it then don't be near them. There is nothing wrong with being gay. There isnt proof of god anyways and If someone doesn't want to follow god's rules then they shouldn't have to. People have the freedom of any religion/belief they want. Many teens are gay and get bullied all the time and legalizing it across the nation will show teens that homosexuality is accepted in society and its okay to be gay. This is my honest opinion on why gay marriage should be legal nationwide.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal nationwide in the US!!!", "pid": "b91f04f4-2019-04-18T15:09:43Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.44070434570312}, {"text": "The right to equality is a fundamental right for humans, especially in government affairs. Taxation is a government affair. Marriage provides tax benefits. Therefore marriage is government affair. So then gays should be allowed to marry.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legalized in the entire US", "pid": "917584fd-2019-04-18T16:27:13Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.4324951171875}, {"text": "Geeze Liberals can never defend their own beliefs and yet Gay Marriage is legal inall 50 state- idiots.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal.", "pid": "5b9532a8-2019-04-18T13:29:26Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.42254638671875}, {"text": "I believe that being married is a basic right in the US. To say it is against your religion for SOMEONE ELSE, to get married is disgraceful. In America, there is freedom of religion, but not for gay or lesbians! The law preventing gays and lesbians to get married is against their freedom of religion.", "title": "Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the U.S.", "pid": "9b60ca6e-2019-04-18T14:43:26Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.40386962890625}, {"text": "Ask almost anyone on the street and they will probably agree with you that homosexual's should have the same rights as heterosexuals. Yet, once you get on the issue of marriage, more than half of the population in America is against it. This right to marriage is the last blockade for equal rights for homosexuals. I'll let my opponent go first.", "title": "Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.", "pid": "14339a91-2019-04-18T19:36:40Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.39157104492188}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be legalized. Government and religion should not mix. Not allowing people of the LGBT community to marry is discrimination against their sexuality. Something should not be illegal just because others don't agree with it. The LGBT community deserves the same right to marry who they love and be bound legally just like everyone else can be.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legalized by the federal government", "pid": "ce8a18b4-2019-04-18T17:09:26Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.3810272216797}, {"text": "I accept. I believe that banning gay marriage is not a violation of equal rights because everyone is allowed to get married under the law. Meaning that we all have the same equal right to get married.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal in the us", "pid": "99965175-2019-04-18T15:47:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.36001586914062}, {"text": "I believe Gay Marriage should be legalized because the right to marry whom you choose is a human right, and gays are not any less human than heterosexual Americans. Also, unless someone can prove there is a political reason for not wanting Gays to get married, i will continue believing that the only reason this right is in question is because of religious reasons, and there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state in this country. Also, banning gay marriage is just as bad as a jim crow law.", "title": "Resolved: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized", "pid": "bd64e7e3-2019-04-18T19:12:30Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.34689331054688}, {"text": "Gay Marriage should be legal, and churches should stop lobbying Washington to ban gay marriage. I'll allow my opponent to make the opening argument...", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legal", "pid": "173a3f88-2019-04-18T19:56:25Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.3321990966797}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be legalized.", "title": "Gay marriage", "pid": "33954e07-2019-04-18T17:15:23Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.30325317382812}, {"text": "Gay Marriage should be legal, and churches should stop lobbying Washington to ban gay marriage. I'll allow my opponent to make the opening argument......", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legal", "pid": "173a3fe5-2019-04-18T19:55:19Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.2960662841797}, {"text": "What is marriage you may ask? Well, marriage is a religious and legal contract between people. But I, come down to the world religious. The Catholic bible is against gays, and 25% of Americans are Catholic. This problem began when the United States of America made marriage not only a religious thing, but intertwined with the law. In the defense that same sex marriage should be illegal, I say that making it legal would be like mocking the Catholic bible and over 25% of Americans.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal", "pid": "ea2e9abe-2019-04-18T17:35:59Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.29196166992188}, {"text": "Simply put, it should be legal. I can find no compelling argument as to why it shouldn't be legal. So, I will ramble a bit. This must get to 100 words. I like words. Words are wordsy. Words, words, words. Sentences too. Also, two. Sentences are collections of words put together, often beginning with a capital letter and ending with a punctuation mark.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal.", "pid": "ea2e1a62-2019-04-18T19:39:51Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.28343200683594}, {"text": "i belive that that gay marriage should be legal im all for it honestly many people deserve to marry the love of their life whether the love of their life is someone of the same gender or oppposing", "title": "gay marriage", "pid": "48d177bf-2019-04-18T16:12:00Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.27548217773438}, {"text": "Hello. I would like to debate a serious matter- should gay marriage be legalized? In my opinion, yes it should. Disagree? Join the con side and debate me!", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legalized!", "pid": "5d03cecf-2019-04-18T15:32:17Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 217.26571655273438}, {"text": "gay-homosexual marriage-the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Both definitions from Merriam-Webster. Gay marriage, presumably a marriage which is somehow related to homosexuality, e.g. one or both partners are homosexual, is legal. Nearly every form of marriage is legal. There is no need to legalize that which is legal. It is far simpler to create a new, legal institution, a civil union, and leave the definition of marriage to the Church. I propose that civil union status, along with benefits, be given to all those who become, or are currently married, and that the government ceases to regulate marriage. I concede all points, excepting 4. An interracial marriage always fit the definitions, and when did we legalize polygamy?", "title": "Should Gay Marriage be legal", "pid": "4e10f154-2019-04-18T19:21:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.255615234375}, {"text": "gay marriage should be legal", "title": "gay marriage", "pid": "48d10dab-2019-04-18T17:25:56Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.25115966796875}, {"text": "Marriage is an institution that has Christian roots and sanctified by the church. The bible says that a man should not lie with a man. Why would homosexuals want to be married if it's part of a religious background? They could just do whatever they want and fall in love with another guy but not have it be legally recognized marriage. That's one thing a lot of people fail to consider because not allowing gays to be married doesn't mean they can't love or have any sexual freedom it's specific to marriage. Most gays don't stay married when they get married anyway. Equal rights shouldn't be the case in every case. Especially with a sacred institution like marriage.", "title": "Gay marriage shouldn't be legal", "pid": "56ff41f0-2019-04-18T16:22:34Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.2496337890625}, {"text": "Legal - deriving authority from or founded on law http://www.merriam-webster.com... My argument is that no marriage should be legal, because all that government does with the legalization of marriage is discriminate between those who are married and those who are not. Tax cuts for the married [1] are really tax hikes for the non-married, or reverse, in some bizzare scenarios. Bonus rights to the married can easily be afforded to everybody. 1. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... I would just like to clarify that my stance is in no way discriminatory against homosexuals whatsoever. Thank you, and good luck, abard.", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legal", "pid": "d00daaa1-2019-04-18T19:16:33Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.24847412109375}, {"text": "Gay marriage is an open opinion. It is nobody's right to judge. It is a freedom of expression, (1st amendment). It is a personal based opinion. Gay marriage should be legalized in all states.", "title": "Gay marriage legalizatuon", "pid": "d1cb4750-2019-04-18T15:40:38Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.2466583251953}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be legal. Anyone dumb enough to want to get married should be free to do so. The government shouldn't be telling people they can't get married. That's ridiculous. All tax breaks available to straight couple should be available to gay couples. Same with parental rights, medical rights, etc. People who oppose gay marriage are secretly homosexual and ashamed of this fact and so they lash out at those unrepressed homosexuals who are not ashamed of their sexuality.", "title": "Gay marriage shouldn't be legalized at this point in time", "pid": "9c4cd4ca-2019-04-18T17:42:19Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.2456817626953}, {"text": "I will be arguing for gay marriage. I believe that in all 50 states of the USA, gay marriage should be legalized. Round one is acceptance. Round 2 in opening arguments. Round 3 is main body. Round for is closure.", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legalized in all 50 states.", "pid": "a67bea59-2019-04-18T15:39:42Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.2386474609375}, {"text": "Traditionally in this country, marriage has been defined as a religious & legal commitment between a man and woman, as well as the ultimate expression of love. Homosexual relationships are increasingly gaining acceptance in this country; however, these couples have not been permitted to marry. Some states have considered a new form of commitment called a \"civil union\", which essentially is marriage without using the word \"marriage\". Many politicians have said they are against gay marriage but think it should be left up to the states to decide. However, the \"full faith and credit\" clause of the Constitution says that if one state makes a law, other states must recognize it. Thus, if one state allows a gay marriage and that couple moves to another state, the other state must recognize that marriage. This in effect allows one state to make same-sex marriage legal in the entire country. Many politicians are calling for amendments to their state constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Many areas of the country such as San Francisco have performed marriage ceremonies in defiance of the law. Lost in all the legal battles and political maneuvering is the basic question \"Should we allow gay couples to legally marry?\"", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legal everywhere", "pid": "d802a477-2019-04-18T18:38:20Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.2267303466797}, {"text": "First of all, my greetings and thanks to my opponent; hope this will be a good debate! :) PROPOSITION: Gay Marriage should be legal. DEFINITION: Gay Marriage: A legally recognized socio-economic union, treated as a single entity for tax and liability purposes, with or without religious sanction, between two humans of the same gender. Not arguing about the constitutionality or current legal status of same in America or any other country; just whether it SHOULD be legal. We are assuming that all humans have the same inherent rights, and that implementation is not an issue. I am approaching this debate from a centrist, authoritarian viewpoint, and will argue the CONVERSE. My opponent is welcome to argue any position he wants that AFFIRMS the proposition as stated. This is a philosophy debate; I don't have the time to dig out the most scholarly sources on this topic, and will not hold my opponent to a higher standard of research than myself. Wikipedia and a few online dictionaries/encyclopedias will have to suffice. Arguments begin R.2. Thanks again!", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal", "pid": "ea2e9624-2019-04-18T19:16:55Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.22396850585938}, {"text": "To recap: Marriage is a fundamental right of American citizens guaranteed by both the morals set by the Declaration of Independence and the regulations of the Constitution. Leaving it up to the states is both unethical and morally reprehensible, especially as many are passing laws that are banning homosexual marriages. From ethical, logical, and legal standpoints, all facts indicate that gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S. When we examine the arguments my opponent and I brought up, it is clear that it is the federal government's duty to uphold our citizen's privileges and our duty to support the equality of all people- gay or straight, young or old, male or female.", "title": "Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S.", "pid": "b561ef57-2019-04-18T16:28:46Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.21652221679688}, {"text": "I believe that gay marriage should be legal in all states. You may not realize it, but the reason your against it is because it's not normal to you. Most people dream of getting married to the opposite sex of themselves, but some people don't. Others dream of marrying the same sex. There's nothing wrong with that! People go around and say that gays are sinners and that they shouldn't have the right to get married. Gays are still humans beings. People. People with rights and freedom. gays just want to be happy. Let them enjoy their lives. Heterosexuals are able to reproduce. Heterosexuals are supposed to remain abstinent until marriage, but with most, that's not the case. their reward is to be allowed the right to get married. Homosexuals aren't able to reproduce and their reward is to be denied the right to get married. It doesn't make sense.", "title": "Gay marriage", "pid": "33962bdf-2019-04-18T14:40:51Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.21591186523438}, {"text": "I accept. Looking forward to it!", "title": "Gay Marriage should be Legal", "pid": "477fd640-2019-04-18T14:44:27Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.21453857421875}, {"text": "I've looked through your profile, and noticed that the only way in which I disagree with you is through gay marriage. I am personally very much in favour of this. However, as I saw, you are against it. Therefore, I would like to hear why this is.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal.", "pid": "5b95324b-2019-04-18T17:02:22Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.2115478515625}, {"text": "Gay Marriage SHOULD be Legal, gays are just like us.", "title": "Rather Gay Marriage Should Be Legal", "pid": "d90ecf0b-2019-04-18T17:50:52Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.2102508544922}, {"text": "Homosexual marriage and rights should be legalized so that they are equal to that of the heterosexual people. This comes from the stand point of Constitutional basis of equality for all. Take into consideration seperation of Church and State and past cases of similar discriminating actions.", "title": "Should Homosexual marriage and rights be legalized? ( Aside from Supreme Court ruling.)", "pid": "756229ca-2019-04-18T15:36:17Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.2012939453125}, {"text": "why so serious????? hehehe hahaha hoohoohoo", "title": "Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.", "pid": "14339acf-2019-04-18T19:31:22Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.20118713378906}, {"text": ".", "title": "Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States", "pid": "a00a872b-2019-04-18T18:24:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.19480895996094}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be illegal.", "title": "Gay marriage.", "pid": "d01d1b03-2019-04-18T15:06:34Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.19241333007812}, {"text": "This debate will focus on whether gay marriage should be legal. Round 1 will be acceptance. Round 2-3 are for arguments/making your case, as well as rebuttals against your opponent. Round 4 will have no new arguments made, and will mainly rebut your opponent's arguments. Please cite all your sources.", "title": "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal", "pid": "9bfef27e-2019-04-18T12:41:45Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.18402099609375}, {"text": "Wow thanks for that excellent response. Well I guess I will just do a conclusion any way. Gay marriage should be legal because it is a fundamental right to be able be happy and marry whomever you want. Also as I previously stated that every man is created equal and this should apply to gays and lesbians because it is not a choice and you are created that way. Next in round three I stated that, yes the catholic bible outlaws gat marriage but sense when have we been a country based on the bible because of our separation of church and state. Well thats it for me so vote for me in this debate", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal", "pid": "ea2e9abe-2019-04-18T17:35:59Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.1814422607422}, {"text": "I believe gay marriage should be legal. The fact of denying happiness to human being IN THIS CASE is unacceptable.", "title": "Gay Marriage", "pid": "d9e8f6e2-2019-04-18T19:03:35Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.17935180664062}, {"text": "I believe gay marriage should be legal everywhere. Most arguments against gay marriage are ridiculous. Yes, the Bible is against it, but what if your atheist and the bible has no part of your life? The dumbest one I've heard is that if gay marriage is legal more people will become gay and society will collapse. 10% of the world is gay and it's stayed that way for a LONG time. Gay marriage is actually a good example for your kids. It takes a lot of courage for two girls or boys to be proud they are dating. What this teaches young children is people are different, and differences should be celebrated and rejoiced. To takes away basic human rights from some people is of course racist, and extremely rude. Everyone should be free to live their own life, and what happened to the separation of church and state? And why do people Want to control things that aren't their buissness? What I'm saying is Christianity doesn't rule the world and marriage is none of the government's buissness.", "title": "gay marriage should be legal", "pid": "f0369d47-2019-04-18T15:38:06Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.17718505859375}, {"text": "I accept your challenge. One thing I want to make clear is that I am just arguing for the con side of the argument. THIS DOES NOT MEAN I ACTUALLY AM AGAINST gay marriage. Looking to have a nice debate.", "title": "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the U.S.", "pid": "c99a47e-2019-04-18T17:09:44Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.1739044189453}, {"text": "I think gay marriage should be legal because there no different then a man and a woman in love. yes, the bible might say its wrong but doesn't it also say that god loves ALL his children, and doesn't it also say that everyone is created equal under the eyes of god? it could also raise some peoples self-esteem. Studies show that LGBT teens are between 30 and 40 percent more likely to attempt suicide than their straight peers. some of these teens might think \"what's the point of living if I cant marry the person I love?\" also, gay marriage doesn't affect anybody but the 2 people who are marrying. other people don't have the right to say if a couple should marry. would you like it if someone made it illegal for you to get married to the person you love just because some strangers you don't even know thinks it's wrong? they obviously really love each other if there fighting so hard to get the right to marry.", "title": "gay marriage should be legalized", "pid": "eaf2d2ed-2019-04-18T17:08:20Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.1715850830078}, {"text": "Before I begin I would like to clarify that marriage, in this argument, will be defined as: \"The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship\" (Oxford Dictionary). The only thing I have to provide for my opening position is that there is no valid reason to not allow gays to marry. My opponent will refute me by providing valid reasons.", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States.", "pid": "517628d0-2019-04-18T15:45:08Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.1641845703125}, {"text": "According to a poll surveyed by Gallup (1), 55% of American citizens believe gay marriage should be legalized. It's because I agree with the majority of Americans, that I stand in affirmation of the resolution, Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized in the US (1) http://www.gallup.com...", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legalized in the US", "pid": "3d4f5783-2019-04-18T15:57:08Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.16390991210938}, {"text": "According to a poll surveyed by Gallup (1), 55% of American citizens believe gay marriage should be legalized. It's because I agree with the majority of Americans, that I stand in affirmation of the resolution, Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized in the US (1) http://www.gallup.com...", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legalized in the US", "pid": "3d4f5783-2019-04-18T15:57:08Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.16390991210938}, {"text": "Salutations, I will be arguing for the pro side of gay marriage. Gay Marriage should be legal. In the Declaration of Independence, it states \"all men are created equal.\" Notice how there is no foot notes or any writing between the lines.", "title": "Gay Marriage", "pid": "6334814b-2019-04-18T17:07:16Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.14173889160156}, {"text": "Salutations, I will be arguing for the pro side of gay marriage. Gay Marriage should be legal. In the Declaration of Independence, it states \"all men are created equal.\" Notice how there is no foot notes or any writing between the lines.", "title": "Gay Marriage", "pid": "6334812c-2019-04-18T17:07:40Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.14173889160156}, {"text": "Hello, I accept. This will be a challenge for me but we will see how I do.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal.", "pid": "ea2e1abf-2019-04-18T18:45:35Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.138427734375}, {"text": "This is meant to be a friendly debate about basic human rights, created primarily because I am terminally bored. Homosexuals, be they male or female, aren't part of some secret sect, they aren't in any way different physically, mentally or emotionally, their political views are just as collectively diverse as heterosexual views, their private activities with each other should be dismissed as none of anyone's business just as easily as the private activities of heterosexual people. Let them marry if they so wish, they're ultimately no different from heterosexuals, they just have alternative tastes in intimacy.", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legal.", "pid": "d00d2ea1-2019-04-18T19:08:09Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 217.13645935058594}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be legalized as there are no legitimate reasons against it. Rules: -No profanity -Any quotations need to be cited -No plagiarism -Bible is not a valid source", "title": "Gay marriage should be legalized", "pid": "630bc74b-2019-04-18T16:45:06Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.1356658935547}, {"text": "I realize gay marriage is legal in America, however this is not the case for the majority of the world. I think gay marriage should be legal everywhere, because practical advantages a married couple has, as opposed to an unmarried one. You get rid of a ton of paper-work when married, and if you decide to stay together unmarried and forget to make wills, for instance, it can have very unfortunate consequences if one dies. If a couple decides not to marry, that is their choice - however I see no reason why homosexual couples should not be allowed these legal rights and advantages.", "title": "Gay Marriage", "pid": "63356341-2019-04-18T14:26:12Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 217.1290740966797}, {"text": "In that argument means that gay marriage should be illegal. Does not mean that can't have love or have the same feelings, just means they do not get under the law of a marriage person, And this is why we need better people in the government and better voters to vote.", "title": "Should Gay Marriage Be Legal", "pid": "f54ab53a-2019-04-18T12:48:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.12770080566406}, {"text": "I believe rape should be legal all over the world. It isn't a sin and it isn't wrong.", "title": "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal", "pid": "9bfef25f-2019-04-18T13:27:14Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.12246704101562}, {"text": "I believe that Gay Marriage should be legal in all states for many reasons, the first of which is because the constitution says that all people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. This isn't my main argument for saying Gay Marriage should be legal, but it is for the way I worded the question. A few rules before we begin: 1. No Religious texts can be quoted 2. Religion cannot be used to justify an argument (adding on to rule 1) 3. I am tired of the \"because marriage is between a man and a woman\" argument, so don't use that one I believe that's all for now", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legal in all states", "pid": "4d91b1df-2019-04-18T15:29:29Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 217.1211395263672}, {"text": "Would appreciate federal and moral views. BoP is on both sides", "title": "Gay marriages should be legal, (In America) regardless of cultural background", "pid": "ae59d57-2019-04-18T15:30:27Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.12094116210938}, {"text": "Good luck to my opponent whoever it maybe.", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legal.", "pid": "d00d2efe-2019-04-18T18:44:35Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.11448669433594}, {"text": "With US divorce rates at about 50% [1], some gay couples would also have to experience divorce if gay marriage was legal. [1] http://www.cdc.gov...", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States.", "pid": "517628d0-2019-04-18T15:45:08Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.1119384765625}, {"text": "I, on the other hand, do believe that gay marriage should be legalized. What is soo bad about 2 guys or 2 girls getting married? Isn't love the driving force in the marriage!?!", "title": "Gay marriage should not be legalized by any governing body in the United States of America.", "pid": "720bf686-2019-04-18T20:01:15Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.10800170898438}, {"text": "This debate is as simple as the title makes out. Gay Marriage, or SSM, is defined as \"a legally recognized union of a same-sex couple\". Civil union is defined as \"a legally recognized union of a same-sex couple, but with less benefits than a Gay Marriage\".First round is acceptance and definitions. Copy and paste of contentions is not allowed without citation, unless one is copying and pasting from one's own material (which needs to be cited clearly as your own work).", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal.", "pid": "ea2e1afd-2019-04-18T18:21:02Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.10142517089844}, {"text": "I believe gay marriage should be legal in all states because if a person truly loves a person, all religious bias set aside, how can you not allow them to be together? Also, gay people being together affects no other person personally and has no negative affects on society or the people that live in it.", "title": "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal In All States", "pid": "659e55fe-2019-04-18T15:05:30Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.09442138671875}, {"text": "Everyone deserves rights and no one should be judged. In Russia, gays are severely discriminated against, with fines for just holding hands, which is just a simple act of love.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legalized.", "pid": "fe5e041c-2019-04-18T17:16:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.08804321289062}, {"text": "For clarification: Homosexual marriage is between one two men or two women, allowing them to be legally bound and have the same benefits of heterosexual couples. The argument is weather to legally allow homosexual marriages or not. Opponent would argue that homosexual marriage should not be legal for whetever reasons they state.", "title": "Homosexual marriage should be legal", "pid": "98ff8aac-2019-04-18T18:27:56Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 217.071533203125}, {"text": "Gay Marriage should be legalized in the US for homosexuals and/or bisexuals. Homosexuals should be able to legally marry whomever they choose, no matter if the individual is of the same sex. http://www.debate.org...", "title": "Legalization of Gay Marriage in the US", "pid": "7f2875fd-2019-04-18T13:13:03Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.06784057617188}, {"text": "I will be arguing that gay marriage should be legalized. I am giving us each 72 hours since I will have limited time for research and rounds. First round is acceptance. Any sources can be used, as long as they can be linked and viewed on the Internet or can be quoted, like the Bible or a study. Please no trolling. If so, I will end the debate. Gay Marriage is defined as The state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage\"", "title": "Gay Marriage should be Legalized", "pid": "8ca2fe33-2019-04-18T16:27:21Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.06576538085938}, {"text": "Though not drawn much attention to at this point in time, gay rights in general are constantly under debate. Though most people believe off the top of their heads that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, as soon as the topic of marriage comes up, most jump to say 'no'. I've been pondering the matter myself for a while, and I hope I'll have a good opponent in that case. You may start.", "title": "Same-sex Marriage Should Be Legalized Throughout the United States of America", "pid": "49a7d7ac-2019-04-18T19:36:02Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.06478881835938}, {"text": "Gay marriage should definitely be legal because it is a fundamental right for every person to be able to marry who you love and be happy. In the constitution one of the main points was that every man was created equal and this should apply to gays and lesbians. Yes, gays and lesbians were created and born that way and its not a choice. It has been proven that you don't chose to be gay and there is nothing wrong with that. I ask you this question, do you think that the statement all men are created equal don't apply to gays and lesbians?", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal", "pid": "ea2e9abe-2019-04-18T17:35:59Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.0638885498047}, {"text": "I will be arguing Con, that gay marriage should be illegal. It is not a civil right that can be had in the context of the United States' history or founding principles, and would undermine the basis for our other civil rights.", "title": "Legalization of gay marriage", "pid": "b33122ae-2019-04-18T17:22:26Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 217.05943298339844}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be depending on the senators and governors, although they may not accept for all 50 states. This violates religious beliefs, and should be illegal.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.", "pid": "376838a8-2019-04-18T14:45:41Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.0585174560547}, {"text": "The state can not perform a marriage any more than it can perform a baptism. A marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony that the state only has the power to recognize, and even then, should not. That the government ever involved itself in any marriage-- gay or straight-- is a gross violation of the separation of church and state. Marriage is the union of two human beings by God, and thus, the state has no more authority to permit marriage then to permit human beings to turn into hamsters, or to permit human beings to fly. Such a law has no meaning.", "title": "Homosexual Marriage Should Be Legalized Everywhere", "pid": "4631b4c5-2019-04-18T17:08:13Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.05543518066406}, {"text": "ON GUARD! I affirm the resolution: Gary Marriage should be legalized. For the sake of clarity and being terse, the term \"gay\" will be an umbrella term for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community. I am not arguing in what way gay marriage should be legalized (federal or states), but I'm arguing that it SHOULD be legalized because there is no valid legal argument against gay marriage. Do note that since this is in context of being legalized, saying that God is against gay marriage is obviously a moot point. Hopefully this debate won't turn into a debate about God, but rather about the points of gay marriage. ===== Gays deserve the same marital rights ===== My argument is simple and brief: gays deserve the same marital rights as a heterosexual. For a long time, marriage was only a traditional and religious thing. And it was fine for the heterosexuals to hog it for themselves (though if marriage was still purely traditional, I doubt there would be laws concerning it). However, this is the 21st century. Marriages have rights and financial security alongside; things that are vital to living in this society. Gays are being deprived of these rights because they aren't allowed to marry for arbitrary reasons. This is all for now. I realize that my opponent will probably add some other arguments, like the slippery slope or the nature of homosexuality. I realize these possible counterarguments, but there is no guarantee my opponent will use such arguments. It's pointless to type out rebuttals to arguments that could potentially never be used. So with that said, I will await my opponent's rebuttals and refute his arguments accordingly.", "title": "Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.", "pid": "14339aee-2019-04-18T19:27:46Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.05517578125}, {"text": "Being a liberal,I used to support gay marriage in the beginning too. Even now, i believe that the things that various so called 'christian' groups do, by spreading hatred against them is *wrong*. Nevertheless,I am convinced that legalisation of gay marriage is not only *not* necessary from a legal point of view, but is also morally wrong. I am a catholic christian and catholic apologetics played a major role in re-shaping my opinion. But since you are atheist, i will provide purely secular moral and legal reasons for my stand. Please let me know if we are going to argue about the legal aspect of gay marriage alone, or if we are going to debate the moral aspects as well in your opening statement.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal.", "pid": "5b95324b-2019-04-18T17:02:22Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.05438232421875}, {"text": "I just want to know your exact views on homosexuality and gay marriage. Do you really think that some American citizens do not deserve the right to marry due to religious beliefs? Please accept! Thank you!", "title": "Gay marriage should be legalized in all states.", "pid": "450a7efb-2019-04-18T16:55:15Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 217.04844665527344}, {"text": "Gay marriage should be legal is all 50 states. I believe this because there are many people such as my uncle, my great uncle, my aunt, and many other family friends who are gay that have had a big impact on my life that had to go to a different state to get married which I think is just wrong.", "title": "Gay Marriage", "pid": "6334db63-2019-04-18T16:47:41Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.0178985595703}, {"text": "gay marriage is something that should be legalized. you cannot put a barrier infront of someone who wishes to marry their same sex partner. gay marriage is just 2 same sex people who wish to spend their lives together. they have been prohibited for many centuries but this is the 21st century so we must not live on old beliefs. many say it is the act of the devil while it is only the mere act of love for another. it is wrong for people to try and control another's life. it is a discrimination to humans and destroys equality in life.", "title": "Gay Marriage should be Legalized", "pid": "8ca2faee-2019-04-18T17:27:45Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.0150604248047}, {"text": "I will be taking Pro in this debate as I believe that whether you are gay or straight, marriage is way to show your love for each other. I believe it is discriminative of the church and of the state to decide that gay people are not allowed to express their love in this way. I see that Con is basing his case on rights, but rather strangely denies marriage is a right at all... Currently, the right to marriage (Article 16) is quite clearly stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I will be interested to hear Con's argument on that... Please proceed with your opening arguments...", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legalized", "pid": "5d03ca92-2019-04-18T18:09:51Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.0147247314453}, {"text": "I will be arguing that gay marriage should not be legal, because there should be no kind of legally recognized marriage, because government should not be involved in marriage. Good luck.", "title": "Gay Marriage", "pid": "6334eb40-2019-04-18T16:07:52Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.0096435546875}, {"text": "I believe that gay marriage should be legalized because people have the right to love eachother. It's not like its doing anything to society if a man is to marry another man or a woman is to marry another woman infact in someways its better for society. Also there would be an increase in the rate of adoption since men cannot have children with eachother and neither can women. Also it would cause more people to marry someone they truly love so there would be a decrease in divorce.", "title": "should gay marriage be legalized", "pid": "1d3a62-2019-04-18T18:47:49Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.00555419921875}, {"text": "I believe that gay marriage should be legalized. If all men are created equal then they should have the right to marry who they want even if it is the same sex.", "title": "gay marriage", "pid": "48d1e765-2019-04-18T14:56:54Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.9984130859375}, {"text": "marriage is the ceremoney through which man and woman unite to procreate, that is to say create a new being. in this way the race of man increase in number on earth.this facility of procreation is absent in gay/lesbian marriage.if gay/lesbian marriage is legalized, a way will be created through which population of human race would decrease in future. therefore gay/lesbian marriage should not be legalized.", "title": "Homosexual marriage should be legal", "pid": "98ff8aac-2019-04-18T18:27:56Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.98974609375}, {"text": "I accept! This looks to be very promising.", "title": "Gay Marriage Should be Legal", "pid": "923396dc-2019-04-18T17:27:40Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.9849853515625}, {"text": "This is a debate over whether or not Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States. My position is that Gay Marriage should be legal. I will let my opponent start the debate with their arguments.", "title": "Gay Marriage Legalization", "pid": "1b1fbdc-2019-04-18T17:19:48Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.9775390625}, {"text": "The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being between a man and a woman. Marriage is for procreation and should not be extended to same-sex couples because they cannot produce children together. Children need both a mother and a father. Legalizing gay marriage could lead down a \"slippery slope,\" giving people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional relationships the right to marry.", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.", "pid": "376838c7-2019-04-18T14:42:31Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.97425842285156}, {"text": "You have some really good facts to back your argument. The biggest issue with gay marriage is that marriage is a religious ceremony. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. If God opposes it, then it wouldn't be very religious now would it. Genesis 13:13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were SINNING GREATLY against the Lord. I will spare the bible quotes for a while. The point is marriage is not a marriage unless it is religious. If you want to get a civil union or partnership for tax, and any other reasons, that's fine. I truly believe homosexuality is a genetic disorder, and anybody living with this disorder can still have a partnership with someone but not MARRIAGE. A marriage should be between a man and a woman.", "title": "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States", "pid": "369e4f3a-2019-04-18T19:20:56Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.97232055664062}, {"text": "Just jump right in. I believe that same sex marriage should be legal, and I will say why. 1. The antigay mindset is for the most part rooted in religion, and religion should not be part of politics. 2. People have the right to be happy if they are not hurting anyone. 3. It is wrong for the religious minority to force their beliefs on the majority. 4. There is nothing wrong with being gay or bisexual. I am bisexual and I am not hurting anyone. I thank my opposition in advance for debating me.", "title": "Same sex marriage ahould be legal.", "pid": "4d2cde72-2019-04-18T15:37:56Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.97000122070312}, {"text": "Gay marriage should not be legalized, because 1) it is not a healthy environment for either person or children(if there). And 2) There is no legitimate reason for it.", "title": "Gay Marriage should be legalized!", "pid": "5d03cecf-2019-04-18T15:32:17Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.96975708007812}, {"text": "I have been reading some recent debates on here on this very popular issue, and I'm finding that most of them are, well, bad. I have done this debate a few times in the past, but I felt as though I could input my opinion, since I don't like what the others are saying. I myself am not homosexual. I will say though, I would be very happy for my good friend Nicole, who happens to be lesbian, if she gets married. Unfortunately, that is not legal in the state of Oregon. Now, I know that marriage was originally a religious institution and most religions do not condone homosexuality, but there are legal benefits other than religious happiness in getting married, as well as non-religious psychological benefits, as well as a stronger sense of bonding that reduces the instances of sleeping around and spreading STDs. That is why religion is a moot point. I could go on almost endlessly with reasons as to why it should be legal, but I'm not going to. Why? Since Con will argue that gay marriage should be illegal, he or she will be arguing for a restrictive law (i.e. a law that takes away a certain liberty or freedom), the burden of proof is on Con to explain why it is bad for gays to marry, as freedom and liberty are (or should be) given to groups that are not proven to hurt society. Thank you in advance to my opponent for taking this debate!", "title": "Gay marriage should be legal", "pid": "ea2e96a0-2019-04-18T18:53:48Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.9673614501953}]}
{"idx": 19, "qid": "20", "q_text": "Is drinking milk healthy for humans?", "qrels": {"ca9fde68-2019-04-18T19:48:18Z-00000-000": 0, "c70591bd-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00067-000": 0, "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00004-000": 2, "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00000-000": 1, "8ab0c1d5-2019-04-18T11:47:23Z-00000-000": 1, "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00001-000": 2, "cb45a65a-2019-04-19T12:46:53Z-00004-000": 0, "b81e7ad4-2019-04-18T12:32:40Z-00000-000": 1, "ce21fce9-2019-04-18T12:52:34Z-00002-000": 2, "edc8122b-2019-04-18T15:03:09Z-00001-000": 1, "d6d60dd8-2019-04-18T16:15:45Z-00004-000": 0, "dae73109-2019-04-18T12:48:41Z-00000-000": 0, "829468d-2019-04-18T17:21:53Z-00000-000": 0, "f0e341f2-2019-04-18T12:13:47Z-00000-000": 1, "f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00000-000": 0, "f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00001-000": 0, "fbd3b59c-2019-04-18T16:29:11Z-00003-000": 2, "9621632a-2019-04-18T18:35:10Z-00001-000": 0, "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00007-000": 0, "d6d60dd8-2019-04-18T16:15:45Z-00003-000": 0, "829468d-2019-04-18T17:21:53Z-00005-000": 2, "a6cfc7c6-2019-04-15T20:22:22Z-00000-000": 0, "61d4b34e-2019-04-18T12:52:51Z-00001-000": 0, "29d685d9-2019-04-18T13:29:32Z-00000-000": 0, "29d685d9-2019-04-18T13:29:32Z-00001-000": 0, "729160b6-2019-04-18T16:14:56Z-00005-000": 0, "2cf34093-2019-04-18T11:47:00Z-00000-000": 0, "3471caff-2019-04-18T14:09:31Z-00001-000": 2, "3471caff-2019-04-18T14:09:31Z-00008-000": 2, "3471caff-2019-04-18T14:09:31Z-00006-000": 2, "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00006-000": 2, "352e7edd-2019-04-18T16:29:11Z-00000-000": 0, "38a4d680-2019-04-18T20:01:06Z-00000-000": 0, "4d00cf52-2019-04-18T17:57:35Z-00002-000": 0, "39d70d06-2019-04-18T18:53:26Z-00004-000": 1, "38a4d680-2019-04-18T20:01:06Z-00005-000": 0, "5e63f3a1-2019-04-18T15:53:17Z-00005-000": 0, "5e63f3a1-2019-04-18T15:53:17Z-00003-000": 1, "4bb9a826-2019-04-18T16:15:51Z-00001-000": 0, "57ef337d-2019-04-18T14:01:23Z-00002-000": 0, "48ae4466-2019-04-18T18:45:18Z-00002-000": 1, "47d8cca-2019-04-18T14:04:09Z-00003-000": 0, "40eccde7-2019-04-18T15:21:23Z-00001-000": 0, "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00008-000": 0, "48ae4466-2019-04-18T18:45:18Z-00003-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Milk has been a part of the human diet for centuries. It is the best drink to consume for re hydration besides water. Milk deficiency can lead to osteoporosis. Milk supplies the body with a good source of calcium and vitamin B and D. Milk is good for the skin which is why it is an ingredient in most lotions. In addition, it provides protection for the enamel on teeth and prevents decay.", "title": "Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans", "pid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.1733856201172}, {"text": "Milk is extremely healthy for people because it contains vitamin D", "title": "Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no", "pid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.94207763671875}, {"text": "Dairy milk typically consists of carbohydrates, fat, protein, vitamins, minerals, and enzymes. None of these are particularly harmful to humans. According to milkfacts.info, \"milk is 87.7% water, 4.9% lactose (carbohydrate), 3.4% fat, 3.3% protein, and 0.7% minerals (referred to as ash).\" Yes, milk is 88% water, and there is nothing else in milk that is specifically harmful. The USDA claims that milk is prime source of potassium, calcium, and vitamin D. Each of these is very important for bone health. (webMD.com)", "title": "Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health.", "pid": "ebf02ef3-2019-04-18T12:49:39Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.49899291992188}, {"text": "Yes when you are a baby you drink milk all the time, but it is milk that is packed full of other things that are not already in it. They can't just drink straight milk when they are born because it would do more harm than good at that point. Babies need certain things until they get older so they can develop how they should. There is not a lot of evidence to support that vitamin D helps bones because it has not been completely scientifically proven.", "title": "Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no", "pid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.32110595703125}, {"text": "Milk contains vitamin D which as everyone knows is essential to bone growth and strength, maybe there isn't much evidence to support the fact that milk makes your bones stronger because we already have more than enough to support it. The fact that your even arguing whether or not milk is healthy for you shows that you shouldn't even be debating this topic. When babies are born all they drink is milk, and that's because it is essential to life", "title": "Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no", "pid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.11497497558594}, {"text": "\"One of the main arguments for USDA recommendations is that drinking milk or equivalent dairy products will reduce the risk of fractures. But in fact there\"s very little evidence that milk consumption is associated with reduced fractures,\" Willett tells WebMD. (1) This is the biggest thing I hear about milk, is that if you drink milk you will help strengthen your bones. With their being little evidence that this is actually true I will toss this up to hype. This has always been on TV and in magazines. And think of all those adds with stars and the \"milk mustache\", this is just s ploy to sell something plain and simple. \"But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow\"s milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones.\" (2) How ironic is it that the very thing people tell you to drink to increase your calcium intake is actually causing you to lose calcium. This is a precious thing that is needed in our bodies and if drinking milk causes you to lose it, then I would say stop drinking milk. Milk acidifies in the body. Our bones/calcium in our bodies work to get rid of that. So instead of helping our bodies do that it is forced to neutralize the acidity of the milk that we just drank. After looking at some of these facts I would say that there are other ways to get calcium in our bodies than just drinking a glass of milk. (1)http://www.webmd.com... (2)http://saveourbones.com... (3)", "title": "Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no", "pid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.0948944091797}, {"text": "Milk has been directly related to destressing people. It is really insane to fight over it... if you love milk and it really suits you - i.e you are tolerant to it and you love the taste and there is no allergies related to it as some may have, then go ahead and enjoy this yummy and health giving drink.on the other hand if you hate it don't have it. it is simple as that. and if you think that milk isn't beneficial to you're health you must be on the wrong planet or thinking of some other kind of milk", "title": "Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no", "pid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.02557373046875}, {"text": "Counter Argument... 1)Cow milk may have active hormones, but so do other things that we eat such as burgers and chicken. It may be disgusting to you but that doesn't automatically correlate to any means of harm to the body. 2)Milk does have magnesium along with vitamins A and B, zinc, riboflavin, carbs, and protein. 3) Milk high content of water molecules actually makes it beneficial for it is a good source of re hydration. Drinking milk is healthier than drinking unnatural juice, soda, and iced tea. 4) Cow milk has feces and bacteria that is destroyed during the pasteurization process. Milk is not supposed to be placed at room temperature to begin with because to much time out of the fridge can cause the milk to be tainted. Milk should always be in the preserved in low temperatures which is why supermarkets always have milk in the cooler. 5) The claim that the cholesterol in mil is equivalent to 53 slices of bacon is far fetched. Eating two strips of pork bacon is unhealthier than consuming three glasses of milk. Milk contains about 20mg of cholesterol. 53 strips of bacon far exceeds that. In fact the Teagasc Dairy Products Research Centre has conducted recent research on the utility of milk in neutralizing the cholesterol content in the body. Sources 1)organicfacts.net", "title": "Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans", "pid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.87945556640625}, {"text": "As con had only argued one point my original arguments still stand. Milk is not really healthy for you.", "title": "Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no", "pid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.67822265625}, {"text": "Vitamin D is in the sun. That is a fact. Vitamin D is in Milk. Also a fact. You need Vitamin D. Most people don't get enough Vitamin D from the sun, so you must drink milk to obtain those Nutrients. Vitamin D is also in all bones and their marrow so you tell me why we don't need milk in our bodies which as stated previously, has vitamin D", "title": "Is milk really healthy? Pro-yes, Con-no", "pid": "349509a7-2019-04-18T15:33:27Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.67735290527344}, {"text": "Great debate, Pro. Let's begin: \"Drinking milk is healthier. .. \" Well, juice is actually healthy. You can find many dairy products, but there is not much citrus fruit in the world. Therefore, juice is more healthier than a milk. 87% is milk. My round two arguments have not been refuted. Therefore, my argument stands. You did not refute about allergies, sugar, and saturated fat. In response to the cholesterol argument, this was from rense. com. Technically speaking, bacon does not have more cholesterol. I believe that you are confusing it with sodium. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Agree before: Pro Agree after: Pro Conduct: Pro Spelling and Grammar: Con Convincing Arguments: ? ??", "title": "Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans", "pid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.22607421875}, {"text": "Its highly unlikely because they drink our water that we pay for we deserve something in return (milk)", "title": "Should we drink milk", "pid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.1592254638672}, {"text": "I have drank milk most of my life and although as mace says it doesn't help your bones it tastes good lol", "title": "Should we drink milk", "pid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 214.06639099121094}, {"text": "Milk may taste good, but imagine this, a cow drinking a frogs milk...", "title": "Should we drink milk", "pid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.0272979736328}, {"text": "Resolution:Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health. Bop:Burden of proof will be upon the instigator. Structure:R1 Acceptance and definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 Defend your argument against opponent's round three rebuttalDefintionsCow \"cow 1 (kou)n. 1. The mature female of cattle of the genus Bos.\" [0]Milk\" 1. A whitish liquid containing proteins, fats, lactose, and various vitamins and minerals that is produced by the mammary glands of all mature female mammals after they have given birth and serves as nourishment for their young.\" [1] Thanks in advance for accepting. Sources0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "title": "Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health.", "pid": "ebf02ef3-2019-04-18T12:49:39Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.02691650390625}, {"text": "off the subject of not helping you bones it has lots of vitamins and minerals that help you start a great day", "title": "Should we drink milk", "pid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.0142822265625}, {"text": "A very good round by my opponent. I will begin by addressing some issues I left unresolved since I wanted to do more research. So first, a few counterarguments for my opponent's points so far: A. Milk does not cause Osteoporosis. My opponent's source is an article talking about the safety and benefits of animal hormones. It says absolutely nothing about high protein levels. Even if so, my opponent is severely misinformed and drawing the wrong conclusions. What my opponent is confusing himself about is that during kidney failure, high protein levels in the blood change the charge of the ion flow in the nephrons of the kidney and calcium is excreted into water that leaves as urine. the body contains a massive number of proteins in the blood in the form of albumin and red blood cells. The protein in milk is digested and broken down into amino acids and never gets into the blood in the first place. B. Milk is not \"loaded\" with pesticides or antibiotics. According to the following links, The FDA has done numerous studies, all of which show that the trace amounts (if any) of hormones, pesticides, or possible antibiotics in milk are safe for human consumption even taking into account the fact that people drink it daily. There are also many regulatory procedures that ensure the safety of milk. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ces.ncsu.edu... http://www.organic-center.org... http://www.nationaldairycouncil.org... C. I also find my opponent's assumption of dragging udders to be a stretch (no pun intended) as most cows are milked on a frequent basis by machine and thus, would not get a chance to have swollen udders. D. Antibiotics are not used to treat inflammation, but are used to treat infection (which is never prophylatic in cows so my opponent is probably wrong in assuming that they are injected with it constantly). E. My opponent is also wrong in citing his own source. There is no mention about pesticides causing cancer, rather, the insulin-like growth factor present in cow milk. However, in the links above, it is shown that pasteurization destroys the already minuscule amount present and the rest is destroyed in the stomach as IGF-1 is a protein. Furthermore, the citations that my opponent cites are heavily biased. The original journal articles involved experiments with existing IGF levels in humans, where the word \"milk\" appears a total of 0 times. F. My opponent connects many dots using bad logic. While it is true that Casein breaks down into casomorphines, that is just an intermediate step in the stomach. Casein forms a micelle in the stomach that clots and gets slowly dissolved. The casomorphines are just potential chains that Casein might get broken down into, and even then, the stomach eventually reduces that protein down to base amino acids where it has no effect in the bloodstream. Proteins get broken down in the stomach but the majority of protein digestion takes place in the intestine after the pancreas releases the proteases that ensure complete reduction to amino acids. http://www.wisegeek.com... Furthermore, this link above states that the presence of casomorphines and their action as opiate-like molecules only takes place in autistics, who may have an inability to break down the casomorphines. http://en.wikipedia.org... This article states that outstanding experiments and trials with positive results are biased and unreliable. G. Cutting milk can reduce obesity, but my opponent is comparing 1 glass of beer to 1 glass of milk. You can fix obesity, but you can't fix progressive liver damage. In addition, there are plenty of non-fat varieties of milk but nonalcoholic beers may be a little harder to knock back. Acne is more likely due to excess oil and fat. Non fat milk is a viable option for those who are focused on cosmetics. However, the experiment that I found, the one that allegedly \"sparked\" the controversy, only showed results in polling people who consumed 3 or more servings a day, and we are arguing a 1:1 comparison, making this point moot. http://www.healthcastle.com... H. As for arthritis, my opponent's claim is due to reading too quickly. The source he provided claimed that most arthritis is due to allergen response and most food allergies are caused by milk. THis is misleading as most arthritis is caused by an allergic response to self, when the body's own white blood cells attack joints, causing joint pain. This is why Glucosamine and Chondroitin help with arthritis: they contain the same material in the joints that the white blood cells attack, leaving the actual body parts unharmed. I. My opponent's source regarding mucus is also biased and premature, connecting the wrong dots. Fact, milk is the most common food allergen. Fact, allergies can manifest into mucus production and cough. Lactose intolerance is categorized as a milk allergy and accounts for it being the most common food allergen. However, we know that the symptoms for lactose intolerance are not related to these, so by elimination, we can estimate that a far lower percentage of milk allergies is due to things other than lactose intolerance. J. In discussing prescription drugs, the number of drug abusers worldwide is irrelevant to this debate. Also, as a Pharmacy student, I can say that my opponent's assertion (\"Taking three prescription medication at once is abuse\") is also misleading and faulty. My opponent's sources lead to a term specifically for excessive medication use. However, we are speaking about legitimate prescriptions that are required for maintaining health. It is not uncommon for a person to be on a cholesterol medication, a blood pressure medication, and another medication (such as an asthma medication, an antihistamine, a sleeping aid, pain medication, antibiotic) at the same time. To simply categorize it as abuse and unhealthy is simply manipulation of data and language. Regardless, it it is a fact that prescription medication use is as high as it is. Whether or not it is healthy is outside the scope of the debate. What is important is the fact that my opponent's description of an \"average\" person is either unrealistic or harmful to his case, as moderate drinking of alcoholic beverages would interfere with drug metabolism and the imaginary health detriments that my opponent is conjuring can and will become a reality. K. Ranitidine actually raises blood alcohol levels because it inhibits the enzyme responsible for the 3 step metabolism of alcohol. The \"asian flush\" does disappear, but only because the alcohol isn't being digested at all in the beginning and because the antihistamine effects of the two drugs decrease the flushing. However, when the drug effects wear off, alcohol is metabolized at the same mid-way speed, allowing for an increase in the toxic acetaldehyde intermediate. This puts excessive strain on the liver because not only is the liver busy metabolizing the drugs, but it gets the added load of the unmetabolized alcohol to follow suit. Famotidine, though slightly safer, also harms the liver over long periods of use. L. My opponent brings up the topic of lactose intolerance. Just as there are many, many different kinds of beer, there are also many varieties of milk, and a good number of them are lactose-free. I don't see how lactose intolerance is an issue in this debate because although non-alcoholic beer is hard to find and probably not healthy, fat-free or lactose-free milk is readily available and usually fortified with vitamins. Soy milk is also very healthy. There are many varieties of milk free of the chemicals my opponent mentioned. I will allow my opponent to address these first and conclude at the end.", "title": "Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk.", "pid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.0078125}, {"text": "Good luck, Pro! Counter Arguments 1) Okay. .. what you basically said is true. No counter arguments can do that. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1) However, cow milk, what we drink, has 59 active hormones, which is very disgusting to think about. 2) Cow milk is useless because they lack magnesium. 3) 87% of milk is water, which means there are less than 13% of real milk. 4) Cow milk has feces. The feces are a major source of bacteria. The bacteria doubles when you leave it at room temperature for 20 minutes. 5) The cholesterol in three glasses of milk is equal to 53 slices of bacon. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources 1) . http://www.rense.com... _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Comments Good luck, Pro! This might be your first win, but I'm still going all-out!", "title": "Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans", "pid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.9617156982422}, {"text": "Chocolate milk is healthy because it contains the same 9 nutrients as white milk. Chocolate milk drinkers are not heavier than non-milk drinkers. You can find an explanation video to support this at youtube.com and type in Midwest Diary Chocolate Milk nurse. This topic is well known and many people say that yes, chocolate milk is healthy... under 2 conditions. If the chocolate milk is LOW FAT and that you do not drink chocolate milk too much. Thank you and please comment on this topic! If you have any suggestions please reply to this comment. If you may know me, please also reply too.", "title": "Chocolate milk is healthy.", "pid": "f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.88485717773438}, {"text": "yes it might but it replenishes the depleted calcium when it gets digested", "title": "Should we drink milk", "pid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.87620544433594}, {"text": "Milk is not 100% factually intended for human consumption is it? because milk is intended for feeding calfs to survive in the years before able to create memories or move about. Human do produce enough milk for the same thing. If it was solely intended or human consumption then i would accept the made by God for the us to be the best we can. But it is not. The milk is perfect to keep a mother child into the taste and riches of nutrition but it is of no interest of making human design any better", "title": "Vegan can be Christians and any scripture against so is hypocritical", "pid": "53a2843c-2019-04-18T17:59:58Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.84739685058594}, {"text": "Well there is 12 million cases of osteoporosis. How could that be????", "title": "Should we drink milk", "pid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.84249877929688}, {"text": "R2 ArgumentsI. IntroII. Point by pointA. FatB. Saturated fatC. IGF-1D. CholesterolE. CaseinF. LactoseG. Bacteria endotoxinsIII. ConclusionIV. SourcesI. IntroMilk is detrimental to human health for many reasons. Excess fat, saturated fat, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, and bacteria endotoxins.II. Point by pointA. FatFat contains 9 calories per gram. Protein and carbohydrates contain 4 calories per gram. [0] Fat due to its high caloric content can lead to over eating and obesity. Obesity is a risk factor for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Excess dietary fat can also lead to intramyocellular lipid buildup, which in turn can lead to insulin resistance. B. Saturated fatSaturated fat can increase blood viscosity forcing your heart to work harder and leading to lethargy. Furthermore, saturated fat can break down into the bad cholesterol, LDL, low density lipoprotein. C. IGF-1IGF-1, insulin like growth factor 1 increases risk for cancer by promoting cancer cell growth.D. CholesterolCholesterol is associated with degenerate disease.E. CaseinCasein can cause an immune system response that destroys pancreas cells and leads to type I diabetes.F. LactoseMany people of the world are lactose intolerant. G. Bacteria endotoxinsBoth alive and dead bacteria release endotoxins which can cause an immune system response. III. ConclusionFor many reasons, milk is detrimental to human health. IV. Sources0. http://www.mayoclinic.org...", "title": "Drinking cow's milk is usually detrimental to human health.", "pid": "ebf02ef3-2019-04-18T12:49:39Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.82154846191406}, {"text": "Here is why milk is bad for your bones : Point 1 : Milk depletes the calcium from your bones The milk myth has spread around the world based on the flawed belief that this protein and calcium-rich drink is essential to support good overall health and bone health in particular at any age. It is easy to understand that the confusion about milk's imaginary benefits stems from the fact that it contains calcium, around 300 mg per cup. But many scientific studies have shown an assortment of detrimental health effects directly linked to milk consumption. And the most surprising link is that not only do we barely absorb the calcium in cow's milk (especially if pasteurized), but to make matters worse, it actually increases calcium loss from the bones. Here's how it happens. Like all animal protein, milk acidifies the body pH which in turn triggers a biological correction. You see, calcium is an excellent acid neutralizer and the biggest storage of calcium in the body is - you guessed it. .. in the bones. So the very same calcium that our bones need to stay strong is utilized to neutralize the acidifying effect of milk. Once calcium is pulled out of the bones, it leaves the body via the urine, so that the surprising net result after this is an actual calcium deficit. [1] 2 : Milk increases fracture risks Many scientific studies contradict the conventional wisdom that milk and dairy consumption help reduce osteoporotic fractures. Surprisingly, studies demonstrating that milk and dairy products actually fail to protect bones from fractures outnumber studies that prove otherwise. Even drinking milk from a young age does not protect against future fracture risk but actually increases it. And the 12 year long Harvard Nurses' Health Study found that those who consumed the most calcium from dairy foods broke more bones than those who rarely drank milk. This is a broad study based on 77,761 women aged 34 through 59 years of age. [1] Conclusion Milk is bad for your bones because of those reasons. I have more sources that can strengthen my argument. [2][3][4][5] 1. . http://saveourbones.com... 2. . http://www.news-medical.net... 3. . http://www.care2.com... 4. . http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... 5. . http://www.sott.net...", "title": "Milk is good for your bones", "pid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.70750427246094}, {"text": "Drinking milk can cause osteoporosis.", "title": "Should we drink milk", "pid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 213.7015380859375}, {"text": "The gummy worms you eat are fed to cows...", "title": "Should we drink milk", "pid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.67343139648438}, {"text": "Maybe they help digest stuff so they can make milk", "title": "Should we drink milk", "pid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.670166015625}, {"text": "It seems my opponent has not read my arguement. In R1 I clearly laid out my full resolution: \"For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. \" I would have liked to fit this resolution into the field given when starting a debate, but space was limited, so I resorted to fully explaining my resolution in R1. In my resolution I stated that beer was beneficial to an \"average, healthy person. \" Average is defined as \"typical; common; ordinary\" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Since the ordinary person is not allergic to beer, Kleptin, then you are not the \"average person\" that I was referring to. Also the word \"you\" can be defined as \"one; anyone; people in general\" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Earlier I specified \"you\" to be the average person, the general public, which would exclude my opponent. I assume that my opponent accepts the definition of milk to be: \"liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc\" because in R1 he says \"I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. \" Cow and goat's milk have lactose in them, which leads me to believe he agrees with this term. Dairy milk also contains casein, which breaks down into beta-Casomorphine-7, an opiate. Other examples of opiates are morphine, codeine and fentanyl. Opioid is defined as a \"drug, hormone, or other chemical substance having sedative or narcotic effects similar to those containing opium or its derivatives\" (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Some reactions that people have to opiates are: nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, itching, dry mouth, and constipation (Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, 3rd ed. ). There has also been studies showing that casein can aggravate, if not cause autism. It has also been linked to cancer, schizophrenia, heart disease and diabetes. Since casein is a drug, it is addictive (especially cheese, because of the high concentration of it) and can even affect a person's personality, causing depression and overeating (. http://danmahony.com...). Beer however, has a positive effect on blood vessels, decreasing the risk of clotting or rupturing. People who drink beer in moderation also have less of a risk of dementia and can even increase cognitive functions (. http://www.forbes.com...). It can also increase metabolism, lower calories and reduce stress (. http://www.menshealth.com...). Kleptin, sorry to hear about your unfortunate condition, but in my resolution, you are classified as an exception. I said in R1 that, for the average person, beer is healthier than milk and you have yet to prove otherwise.", "title": "Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk.", "pid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.5020751953125}, {"text": "StructureR1 ArgumentsR2 RebuttalsR3 Defend your R1 argument against opponent's R2 rebuttal Bad to the bone = immoral. Full resolution: Drinking cow's milk is usually immoral. Exceptions, people with rare medical conditions, and extraordinary circumstances. For example, stranded on a desert island and/or about to go into a diabetic coma. Burden of proof will be on me to prove that drinking cow's milk is usually immoral. OutlineI. IntroII. Animal ethicsIII. HealthIV. EnvironmentV. ConclusionVI. SourcesI. IntroWe shouldn't drink bovine milk because it encourages the slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of cows. Not only that, but slavery, exploitation, and mistreatment of one animal paves the way for this same treatment towards other animals. Cows milk is unhealthy nor environmentally sustainable. II. Animal ethics\"A factory farm is a large, industrial operation that raises large numbers of animals for food. Over 99% of farm animals in the U.S. are raised in factory farms, which focus on profit and efficiency at the expense of animal welfare.\" [0]Animals on so called \"humane\" farms don't fare much better. [1][2] \"Even under the best circumstances, the incentive to treat animals “humanely” is limited to the extent to which it is necessary to raise them to market weight (which is just a fraction of their natural lifespan). Any humane practice beyond this would be seen as inefficient and unsustainable by today’s business standards.\" [3]Between the inherit conflict of interest between animal welfare and profit. and the brutal realities there is no moral justification for humans drinking bovine milk.III. HealthMilk causes osteoporosis and increases chances of hip fractures. Contains, IGF-1, cholesterol, casein, lactose, high in fat, high in saturated fat, and high in dead bacteria endotoxins. \"These results support the hypothesis that dairy products and calcium are associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer. \" [4]\" Studies have shown that IGFs are potent mitogens for a variety of cancer cells including prostate cancer since they stimulate cancer cell growth and suppress programmed cell death. \" [5]\"Naturally occurring milk IGF-1 levels were recorded in 5777 random milk samples from the Bavarian dairy cow population.\" [6]As you can see from above, milk increases cancer risk. IGF-1 is found in cow's milk and is associated with increased cancer risk. \"These findings suggest that even small intakes of foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn, with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality rates.\" [7]Casein is a protein that can cause an immune system response which can lead to type I diabetes. “Total protein consumption did not correlate with diabetes incidence (r = +0.402), but consumption of the beta-casein A1 variant did (r = +0.726). Even more pronounced was the relation between beta-casein (A1+B) consumption and diabetes (r = +0.982). These latter two cow caseins yield a bioactive peptide beta-casomorphin-7 after in vitro digestion with intestinal enzymes whereas the common A2 variant or the corresponding human or goat caseins do not. beta-casomorphin-7 has opioid properties including immunosuppression, which could account for the specificity of the relation between the consumption of some but not all beta-casein variants and diabetes incidence. “ [8] “\" Women who drank three glasses of milk or more every day had a nearly doubled risk of death and cardiovascular disease, and a 44 percent increased risk of cancer compared to women who drank less than one glass per day, the researchers found. Men's overall risk of death increased about 10 percent when they drank three or more glasses of milk daily, said the study, published online Oct. 28 in BMJ.\"” [9] “The risk of any bone fracture increased 16 percent in women who drank three or more glasses daily, and the risk of a broken hip increased 60 percent, the findings indicated. “ [10] Fat is not only the densest of the three macro nutrients at 9 calories per gram as opposed to 4 for carbohydrates and proteins. This can lead to obesity and intramyocellular lipid build up.Saturated fat increases blood viscosity which makes the heart work harder. Lactose is a sugar that many people are intolerant towards. IV. EnvironmentInherently due to trophic levels milk must be worse for the environment. From the American Journal of Clinical nutrition we can see that lupine, a vegan alternative, is better for the environment than cow's milk. [11]V. ConclusionIn conclusion, there is only one ethical choice, and that is to stop drinking bovine milk. Thanks for the debate.VI. Sources0. http://www.aspca.org... 1. http://humanefacts.org... 2. http://humanemyth.org... 3. http://freefromharm.org... 4. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 7. http://ajcn.nutrition.org... 8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... 9. http://www.webmd.com... 10. http://www.webmd.com...11. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...", "title": "Milk is bad to the bone.", "pid": "ce21fce9-2019-04-18T12:52:34Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.30230712890625}, {"text": "Milk is good for you.", "title": "Milk is bad to the bone.", "pid": "ce21fce9-2019-04-18T12:52:34Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.2291259765625}, {"text": "This basically summarizes my arguments and counter arguments: \"Dairy foods can be high in fat and, therefore, calories. Low-fat dairy foods, such as skim milk and low-fat cottage cheese, have had most of the fat skimmed off and they can still be good choices for calorie counters. But all the good stuff, like cheese, ice cream, and butter, can be diet-busters. \" \"In higher fat dairy products, most of the fat is saturated fat. Diets high in saturated fats can raise your cholesterol levels and increase your risk of heart disease. \" \"Dairy products contain lactose, a type of milk-sugar that many people have difficulty digesting because they lack the digestive enzyme lactase. If you can't digest lactose, eating dairy products can give you a rumbley tummy or worse. Lactose intolerance affects between ten and twenty percent of the population. You are much more likely to be lactose intolerant if you are of African, Asian, or Native American heritage. Lactose-reduced dairy products or lactase tablets can allow lactose intolerant people to eat dairy with fewer difficulties. \" \"Although cow's milk allergies are fairly rare in adults, many babies and small children are allergic to milk, and experience symptoms including ear infections, skin rashes, and digestive problems. Avoiding dairy products can alleviate symptoms. \" _________________________________________________________________________________________________ . http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com... www. formerfatguy. com/articles/dont-drink-milk.", "title": "Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans", "pid": "c2eeacb1-2019-04-18T18:59:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.2211151123047}, {"text": "Instigator has forfeited this round. I will hold my argument in case he wishes to continue.", "title": "Chocolate milk is healthy.", "pid": "f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.17620849609375}, {"text": "That's very kind of you.", "title": "Milk is good for your bones", "pid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.12564086914062}, {"text": "It depletes the calcium from your bones to digest it.", "title": "Should we drink milk", "pid": "3f566289-2019-04-18T13:21:59Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.11927795410156}, {"text": "I couldn't really be bothered reading that, so all I'm going to say is this: I firmly believe in the right to drink chocolate milk. It is delicious, and I am shocked that anyone would want to rid us of one of God's greatest inventions. Thank you, and good night.", "title": "Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff", "pid": "edc8122b-2019-04-18T15:03:09Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.09445190429688}, {"text": "This chocolate milk has a lot of bad things for health. This is a very big problem to occur in your life, of you going to be not healty. Well drink Chocolate milk please.www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ4wGDl56Zg", "title": "Chocolate milk is bad for your health", "pid": "7c2a3a74-2019-04-18T14:50:45Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.0474853515625}, {"text": "The resolution for this debate is \"Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk\". Thus, my opponent's burden is to prove that Beer, in moderation, is healthier for me than milk is. I personally, am highly allergic to alcohol and cannot break it down. It gives me gastro-intestinal upset and at one point, hideous diarrhea. However, I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. Beer is, by definition, \"an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste. \" . http://dictionary.reference.com... The presence of alcohol in anything I consume will have great negative impact on my health and thus, I must assert that Beer, in any amount, is less healthy for me than milk. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.", "title": "Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk.", "pid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 212.99571228027344}, {"text": "Instigator has yet again forfeited. I will conclude that he could not think of a valid argument.", "title": "Chocolate milk is healthy.", "pid": "f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.98606872558594}, {"text": "Yeah, I'll just post these so that you don't need to wait for me to 'time out'. Thanks again. Not exactly positive first experience but all experiences just benefit me in the long run.", "title": "Milk is good for your bones", "pid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.9640655517578}, {"text": "In reference to my experiences, I have always found the majority of people prefer vanilla ice-cream and white milk not only for of its succulent taste but also because it is a healthier option. Moreover, if there was a magical cow that solely produced chocolate milk, what's to suggest that people won't grow tired of chocolate milk with their coffee and cereal? In addition, wouldn't this cause a proliferation in health problems for the vast population?", "title": "Comment a Topic!", "pid": "82bdc687-2019-04-18T15:10:10Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.9573516845703}, {"text": "hello everyone here is my opinion... i think chocolate milk is good for you because it's healthy for your body and teeth", "title": "is chocolate milk good for you", "pid": "8ab0c1d5-2019-04-18T11:47:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.9202880859375}, {"text": "Well that's that... Thanks for the 'debate'.", "title": "Milk is good for your bones", "pid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.9014892578125}, {"text": "Seems that there is more research in this as I thought. Although the fact that you copied and pasted practically everything that was in your post from one of your sources... You might have well just post the sources and leave. I wouldn't really call it a debate when you'd do something like that. Although now that I've done research on it I can't think of much of a argument against you. I probably should have looked up the topic before I jumped right in. Since this is my first debate I hope that you can forgive my ignorance. Sorry for the waste of time, but I'm going to have to forfeit this debate xD", "title": "Milk is good for your bones", "pid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.89195251464844}, {"text": "I thank whoever accepts this debate. *Note: I would like to say that I am not encouraging excessive use of alcohol. It is important to recognize that beer can also have a significant impact on your health if abused. I will clarify that \"moderation\" is one or two drinks a day, and half that for women (because of their ability to break down alcohol), not consumed one directly after the other (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...). Resolution: For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. I will start by attempting to reproduce a nutritional table showing beer and milk: United States Department of Agriculture Nutritional Data for Milk and Beer ------------------------| MILK (I cup, 2% milk)----- | BEER (1 cup) ----------- Fat (g) ----------------|------------ 5---------------- | --------- 0 ---------------- Fiber (g) --------------| ----------- 0 ---------------- | --------- .5 -------------- Sodium (mg) -------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 12 ------------ Cholesterol (mg) ---- | ---------- 20 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- Calories -------------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 97 ------------ Calories from fat (%)-| ---------- 37 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- I don't think this posted properly so here's the link as well. (. http://www.milksucks.com...) Beer has no fat or cholesterol but does contain less calories and ten times less sodium than milk. Milk is found to actually cause osteoporosis because dairy products have high levels protein. When protein levels in the body are doubled, but no other nutrient levels are changed, the levels of calcium in the urine increase by about fifty percent (Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993). Milk is also loaded with pesticides and antibiotics, because cows are producing ten times the amount of milk they would normally produce, their udders get swollen and drag on the ground. Pus and blood have been foound in milk as a result. Antibiotics are used to treat the inflammation and trace amounts have been found in milk, pesticides are also found in the dairy product. These chemicals can build up and negatively effect the immune system, reproductive system and central nervous system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer as well (. http://www.pcrm.org...). In the book Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, consuming alcohol in moderate levels \"protects against heart disease and ischemic strokes, and mounting evidence [shows] that it protects against diabetes and gallstones\" (Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, 2001). Alcohol reduces the risk of strokes and heart attacks and increases brain function as well. (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...) Also, if you have time, read this : . http://www.guardian.co.uk... OK, that's all for now.", "title": "Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk.", "pid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.8782958984375}, {"text": "Instigator has claims set the chocolate milk is healthy. However, Instigator has not taken a few things into consideration:Studies show that in 8 oz of chocolate milk, there is approximately 3 teaspoons of sugar is added to chocolate milk.[1] That's almost as much as soda, which the example I'll use, Cola, has 11 teaspoons in a 16 oz soda (44g of sugar), which is 4.5 teaspoons of sugar in an 8 oz soda.[2] Also, even if the chocolate milk was low-fat, fat is not the same thing as sugar.Why is sugar a big deal, you ask? Well, sugar is high in fructose, or fruit sugar. Too much of it can overload your liver, can also give you Type II cancer, raises your chorestrol level (giving you a higher risk of heart diesese), among many other things. And since it also releases dopamine, a \"feel good\" chemical, sugar is highly addictive.[3]Point: Chocolate milk is much less healthier than normal milk, since it contains much more sugar that normal lactose milk. Some thing as sugary and addicting as chocolate milk can cause one to contract many dieseses/cancers.I await Instigator's next argument.Sources:[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2]https://www.google.com...[3]http://authoritynutrition.com...", "title": "Chocolate milk is healthy.", "pid": "f63b76cb-2019-04-18T16:55:02Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.8462677001953}, {"text": "human beings have flourished on earth in vast terrains and we still do with differing food type availability. the amazon diet is very different to the eskimo diet and yet all the varying human communities omni/carnivores and herbivores have all flourished healthily whilst maintaining fundamentally differnt diets. Your examples are of omnivore diets; eskimos eat fish, and game, amazons insects, fish, livestock, and game. Being omnivores is what allows us to eat such a wide range of nutrition as a system is totally interwoven into our other bodily systems and so it is actually very incomplete to deduce that children who dont drink milk will have weaker bones or a calcium shortage. You are right. You could eat 33 cups of baby spinach, or 5 to 6 cups of cooked spinach to get the same calcium as 8 oz of milk. My point was more that no one really eat this much. You would have to eat all day long. scientists ultimately only manipulate data to make it appear favourable to the goals of the organisations that fund their 'science' Most of them never make a peer viewed study. They are not scientist because they are not trying to change the minds of scientist only the general public. if a scientist was to point out that cows milk has been shown to be incompatible with the human stomache, the dairy industry would ensure that 100 other scientists rebutt or 'reinterpret' the undesirable science. Actually there has been scientist that have claimed this; as a reason behind lactose intolerance. There was not much of a rebuttal. The rebuttal is we are getting used to it, because we have drank goat’s milk and not cow’s milk though out most of human history. large parts of indian civilisations up until the present have remained vegan for 1000s of years without any scientifically noticeable calcium deficient conditions incidentally these same people have also been reported to not spending their whole lives grazing on their vegetable curries to keep their nutritional standards in line with their omnivore brethren Can you site a source for even one Indian tribe that is vegan? however, realistically lets start by protecting the cows and hens whose pain we can clearly perceive......then we can go searching for carrots' tears and emotions. Did you know talking to a plant makes it grow more? That there is a field of science that are studying plant this kind of stuff, it is called plant neurobiology. Also plants have a perceivable pain response. Many plants will recoil when you hurt them. http://www.discovery.com... My opponent as locked them self into it has to be livestock or plants. There are more options than just these to. The best argument on my side currently is that insects solve all of my opponent’s arguments so far and still have humans not being vegetarians. My opponent as yet to give a rebuttal to this point.", "title": "humans should endeavour to become a vegan species", "pid": "3be655b-2019-04-18T15:25:31Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.79400634765625}, {"text": "When you think of chocolate milk, what is the first thing that comes to your mind? The soft, creamy taste? The happy kids having fun while drinking it? Well, you would be suprised to know that, chocolate milk is in fact, healthy for kids too. First of all, chocolate milk has all 9 essential ingriedients. It has calcium, which makes the kids grow taller, and also the sweet taste, unlike white milk which some kids can call \"yucky\" or \"too plain\". I know what you are thinking, that it causes obesity and stuff, but then, kids are kids. They run around the playground at lunchtime, so there is not a big chance that they will turn suddenly obtuse just because they drink chocolate milk. Now, you night think that there are too much sugar, but the truth is, The little bit of sugar is what keeps them going during the day and keeps them energetic and healthy. There are more reasons, but for now, this is it. I hope you vote for me!", "title": "Chocolate milk should be served in school!!!", "pid": "40eccde7-2019-04-18T15:21:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.783447265625}, {"text": "Well chocolate milk has more sugars than cola, which is very surprising for, me. It says that this much sugar can be very bad for your health and could cause very bad health problems, inside your body. So I am guessing that this chocolate milk should be banned in school and also this chocolate milk has a very bad thing that it also makes you go fat and does not have that much nutrition such as vitamin C has only 4%. Does this tell you that chocolate milk is bad for your body? This milk also does say that it would be better to be buying or drinking this good old normal milk. They say that milk that is normal has a vitamin D and other good things for your body, which is I am thinking that this drink of the chocolate milk is just bad. I am also thinking that this choco milk also you will think, what this does not make sense. But I have a good backup for that. you can read that this chocolate milk can be a unhealthy drink that will only cover your body up with sugar. It can also be covering your body up with many calories. So please be kind and say yes and vote for me.", "title": "Chocolate milk is bad for your health", "pid": "7c2a3a74-2019-04-18T14:50:45Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.7512969970703}, {"text": "Thanks Kleptin, good luck in the final round. \"My opponent's source is an article talking about the safety and benefits of animal hormones\" My source was the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993. It does not have a link because it's not on the Internet. The research was done by Dr. Robert P. Heaney. I did find the excerpt that I was referring to on the Internet however: (http://www.ecopolitan.com...) (scroll about halfway down). In the text he says: \"The net effect is such that, if protein intake is doubled without changing intake of other nutrients, urinary calcium content increases by about 50 percent.\" The other article that I cited was referring to my claim there was pesticides and and antibiotics in milk. I will take a paragraph directly out of the source that I used in round one: \"Milk contains contaminants that range from pesticides to drugs. Milk naturally contains hormones and growth factors produced within a cow's body. In addition, synthetic hormones such as recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) are commonly used in dairy cows to increase the production of milk.27 Because treated cows are producing quantities of milk nature never intended, the end result can be mastitis, or inflammation of the mammary glands. Treatment of this condition requires the use of antibiotics, and antibiotic traces have occasionally been found in samples of milk and other dairy products. Pesticides, poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and dioxins are other examples of contaminants found in milk. These toxins do not readily leave the body and can eventually build to harmful levels that may affect the immune and reproductive systems. The central nervous system can also be affected. Moreover, PCBs and dioxins have also been linked to cancer.\" (http://www.pcrm.org...) In regards to my opponent's sources, one source says: \"The newly approved tests detect only four, or at most, five beta lactams. What about the several other families of antibiotics currently available for use?\" (http://www.ces.ncsu.edu...). Another source, when looking at the \"Human Health\" section, is one big \"citation needed\" after another(http://en.wikipedia.org...). His third source says: All 739 milk samples tested contained residues, and in fact the average sample had 2.88 residues – a HUGE jump from the testing just eight years earlier.\" and it also says \"The good news is that the levels of DDE, DPA, and other pesticides found in milk in 2004 were very low. Most fell below one part per billion (ppb). The highest residue levels found were, at most, one-quarter of the applicable EPA tolerance (the maximum allowable limit of a pesticide in a given food).\" (http://www.organic-center.org...). These pesticides build up in the body. The samples that contained high amounts of pesticides could easily build up to harmful levels. \"I also find my opponent's assumption of dragging udders to be a stretch (no pun intended) as most cows are milked on a frequent basis by machine and thus, would not get a chance to have swollen udders.\" Not EVERY cow has swollen udders, but there are cows that do, here's a picture. (http://www.milksucks.co.uk...) \"Antibiotics are not used to treat inflammation, but are used to treat infection (which is never prophylactic in cows so my opponent is probably wrong in assuming that they are injected with it constantly.\" I probably did mix up the words antibiotics and anti-inflammatory, but when cow's udders drag on the ground (see above picture), they are sure to be cut. Those cuts may also come into contact with the manure left on the ground in the cow's living space, and can infect the udders. \"The original journal articles involved experiments with existing IGF levels in humans, where the word \"milk\" appears a total of 0 times.\" Again, you must have missed a part in my article. In my source (http://www.pcrm.org...), it says: \"Prostate and breast cancers have been linked to consumption of dairy products, presumably related to increases in a compound called insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I). IGF-I is found in cow's milk and has been shown to occur in increased levels in the blood of individuals consuming dairy products on a regular basis. Other nutrients that increase IGF-I are also found in cow's milk.\" In the section labeled \"Cancer,\" the word \"milk\" shows up five times. \"This article states that outstanding experiments and trials with positive results are biased and unreliable\" The Wikipedia article? I didn't see that in the article anywhere. \"You can fix obesity, but you can't fix progressive liver damage.\" Moderate Drinking does not cause liver damage. (http://www.liverfoundation.org...) \"In discussing prescription drugs, the number of drug abusers worldwide is irrelevant to this debate.\" It is relevant, because although those numbers are high in the US, other countries may not take nearly as many drugs. Since we are dealing with a worldwide scale here, those figures may not be nearly as high. Ranitidine is also known as Zantac, and famotidine is know as Pepcid, both are over the counter prescriptions. These can be taken with alcohol, how many other prescriptions can be taken with alcohol as well? \"Just as there are many, many different kinds of beer, there are also many varieties of milk, and a good number of them are lactose-free.\" That is true, but in R1 you defined beer to be \"an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste.\" and in R2 I defined milk as \"liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc.\" You did not alter my definition of milk and I accepted your definition of beer. Your definition of beer says it is an alcoholic beverage and my definition of milk says it is a liquid secreted by animals like cows and goats. Cow's and goat's milk has lactose in it. So to bring up non-alcoholic beers and lactose-free milks is irrelevant. Even if we were to argue non-alcoholic beers and lactose-free milks, who says non-alcoholic beers aren't healthy? And they are not hard to find, I can walk down to my local grocery store and a buy a 24-pack if I wanted to. Granted, lactose-free and fat-free milks probably remove some of the health problems that arise from milk, it isn't just the fat or lactose in the milk that is the problem. It is the casein and the chemicals too. Also, my sources are not biased, they are merely compilations of evidence that have found milk to be detrimental to one's health. If I wanted to read a book on communism, it isn't biased because it doesn't mention fascist ideas as well. I was researching how milk is unhealthy for a person, and that is what I found. So, in conclusion: Beer has no fat, ten times less sodium, no cholesterol and less calories then milk. Beer can protect against diabetes, strokes, heart disease, dementia and lower stress. Milk has small amounts pesticides and antibiotics that can build up in the body that can effect the immune system, central nervous system and reproductive system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer too. Milk has casein, which breaks down into casomorphine, which can aggravate autism. My opponent has misread my sources, claiming they are saying something completely different that what they are actually saying. He has gone so far as to twist my resolution and say my restriction was on people who drive, which is not what I said. Cow's milk is made for baby cows, not humans of all ages. We do not need milk to maintain a healthy diet beyond the age of 12 months old. Thanks to Kleptin for the great debate.", "title": "Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk.", "pid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.6986846923828}, {"text": "Not quite sure what you mean by your last statement instigator.. care to explain it?", "title": "Chocolate milk is bad for your health", "pid": "7c2a3a74-2019-04-18T14:50:45Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.68251037597656}, {"text": "I have greatly enjoyed this debate and hope to engage in another one with my opponent in the future. As for now, let us finish up. 1. Providing the actual source now is inadequate. As I have said before, the research is being used out of context. Does calcium excretion increase if protein levels increase? Yes, because as any student who took anatomy&physiology knows, charged proteins maintain an ionic balance and charged calcium ions can flow differently depending on the amount of protein in the blood. However, animal proteins are broken down into amino acids and their net charge becomes neutral. This in addition to the amount of protein in the blood made up by albumin and blood cells, as well as the fact that Dr. Heaney is talking about extracellular calcium as opposed to the calcium in bones, makes my opponent's point negligible in terms of calcium loss. This is simply a propaganda ploy. 2. I have never said that there is no trace of those chemicals in cows. I have provided sources showing that they have been tested to healthy levels, my opponent is making a strawman argument. Furthermore, my opponent's source is flawed. Anyone who indicates that inflammation is treated with antibiotics is either an idiot, or is talking about a bacterial infection. As such is the case, we can assume that antibiotics are not given for long term prevention, but when the need arises. In such case, the presence of antibiotics would be minimal. And yes, the chemicals are linked to cancer, but the concentration in milk is nowhere near a cancerous dose in any way, shape or form. A point that my opponent's biased source cares not to mention. 3. In regards to testing for beta lactams: beta lactam antibiotics make up the most common types of antibiotics. The other families are not widely used in cows and many of them are heat labile or denature quickly in hostile environments outside body pH and temperature. Thus, they are a minimal concern. 4. My opponent in his next section, uses some pretty sneaky tactics. First of all, he puts my source into question by stating that a citation is needed. However, the citation is only needed on a statement saying that a panel agreed with the FDA's declaration that milk contained safe levels of animal hormones. The actual FDA statement contains a citation. 5. In addition, my opponent criticizes the \"huge jump\". Yes, while the jump is big, the numbers were still low, and as I have said before, the study DID take into consideration the fact that milk was widely used. The source even stated that as the reason the investigation was being performed. 6. In such case, how is my opponent to know that this cow's milk is actually going to be used? It seems to me that he just google-imaged a picture of a cow with swollen udders. Logically speaking, FDA moderated farms and centers for milk production would be mechanized such that this could be prevented. 7. As I have stated, I was referring to the original journal articles regarding the experiments that my opponent's site has cited as a source. In other words, the source of your source said nothing about milk. How are they connecting the dots? This is to show that my opponent's source is drawing information incorrectly. I have provided sources that show that IGF-1 is at safe levels in milk, and that the assumption that it causes problems in the body is founded on half-logic. 8. In reference to the biased and unreliable experiments/trials http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent did not scan through well enough. See \"Constroversies\" \"none of the studies were performed in a manner to create an unbiased scientific opinion\" \"indicated no statistically significant findings\" \"Evidence for efficacy of these diets is currently unsubstantiated\" 9. I was not declaring that moderate drinking causes liver damage. I was stating that those who are on prescription medication to allow for moderate drinking would be susceptible to liver damage. 10. It actually is not relevant. Number of \"drug abusers\" is irrelevant to this debate because your definition of a \"drug abuser\" is incorrect. However, the number of people on prescription medication is relevant. In developed countries, use of prescription medication is almost exactly the same as in the U.S. In underdeveloped countries, the benefits of beer that you list are of no consequence because the benefits are only good for a civilization with cardiovascular impairment. Developing countries would be more focused on sustenance, and milk would be healthier for them than beer in that regard, because their children are starving. 11. I am familiar with the generic and brand names of these drugs, but are you also aware that OTC does not mean \"take as you please\"? Have you ever tried the combination of alcohol and sleeping pill? Zantac should NOT be taken with alcohol, the fact that you are advocating it is like a stab to the professional side of me. 12. In that case, we will not discuss non-alcoholic beer because I find it ridiculous anyway. However, I accepted your definition of \"milk\" and apologize for including soy milk. However, I can very freely mention lactose-free milk if the milk simply has the lactose removed or cleaved. Things are added to beer and they can still be called beer. Simply adding lactase to milk destroys the lactose and makes lactose intolerance irrelevant. Removing the lactose or the fat is perfectly fine too, because the fluid itself came from the cow or the goat, but lactose is a sugar, a solid. You made no mention of the solid. I would also like to note that while watching \"Yakitate Japan!\", an anime about making bread, I learned that goat milk actually has little to none of the controversial problems that cow's milk has, and have found verification online, since my opponent has mentioned goat milk several times. http://altmedangel.com... http://www.goatworld.com... http://naturalmedicine.suite101.com... http://www.crohns.net... http://www.associatedcontent.com... Goat milk is consumed more than cow milk worldwide, and those with lactose intolerance can somehow consume goats milk without any problems. In addition, goat milk is devoid of all the high-industry chemicals, has healthier fats and cholesterol that help rather than harm, has a different type of casein that people are insensitive to, and is responsible for nearly no allergies. Goat milk is widely used as a replacement for cow milk worldwide. My opponent's burden in this debate is to show that beer is more healthy than milk. He himself has specified that the debate was limited to milk that comes from animals. I have not only shown most (if not all) of his sources against cow milk to be questionable, but also that his arguments for the \"average person\" show that the inclusion of alcohol in an average person's lifestyle will be more harmful than helpful. Furthermore, in my curiosity as to why my opponent has mentioned but not spoken about goat milk, decided to research it for my opponent, and found that it has absolutely none of the defects my opponent complains about in terms of cow milk. Thus, I have not only reduced my opponents points to the speculation that it is, but also provided an example of a milk that is far healthier than beer. Thank you for the debate. I urge a CON vote.", "title": "Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk.", "pid": "84da562b-2019-04-18T19:20:50Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.67379760742188}, {"text": "I look forward to a good response! I will list the problems with dairy below in no particular order. Lactose Intolerance Dairy is comprised primarily of fats, carbohydrates, proteins, and water. One of these primary carbohydrates is lactose. As infants, mammals can process the lactose using an enzyme secreted from their intestinal villi called lactase. This breaks the lactose down into two simple sugars: glucose and galactose. Most people in the world (approx. 65%) have a drastically reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy, and increasingly so as the get older, resulting in the condition known as lactose intolerance. Mammals normally have a decrease in the gene expression which results in lactase production after infancy, as this enzyme is no longer required to digest mother's milk . http://www.google.com...). Some people groups, such as those of European decent, have inherited a change in a regulatory element which regulates this gene expression, allowing for sustained production of lactase in their small intestine (. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...). For much of the world, lactose will cause gastrointestinal problems (. http://www.medbio.info...). For this reason alone, dairy is bad for the health of at least 65% of the world. Cardiovascular DiseaseSaturated fat is well known to be correlated with cardiovascular diseases (. http://www.plosmedicine.org...). Dairy products are typically rife with saturated fat which raise the level of LDL (bad) cholesterol in your blood resulting in an increased risk for cardiovascular disease (. http://www.heart.org...).CancerDairy consumption is strongly correlated with prostate cancer. While several mechanisms are possible, the correlation remains clear (. http://www.pcrm.org...). \"Consumption of dairy products has also been linked to higher risk for various cancers, especially to cancers of the reproductive system. Most significantly, dairy product consumption has been linked to increased risk for prostate and breast cancers. The danger of dairy product consumption as it relates to prostate and breast cancers is most likely related to increases in insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), which is found in cow’s milk. Consumption of milk and dairy products on a regular basis has been shown to increase circulating levels of IGF-1. Perhaps the most convincing association between IGF-1 levels and cancer risk is seen in studies of prostate cancer. Case-control studies in diverse populations have shown a strong and consistent association between serum IGF-1 concentrations and prostate cancer risk. One study showed that men with the highest levels of IGF-1 had more than four times the risk of prostate cancer, compared with those who had the lowest levels. In the Physicians Health Study, tracking 21,660 participants for 28 years, researchers found an increased risk of prostate cancer for those who consumed ≥2.5 servings of dairy products per day as compared with those who consumed ≤0.5 servings a day. This study, which is supported by other findings,also shows that prostate cancer risk was elevated with increased consumption of low-fat milk, suggesting that too much dairy calcium, and not just the fat associated with dairy products, could be a potential threat to prostate health. In addition to increased levels of IGF-1, estrogen metabolites are considered risk factors for cancers of the reproductive system, including cancers of the breasts, ovaries, and prostate. These metabolites can affect cellular proliferation such that cells grow rapidly and aberrantly, which can lead to cancer growth. Consumption of milk and dairy products contributes to the majority (60-70 percent) of estrogen intake in the human diet. In a large study including 1,893 women from the Life After Cancer Epidemiology Study who had been diagnosed with early-stage invasive breast cancer, higher amounts of high-fat dairy product consumption were associated with higher mortality rates. As little as 0.5 servings a day increased risk significantly. This is probably due to the fact that estrogenic hormones reside primarily in fat, making the concern most pronounced for consumption of high-fat dairy products. The consumption of dairy products may also contribute to development of ovarian cancer. The relation between dairy products and ovarian cancer may be caused by the breakdown of the milk sugar lactose into galactose, a sugar which may be toxic to ovarian cells. In a study conducted in Sweden, consumption of lactose and dairy products was positively linked to ovarian cancer. A similar study, the Iowa Women’s Health Study, found that women who consumed more than one glass of milk per day had a 73 percent greater chance of developing ovarian cancer than women who drank less than one glass per day\" (. http://www.pcrm.org...).While this surely is not an exhaustive list of potential healthhazards faced by those who consume dairy, what I have included so far should be adequate for this debate's discussion.", "title": "Dairy is Bad For Your Health", "pid": "a74d58bd-2019-04-18T15:50:40Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.65884399414062}, {"text": "R2 Rebuttals\"Milk is good for you.\" nathanw2002I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I think I've adequately defeated this bare assertion made by my opponent already in round one. This is a bare assertion by nathanw2002 because the statement \"milk is good for you\" is true only because my opponent says so.12. http://fallacies.findthedata.com...", "title": "Milk is bad to the bone.", "pid": "ce21fce9-2019-04-18T12:52:34Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.62681579589844}, {"text": "Okay, well this shall be my first debate on this site, so I hope that I do halfway decent considering. I suppose that I'm not supposed to state much on the topic and my position yet since you said we'll start in round two... So I suppose I'll just say good luck, or something of the sort...", "title": "Milk is good for your bones", "pid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 212.6235809326172}, {"text": "Milk-based diets are healthy and humane for veal", "title": "Veal", "pid": "c70591bd-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 212.597412109375}, {"text": "The Los Angeles Unified School District is taking a stand against child obesity by banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk. In the past few years, schools in the District of Columbia, Boulder Valley, Colorado, and Berkeley, California have also banned flavored milk. The decision to offer only plain milk is clearly better for the students. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a serving of low-fat chocolate milk contains 53 more calories than a serving of low-fat white milk (1). These are mostly empty calories, which have no nutritional value whatsoever. Children under the age of 9 should not take in more than 120 empty calories a day (2). By drinking a carton of chocolate milk, young children are consuming nearly 50% of this daily limit. For this reason, the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity strongly discourages serving flavored milk (3). Opponents of banning flavored milk argue that all flavors of milk contain the same quantities of important nutrients. While this is true, children will absorb more of these nutrients if they choose to drink plain milk as opposed to chocolate milk. Chocolate contains oxalate, a naturally occurring compound in cocoa beans, which can inhibit the absorption of calcium. One study found that a single 100 gram dose of dark chocolate increased calcium excretion by 147% (4). According to another study, “Higher frequency of chocolate consumption is linearly related to lower bone density and strength” (5). Opponents of banning flavored milk also argue that some children simply will not drink plain milk. However, most students will select healthy foods if they are prompted to do so (6). Furthermore, evidence has shown that children who are continually exposed to healthy foods will learn to prefer these foods. These children will also develop a decreased preference for sweetened foods (7). Based on these conclusions, students who drink plain milk on a regular basis should develop less of a preference for chocolate milk. This has several important implications for schools. Administrators may feel that it makes sense to serve chocolate milk to increase children’s initial acceptance of milk. However, this strategy will actually result in decreased long-term acceptance of unsweetened foods, including white milk. Conclusion: Our society has a responsibility to help students develop healthy eating habits. Banning flavored milk in our schools is an excellent way to accomplish this task. References: http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.choosemyplate.gov... http://yaleruddcenter.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ajcn.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.yaleruddcenter.org...", "title": "The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk", "pid": "48ae4466-2019-04-18T18:45:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.57223510742188}, {"text": "The World Health Organisation, a collection of internationally qualified doctors state that breast milk naturally contains all the nutrients that a child could need for the first 6 months of its life [[http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/exclusive_breastfeeding/en/index.html]]. From iron to zinc, calcium to protein; everything that is vital for a healthy young life can be found in these natural given milk ducts. The Government should make it compulsory for mothers to breast feed to ensure that every child is allowed to benefit from this. Not one child should ever be disadvantaged due to their mother’s selfish choice or lack of effort. To make breast feeding compulsory is the only way to ensure this fairness. If we want equality, this is what we must do.", "title": "All children are entitled to a healthy start in life", "pid": "c7f58e-2019-04-19T12:48:05Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 212.5218505859375}, {"text": "i think chocolate milk is good for you. debate with me and you will find out why", "title": "is chocolate milk good for you", "pid": "8ab0c1d5-2019-04-18T11:47:23Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.51992797851562}, {"text": "I apologize for not being more concise on what we were arguing over. We will be arguing over the morality of eating animal products.Thank you, Pro, for accepting my challenge.My ArguementAnimal products, including milk, eggs, cheese, meat, and seafood, are not necessary to sustain a healthy body. Therefore, a living creature that has feelings and can feel pain and can suffer must endure a life of torture then be slaughtered for the sake of taste, not health.Humans have become arrogant because we are more advanced than any other species on planet Earth. This causes humans to believe other creatures, through evolutionary processes (if atheist) or Creation (if Christain), have been placed here so humans may use them as they please.So, I ask you, should an animal endure pain and die so that humans may take part in enjoying them only for pleasure, not survival?", "title": "Eating animal products.", "pid": "88ad86c0-2019-04-18T18:39:03Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.49595642089844}, {"text": "mmmmmm chocolate..... I don't drink CHOCOLATE milk for the calcium, I drink it for the CHOCOLATE and as you know, CHOCOLATE tastes good..................................", "title": "Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff", "pid": "edc8122b-2019-04-18T15:03:09Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.4839630126953}, {"text": "Stating that chocolate milk tastes better is purely opinion. People do indeed drink chocolate milk more than \"that other milk\" you describe it as, but this does not make it healthy to humans. To be complete with this debate, I'll be covering all aspects of chocolate milk, including: Its elemental buildup, its usage today, and how it influences the human body. After graphing the general overview of chocolate milk, I will then compare it to the overview of \"that other milk\". Sound good? Good. The most common way chocolate milk is made, is by taking regular whole milk (or \"that other milk\" by your preference) and blending that whole milk with a powder (typically cocoa) and sweeteners such as sugars. Both \"that other milk\" and chocolate milk come from the same cows, contrary to some people's beliefs, but the key difference between the two is that chocolate milk is richer in sugars and carbohydrates than whole milk is. Yes, we are taught that carbohydrates are used as the basic unit of energy storage, but there are different types of carbohydrates, the most unhealthy being sugar. A small amount of consumption of these sugars won't have a significant amount of harm to your body, but large amounts can lead to obesity and diabetes in its consumers, and eventually heart diseases and cancers. (Source: http://www.self.com...) While most people from the Pro stance of this topic do think that flavored milk is tastier, it is not healthier, similar to most things we eat. We can continue to drink chocolate milk, but this will only damage us as time passes. It is much safer to drink the regular whole milk, with a little less flavor, but removing those excess sugars that grow to harm us in the future, than to drink chocolate milk, which has been shown to have those influences on the human body.", "title": "Is Chocolate Milk Better than White Milk", "pid": "f0e341f2-2019-04-18T12:13:47Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.4755096435547}, {"text": "I'd like to apologize for my lateness. I didn't have a lot of time to write this up, but, I assure you, next round I'll be completely focused. Thank you for being patient. \"The decision to offer only plain milk is clearly better for the students. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a serving of low-fat chocolate milk contains 53 more calories than a serving of low-fat white milk. These are mostly empty calories, which have no nutritional value whatsoever.\" A 2005 study by the New York City (NYC) Department of Education found that by removing whole milk and replacing it with low-fat to fat-free chocolate milk, students were served an estimated 5,960 fewer calories and 619 fewer grams of fat per year.(1) \"Chocolate contains oxalate, a naturally occurring compound in cocoa beans, which can inhibit the absorption of calcium. \" �It is present in small enough amounts that the effect on calcium absorption is negligible(2)(3). �As chocolate contains relatively small amounts of oxalate, it is unclear to what extent chocolate consumption affects healthy people who eat calcium-rich diets. \"Opponents of banning flavored milk also argue that some children simply will not drink plain milk. However, most students will select healthy foods if they are prompted to do so. Furthermore, evidence has shown that children who are continually exposed to healthy foods will learn to prefer these foods. These children will also develop a decreased preference for sweetened foods.\" Of course, not everyone likes plain milk(4), so by only offering plain milk you're depriving a certain amount of kids their calcium.�Flavoring milk �is the only way to get students to drink it. Milk provides a host of nutrients, including calcium, protein and vitamin D, which recent studies show is deficient in about three-quarters of teenagers and adults. To simply claim that, under verbal prompts, students will defy their taste buds is ridiculous. The experiment given here is invalid. \"It's better for them to have some milk with some flavoring and a little added sugar than to go without milk,\" said Ms. Pratt-Heavner, whose organization last month helped release a study that showed that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed. Conclusions: While chocolate milk isn't exactly on par with non-flavored milk in terms of calories, the benefits still outweigh the costs by drinking chocolate milk. There are some students who simply won't drink plain milk, and prefer flavored milk instead. What about those students? Won't someone think of the children? Sources: 1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2.�http://www.ivillage.com... 3.http://www.mayoclinic.com... 4.http://www.facebook.com...", "title": "The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk", "pid": "48ae4466-2019-04-18T18:45:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.47149658203125}, {"text": "\"What is wrong with veal?\". Animal Defenders International. Retrieved 4.07.08 - \"Milk-based diets are balanced rations that involve commercial milk replacers, which utilize surplus skim milk powder and whey – both byproducts of the dairy industry – in their production. These commercial milk replacers are of equal or greater nutritional value than milk straight from the dairy cow. A great deal of time and care are taken to train the young calves to drink their milk from pails, and during this training period their diet will be supplemented with water and electrolytes to ensure they receive adequate fluids and nutrition.\"", "title": "Milk-based diets are healthy and humane for veal", "pid": "c70591bd-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00053-000", "bm25_score": 212.44573974609375}, {"text": "Victory!", "title": "Purchasing milk from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty", "pid": "97845105-2019-04-18T14:12:09Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.44508361816406}, {"text": "I like chocolate milk because it tastes nice. mmmmm chocolate", "title": "Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff", "pid": "edc8122b-2019-04-18T15:03:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.3984832763672}, {"text": "Kids who drink plain milk will indeed absorb more calcium than those who drink chocolate milk:According to my opponent’s link, a child who consumes one carton of plain milk will absorb 6 more milligrams of calcium than a child who consumes a carton of chocolate milk. This difference may be insignificant in the short-term; however, it can make a big difference in the long run. If a student drinks a carton of plain milk every day, he or she will absorb an additional 2,190 milligrams of calcium every year. Banning flavored milk will not decrease overall milk consumption in the long-term: My opponent mentioned a study which found that elementary school children drank 35 percent less milk at school on average when flavored milk was removed. As it turns out, this study was funded by the Milk Processor Education Program (MPEP), the dairy industry’s national marketing group (1). The MPEP has spent over a million dollars to promote chocolate milk in schools. As extensive research has shown, the conclusions of a scientific study usually support the interests of the study's financial sponsor (2-3). Therefore, the results of this research article should not be weighted heavily. When we consider only objective research, we realize that banning flavored milk will not lead to decreased consumption in the long-term. For example, let’s examine the implications of limiting the availability of flavored milk in New York City schools. Beginning in 2006, flavored milk could be purchased only three days a week (4). In this year, most NYC schools also stopped serving whole milk. Initially, there was an 8% decline in milk purchases following the implementation of these new policies. Several students were probably not accustomed to drinking low-fat, plain milk. As a result, some kids may have initially avoided drinking milk altogether. However, by 2009, milk purchases had actually increased by 1.3% (4). This proves that children will eventually learn to accept unsweetened, low-fat foods. As Dr. Marlene Schwartz concluded, “It is probable that, immediately following removal of flavored milk from schools, children will drink less milk. Who really is surprised that, given the option, children prefer the taste of flavored milk to unflavored milk? Research with both animals and humans show that we all like the taste of sugar. However, examining what happens in the short-term is inadequate; the relevant question is what happens in the long-term when children are only served unflavored milk” (5). Conclusion: By serving our children flavored milk, we’re only training them to prefer, and eventually over-consume, sugar-sweetened beverages. Scientific studies show that banning flavored milk does not decrease overall milk consumption. Thus, all of our schools should stop serving flavored milk. I urge everyone to vote pro!References:(1) http://yaleruddcenter.org...(2) http://www.bmj.com...(3) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...(4) http://journals.lww.com...(5) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "title": "The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk", "pid": "48ae4466-2019-04-18T18:45:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.37411499023438}, {"text": "What does the research say about sugar and flavored milk? Sugar is a contributor to the health problems that are harming our kids. Sugary drinks are often called “liquid candy”, and are an easy way for kids to consume large amounts of added sugar. Several studies have shown that drinking sugar-sweetened beverages is linked to obesity and risk for chronic disease;8 it seems to be the one part of kids’ diets most linked to increased weight.9 Flavored milk is a sugary drink, along with soda, sports drinks and many juice drinks, but the majority of these studies did not include it, and there has been very little research to directly investigate the effects of flavored milk on children’s health. The few studies that have been conducted were sponsored by the dairy industry. How much sugar is too much? Recommendations for sugar consumption vary depending on age, gender, and level of physical activity. Health experts recommend that sugar should come from our daily “budget” of discretionary, or spare calories. For example, girls between 9 and 13 who get less than 30 minutes a day of moderate to vigorous physical activity, only have 130 calories to spare.10 The American Heart Association recommends that no more than half of your discretionary calories come from added sugar,11 so in this case, just 65 calories. One serving of flavored milk provides 64 calories of added sugar, which would equal a whole day’s allowance. What about using cane sugar or non-caloric natural or artificial sweeteners? Replacing high fructose corn syrup with another sugar, such as cane sugar, does not reduce the added sugar content. Cane sugar is similar in composition to high fructose corn syrup (it’s 50% fructose), and neither is beneficial for children’s health when consumed in high quantities. Some processors are considering adding non-caloric sweeteners to milk, but adding any kind of sweetener teaches kids that foods need to be sweeter or flavored in order to be enjoyable, rather than encouraging them to appreciate the taste of whole, natural foods, such as plain milk. Furthermore, not enough research has been conducted to assure the safety of giving children alternative sweeteners on a regular, prolonged basis. If we take away flavored milk, will kids get less calcium and other essential nutrients? Isn’t it worth giving them the extra sugar to make sure they get these? A Dairy Council sponsored study reported that children who drink flavored milk consume more servings of milk daily.12 However, in the majority of age groups, the flavored milk drinkers did not have a significantly higher intake of calcium, or other nutrients such as phosphorus, magnesium, or potassium than kids who just drank plain milk. Other dairy products are a good source of nutrition and kids can get calcium from leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans. Exercise also contributes to good bone health. MORE AND MORE SCHOOLS ARE MAKING THE MOVE TOWARDS PLAIN MILK Pioneering school districts – New Haven, CT; Boulder Valley, Colorado; Washington, DC; Ventura, California – have replaced flavored milk with white. They say that although selection drops initially, once the kids get used to it, the selection goes back up again. Many more districts are following suit – more than 50 in all, led by places like Los Angeles and Minneapolis this year. WILL SCHOOLS LOSE MONEY IF THEY SWITCH OUT FLAVORED FOR WHITE? Schools can still receive their full federal reimbursement for school lunch by offering just plain milk. Generally flavored milk costs more than white milk for the schools to purchase, though suppliers may vary. So school meal budgets should not be impacted by the switch. STILL HAVE QUESTIONS? HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL FAQS: Why is the Food Revolution focusing on flavored milk? Jamie’s position on flavored milk is that it has no place in schools, and right from the start of the Food Revolution, he has advocated going back to plain, white milk. Milk is a great source of nutrients for kids, but the flavored varieties have more calories, are highly processed and contain unnecessary sugars and additives which don’t add any nutritional value. How can we encourage kids to choose white milk? Chef Ann Cooper, better known as the “Renegade Lunch Lady”, serves only white milk in the Boulder, CO schools. She says that it is important to serve the milk cold, and preferably in a glass as opposed to a carton.7 Kate Adamick, who has led the same change in districts in central California, says that educating the cafeteria staff and teachers around the sugar math helps them to explain the reasons to the kids. In Washington, DC, Jeff Mills started fresh in the fall and got very little push back. Switching at the start of a new semester is always going to be less controversial than half way through. Flavored milk can still be served on special occasions only, so the kids come to view it as a treat. Milk is a great source of nutrients for kids, but the flavored varieties have more calories, are a processed food product, and contain unnecessary sugars and additives, which don’t add any nutritional value. The food industry has convinced many schools and parents that they need to serve flavored milk to ensure kids get essential vitamins and minerals, and is backing chocolate and flavored milk with a multi-million dollar marketing campaign, led by “Raise Your Hand for Chocolate Milk.”4 Science and common sense don’t back that position up. Other dairy products are a good source of nutrition and kids can get calcium from leafy greens, soy, nuts, and beans. All that’s needed is to invest those marketing dollars behind good old, white milk. We know that with the right backing from the school community to promote plain milk, kids are happy to drink it. An 8 oz carton of flavored milk typically has about 4 teaspoons (64 calories) of added sugar. 1 Industry claims that beginning this school year chocolate milk will average 2.5 teaspoons (40 calories) of added sugar.2 Milk always has 12 grams (about 3 tsp) of its natural sugar, lactose.* If a child drinks flavored milk at breakfast and lunch they are getting 5-8 teaspoons of added sugar, 80-128 extra calories, every day. An 8oz serving size of Coca-Cola has just under 7 teaspoons of sugar. Over a 180-day school year, that adds up to almost 8 pounds of unnecessary sugar (and at least 14,400 calories!). Imagine if they drank it all 365 days… *Calculate your added sugar at www.jamiesfoodrevolution.com/MilkAction *Formulations and sugar content varies by school district. Read your labels! KIDS ARE DRINKING A LOT OF FLAVORED MILK AT SCHOOL About 70% of the milk consumed in schools is flavored.4 Low-fat chocolate milk is the most popular choice.5 80% of flavored milk sold in America is to schools. It’s the place kids get flavored milk. “Flavored milk is not the nutritional equivalent of unflavored milk. It is significantly higher in calories, sugar, and sodium, and usually contains artificial colors and flavors.” – Marlene Schwartz, PhD, Deputy Director for the Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesityat Yale University", "title": "Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff", "pid": "edc8122b-2019-04-18T15:03:09Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.3527069091797}, {"text": "I accept :D", "title": "Dairy is Bad For Your Health", "pid": "a74d58bd-2019-04-18T15:50:40Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.35140991210938}, {"text": "You shouldn't be sorry, I'm thankful that you can take part in this debate. Since this means Pro FF this debate, I think the winner is clear.", "title": "Milk is good for your bones", "pid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.31007385253906}, {"text": "Okay, Chocolate may TASTE good to some people but the calcium cannot be absorbed! Meaning, you get NO calcium from it!", "title": "Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff", "pid": "edc8122b-2019-04-18T15:03:09Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.3009490966797}, {"text": "Since my opponent forfeited, I'll try to give two possible arguments for the health benefits of dairy and rebut them. Dairy is High in Calcium \". . .animal protein, including that from dairy products, may leach more calcium from the bones than is ingested, said Campbell, professor of nutritional biochemistry at Cornell and director of the Cornell-China-Oxford Project, the most comprehensive project on diet and disease ever conducted. 'This phenomenon could explain why Americans, who ingest much higher levels of calcium, have much higher rates of osteoporosis and hip fractures compared with many Chinese and other Asians who consume few dairy products and ingest low amounts of calcium,' Campbell said. Hip fractures in the United States, for example, are approximately five times more frequent than in China. . .increased levels of animal-based proteins, including protein from dairy products, 'almost certainly contribute to a significant loss of bone calcium while vegetable-based diets clearly protect against bone loss,' Campbell reported. This view is consistent with evidence comparing bone fracture rates among different countries, which shows that countries having the highest calcium intakes also have the highest fracture rates. It is also consistent with other studies on nutritionally rich 'Western' diets and 'Western' diseases showing that low-calcium, vegetarian diets are associated with increased bone density; that casein, milk's principal protein, is a well-established contributor to high blood cholesterol in the Western world; and that casein significantly enhances the development of tumor growth in experimental animals\" (http://www.news.cornell.edu...). Not only is the calcium component of dairy undermined by its casein component, which causes a loss of calcium from the bones, especially over long term consumption, but the risk factors associated with dairy, such as high blood cholesterol, far outweigh the benefits (https://www.drmcdougall.com...). There are plenty of safe, healthy sources of calcium in the plant kingdom: broccoli, kale, spinach, bok choy, soybeans, okra, watercress, and the list goes on. Dairy is High in Vitamin D Since I have already pointed out a few risk factors with dairy consumption, it should be obvious that one vitamin component does not outweigh the health risks associated with dairy. Almond and soy milk tend to be fortified with both calcium and vitamin D; they're a great alternative to dairy. Certain mushrooms such as portabella and maitake have more than five times as much vitamin D than a cup of cow's milk. Juices and cereals also tend to be fortified with vitamin D. It should be pointed out that vitamin D is produced naturally in the skin when exposed to sunlight and is a much more efficient source as 15-30 minutes of exposure to the arms and legs can give you more than six times as much vitamin D than an 8oz glass of milk (http://www.sunshinevitamin.org...). You would have to drink six glasses of milk, or 48 ounces, to get the daily recommended amount of vitamin D as proper sun exposure would give you (approx. 600IU)! And consider that 4,000IU is considered a safe upper-limit for adults (http://ods.od.nih.gov...). Milk is definitely not a healthy source of calcium and vitamin D. Here is a letter by Dr. Robert M. Kradjian warning people about the health risks associated with dairy that the prospective reader may be interested in (http://www.notmilk.com...).", "title": "Dairy is Bad For Your Health", "pid": "a74d58bd-2019-04-18T15:50:40Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.29393005371094}, {"text": "I will be arguing that consuming dairy products is bad for your health. Con will be arguing that either dairy is entirely good for your health or that its benefits outweigh its health risk.", "title": "Dairy is Bad For Your Health", "pid": "a74d58bd-2019-04-18T15:50:40Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.2888641357422}, {"text": "Is chocolate milk okay to drink? I strongly believe that schools should not allow chocolate milk because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk can have up to 20% more, a 8 ounce glass of chocolate milk can have from 15-31 grams of sugar, and yes, chocolate milk may have calcium but all the added sugar doesn\"t let your body absorb it. One reason that chocolate milk should not be allowed in schools is because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk has 20% more. For example if you take 25 and add 20%. You would have about 30 grams of sugar in one 7.5 ounce glass of chocolate milk. Also, when you drink chocolate milk all of the sugar that you get from it is really bad for your body. In addition, chocolate milk is drank a lot. So, if you drink a lot of chocolate milk then you are getting a lot of sugars, therefore wrecking your health. Another reason that chocolate milk should not be allowed at school is because most children don\"t get chocolate milk except in school. \"Many children only get to have chocolate milk at school\"but they get to drink a lot of it there. Some children consume as many as 10 or even 15 cartons of chocolate milk in a week at school.\" Says Jonathan Smith, writer of Chocolate Milk: More Harmful Than Healthful. This is not a good thing! Because of this, kids might get... FAT! The final reason that schools should not allow chocolate milk is because yes, chocolate milk has calcium and other nutrients but all of the added sugar doesn\"t let your organs absorb it. There is just so much sugar that all the good things in it will not be absorbed because of the sugar. Even if you drink fat free, you still get all the sugar and not enough nutrients. I strongly believe that schools should not allow chocolate milk because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk can have up to 20% more, a 8 ounce glass of chocolate milk can have from 15-31 grams of sugar, and yes, chocolate milk may have calcium but all the added sugar doesn\"t let your body absorb it. So please don\"t let kids have chocolate milk at Mapleview.", "title": "Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff", "pid": "edc8122b-2019-04-18T15:03:09Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.24612426757812}, {"text": "I believe that water is always be the best choice as a healthy drink. Although there are many healthy drinks such as herbal tea,goat milk,and even coffee. But, water still be the best choice because it is calorie-free and no additional sweetener. Besides,we cannot avoid the fact that H2O is one of the major element in human body. It is about 50-65 % in adult, and in infants is about 75-78%. So,we need more water in our daily life. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://chemistry.about.com...", "title": "Water is The Best Choice For Our Daily Life", "pid": "e2d731b-2019-04-18T14:43:52Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.24073791503906}, {"text": "//Having a baby is a beautifull,and bonding with your infant directly after it's birth is crucial. // Not arguing , it is beautiful and amazing. However there are other ways to bond with your child. Skin to skin bonding , singing to your child, talking to you child, holding you child, looking at your child. My daughter and I are very bonded and she was not breast fed. Breastfeeding is good , but not for everyone. //Breast feeding inables you to be very close to your new child and give him or her affection every time they eat. A new borns eye's allow them to see only to the mothers face while breast feeding!// A mother can bond while feeding a child with a bottle as well ... Also when breast feeding the baby often doesn't bond with the father as quickly . A father then doesn't get to hold his newborn as much and often feels inadequate and left out. My aunt just brestfed her 7th child after bottlefeeding the rest and her husband felt he didnt get to be as close when she was a newborn and often felt leftout. //It takes patience, and a little bit of pain sometimes, but being a mother your job doesn't stop when tht baby is born, it just begins! Parenthood means sacrifice and your body is not yours any more. Sacrificing things you would like to do, such as drink alcohol, smoke, or drugs aren't healthy for you anyway. It would be selfish to decide to bottle feed just based upon the mothers wish to break free from her new little \"bondage\". // Just because a mother chooses not to breastfeed her baby , does not make her selfish. There are other reasons mothers choose not to breastfeed their child besides they want to drink or smoke! Some women can't , some develop thrush which is beyond painful and often times makes it impossible to breastfeed, some mother need help from other family members as they have other young children. If you have 3 or 4 children under 5 , maybe breastfeeding isn't possible. Some mothers have no choice but to go back to work and just can't continue to pump. The list goes on and on. Some babies don't gain enough weight and have to be put on formula. //Breast milk (starting off as colostrum) has antibodies,fat,vitamins,and minerals that your baby needs. Unlike formula there's no air (which cuts down on gas), and your body actually formulates and changes the milk as the baby grows to give them everything there body needs. Formula does NOT do that. Formula can also lead to constipation, stomache aches, makes poop smell bad (YES, breast fed babies do not have smelly poop) it's expensive, and if not used properly unsanitary.// Maternity nurses often advocate breast feeding , however most pediatricians don't. They say its best to do what is right for you and your child.My daughter was fed by formula and had no problems with gas and no problems with stomach aches. My cousin is breastfed and is often constipated and if you believe a baby that breastfed has poop that doesnt smell , you are mistaken. The diaper I changed the other day smelt horrible ... so unfortunately I think you are always at risk for smelly diapers regardless as to what your baby drinks. Formula can be expensive , but some women can afford it and don't mind paying for it. That is their choice and their money. There also is WIC , a program that helps mother and infants from low to middle incomes . You do not need to be LOw income to recieve help from them. They give mothers checks good for formula at any local grocery store , or if you are breastfeeding they will give these checks/vouchers for whole milk, Peanut butter etc. Also its is a mothers responsibility to make sure the formula is sanitary, just as it is a mothers responsibility to make sure her breast milk is sanitary (ie from smoking , alcohol etc.) Also my daughter was formula fed and she was hardly ever sick when she was a baby. I know breastfed kids that have been sick ... Some kids are healthier as babies , some aren't. It always depends. //Babies need nurturing, eye contact, fondling and to be held and suction (breast feeding takes longer than bottle feeding, and this could eliminate pacifiers). Breastfeeding insures that a baby gets all of these things. Forget about geting together bottles every time you go out. Just take a blanket and you can feed so descretly sometimes my own husband doesn't know I'm doing it. Breast feeding is good for a mother and a babies developments, and should be tried and embraced.// Some Babies that are breastfed take pacifiers , just as some some babies that are formula fed take pacifiers. Thats just because certain babies are different. Some women do not feel comfortable breastfeeding in public. That should be their choice. Maybe you find it can be discreet , but not everyone feels that way. As much as it should be breastfeeding in public places is not always accepted and that puts some women off and thats their choice. You can not say that babies that are not breastfed don't receive nurturing. My daughter and I have been bonded since the day she was born. We also have always made eye contact ..whether she was drinking her bottle , Some women do not mind getting bottles together to go out. It shouls be a personal decision based on whats best for each mother and child.", "title": "Breast feeding is healthy for your baby, and able mothers should at least try it.", "pid": "38a4d680-2019-04-18T20:01:06Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.16607666015625}, {"text": "Again , I don't believe that any mother should be obligated to try breastfeeding if she doesn't want to and I don't think not trying it makes her selfish in any way. I dont think someone should push their views on another. What is right for you may not be right for someone else. Some women would just rather bottlefeed their baby. Its a personal decision. MY daughter is 4 and is doing just fine and she was bottlefed. We are very close , bonded and she is a healthy little girl. I don't think a women who doesn't breastfeed because she wants to continue smoking is a selfish women. I think she knows she will not be able to succeed and for her and baby it is a better choice if she bottle feeds her baby. I don't think that is selfish. What is right for one woman is not right for all women. I am not saying breastfeeding is bad, just not for everyone. I do not think any woman should have to try breastfeeding , some people just aren't comfortable with it ...that should be their choice. It's their body , their child. Children that drink bottles are not in any harm , so why should it matter if someone doesn't want to do it. I am not saying it is bad to breastfeed , I am saying it is NOT bad if you don't want to do it. I do not think it is right to think my way is right over anothers. AS long as the child is not being harmed in anyway , then why does it matter how a mother chooses to feed her baby. MY grandmother bottle fed her 7 kids , my mom bottle fed her 5 kids , my husband's grandmother and mother did the same. I bottle fed my daughter so that my husband and her could bond as well and it was the right thing for us. I didn't have to try breastfeeding , because my decision wasn't based on whether I would like it or not , it was based on what was best for us and our family.", "title": "Breast feeding is healthy for your baby, and able mothers should at least try it.", "pid": "38a4d680-2019-04-18T20:01:06Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.1420135498047}, {"text": "Thank you for posting an informative response, now here's my argument: Firstly, Yes Humans can only be tested on if they give their consent and yes animals do not have that choice. But surely that would support the against side? If an animal clearly does not have the logic to make it's own decisions, speak, work out mathematical problems etc. So humans are rightfully, more powerful than animals, meaning we should be entitled to do what we wish. If you completely disagree with this, then you must disagree with society? In the current UK government - cuts are made left right and centre, no-one gets a say in this because the government are more powerful than the middle and lower class and as we can see the government have Control over us. Just like we have control over animals. Basically, there's a hierarchy in this world > world leaders at the top > government workers > councillors > upper class > middle class > lower class > animals > plants. (Plants wouldn't technically count) and the item that is to the left of the item on the right, has more power / dominion e.g. the councillors are more powerful than the upper class and everything (but plants) has more power over animals. It's the basic hierarchy in life which we all follow and are accustomed to in society, obviously something which has little or 0 intelligence, remains at the bottom = animals. Secondly, Cloning can actually benefit people quite a lot. Let's take a cow for an example. We all know cows produce milk which makes cheese, yogurt, butter, ice cream etc. and each cow has something slightly different about them e.g. 1 may produce 2 litres more milk per month, 1 may run away when getting ready to be 'milked'. However if a farmer identifies a cow which always has a higher concentration of milk in it's udders , such as 5 litres more every week than the average cow, then to try and get a 'herd' which produces more milk - cloning would easily come in handy here. It benefits the farmer, who faces less chance of losing money. It benefits the cow because..it has more milk? But it benefits the people and the economy - by providing more food and helping to pour cash flow into the economy. So you can see that cloning isn't always a negative thing. Thirdly, Many breakthroughs in medicine have occurred from animal testing. To name a few; Paracetamol, Allergy tablets, Ibuprofen, 'stem cell research' + many vaccines such as MMR (measles, mumps and rubella). Also, I remember in 1 incident in .. 1960's? Of a drug called thalidomide (I think) - which was given to pregnant women to stop morning sickness, but a huge error had occurred - the drug was never tested on any female / pregnant animals. So when the babies were born they were deformed e.g. having 3 arms or 2 foreheads. Now stop and look at this situation, 10,000 - 20,000 victims from this drug..simply because it wasn't tested on a pregnant ANIMAL. What would you rather have? 20,000 babies with defects or 10 animals who will end up with 'problems' and possibly being killed but who will stop 20,000 lives from being ruined. Finally, I'm pretty sure you don't place laundry detergent in your eyes, and if you did it would probably hurt a lot, so I'm fairly sure that was a bad example to use. You simply don't realise, I guarantee you, that you are wearing a piece of make up now or have before...did it ever hurt you (if you're not allergic), did your eyes start burning, did your teeth start dissolving? No. All because animals were there to protect you from being hurt - I'm pretty sure an animal (if it had a brain as complex as a humans) would feel proud that they're dying to protect another species from pain. I look forward to your next argument (I may not answer until the next day though - Incredibly tired).", "title": "animal testing", "pid": "908f4e4f-2019-04-18T18:40:43Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.10812377929688}, {"text": "The instigator has failed to prove his/her statements as well as failed in observing the facts that have been copy and pasted into this debate showing the benefits of Milk Chococlate. VOTE CON!!! :)", "title": "Chocolate milk is bad for your health", "pid": "7c2a3a74-2019-04-18T14:50:45Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.0897979736328}, {"text": "Hello - I have accepted this debate, topiced \"Is milk Chocolate good for you\". My opponent has begun by saying that chocolate milk is good for me. My position is that Chocolate milk is not good for me at all, and I look forward to seeing why my opponent thinks I am wrong about myself.", "title": "is chocolate milk good for you", "pid": "8ab0c1d5-2019-04-18T11:47:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.0741424560547}, {"text": "You say something along the lines that cows only exist so humans can eat them... that is their life's purpose. Do you mean to say that if humans never evolved, then cows would not exist? This seems ridiculous to me... can you provide me with evidence please ?", "title": "we should eat cows without feeling the guilt and sympathy", "pid": "96583248-2019-04-18T18:18:54Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.0515594482422}, {"text": "However most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians. First, I want to say that people, who don't eat meat, but eat eggs, drink milk (it's also production of animals), are healthier. According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - \"All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy.\" I think our health is a important reason why we should be vegetarians.", "title": "Vegetarianism is a good idea.", "pid": "eb7cbdce-2019-04-18T17:08:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.04684448242188}, {"text": "(First debate on this website ayuda me por favor) Eating animals may seem like a morbid activity from a vegetarian's point of view, But it is natural in human nature. To begin with, Meat contains a large amount of raw protein and nutrients that is beneficial to human health. Vitamins A, B and D are commonly found in meats, Which promotes eye vision, Bones, Teeth and helps the nervous system. Other advantages of this food source include healthier blood cells, Nerves, Lean muscle mass and sustaining levels of iron. What is so bad about improving one's well-being? They call it slaughter, Cruelty and savagery towards living creatures; it is actually called normal, Natural, Delicious and perfectly healthy.", "title": "Animals Can be Consumed by Humans", "pid": "36f32e8e-2019-04-18T11:15:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.03619384765625}, {"text": "(First debate on this website ayuda me por favor) Eating animals may seem like a morbid activity from a vegetarian's point of view, But it is natural in human nature. To begin with, Meat contains a large amount of raw protein and nutrients that is beneficial to human health. Vitamins A, B and D are commonly found in meats, Which promotes eye vision, Bones, Teeth and helps the nervous system. Other advantages of this food source include healthier blood cells, Nerves, Lean muscle mass and sustaining levels of iron. What is so bad about improving one's well-being? They call it slaughter, Cruelty and savagery towards living creatures; it is actually called normal, Natural, Delicious and perfectly healthy.", "title": "Animals Can be Consumed by Humans", "pid": "36f32e8e-2019-04-18T11:15:38Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.03619384765625}, {"text": "Hello, there!!! Today, I will be debating on the motion that purchasing milk from super markets doesn't endorse animal cruelty, instead it dissuades us from doing so. Now, if you go deeper, you will understand that purchasing meat from markets endorses this cruelty, not purchasing milk. Because, for exracting milk, you need not do anything which imposes serious kinds of threat to those domestic animals. And if somebody like you or I do that, the feeling will grow among you that we should be sympathetic to animals. If milk is not bought from the markets, neither this opportunity nor some other benefits are available. Last of all, if you are benefitted enough from this business, then and only then you will be able to provide it with its necessities, otherwise not possible at all. Now if you cannot provide it with what it wants, it cannot be called mercy/humanity, can it? So come on and understand the fact well. Coming on in the next round.......", "title": "Purchasing milk from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty", "pid": "97845105-2019-04-18T14:12:09Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.0360107421875}, {"text": "Mathnerd: Of your three reasons to be a vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is beneficial to both the vegetarian and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is more healthful. All 13 amino acids and other required nutrients may be obtained easily with very much attention. A vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholesterol and very little saturated fat). Actually, some veggies contain huge amounts of saturated fats - coconuts for example. So we are in close agreement on point one. 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contributes to the extinction of many species from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. To say nothing about the higher costs of vegetables because of the reduction of quality arable land. I'm not terribly concerned about green house gases, as I am not a subscriber of human caused Global Warming Theory, but I generally agree with point two. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. My divergence from you position is in the inconsistencies of accepting the consumption of milk and eggs and the fact that your profile shows that you are pro-abortion. Chickens that are used for egg production are kept in tight environments, Additionally their beaks are cut back to prevent damage to their crowded-in neighbors. After a very miserable life they are slaughtered for soup, when they are no longer productive. Presumably, they would still be slaughtered for pet food, even if all persons became vegetarians of the egg and milk variety. In the case of milk cows, heifers are welcomed but (male) calves are eschewed as a liability. Right now they are immediately slaughtered for (monkey) veal. Their venerated sisters will calve and produce milk and calve, again until they no longer produce. They then become food for pets. Not a great life either. Lastly, you favor abortion. Forgive me if I presume that your sympathies are reserved for animals. Even though I am not a vegetarian, I try to limit my intake of animal flesh. I disagree with PETA in their ‘Animal Rights' position. There is certainly, an ethical requirement that we the limit pain and discomfort that farm animals must endure, but animals have no rights. In the other hand . I admire your compassion for animals. Your arguments are well reasoned and strongly stated.", "title": "People should not eat animals.", "pid": "7b65bdc-2019-04-18T19:55:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.03488159179688}, {"text": "Chocolate milk contains more sugar and calories than regular milk, and in today's day and age there is an overwhelming percentage of kids struggling with obesity. A lot of people prefer the taste of white milk to chocolate milk, so any argument about flavor can be left out of it. If a kid won't drink milk otherwise and a parent is concerned about a calcium deficit, they can easily supplement with vitamins. My opponent has not shown that kids who drink chocolate milk are better at pull ups. It seems absurd to say a kid drinking chocolate milk can do more pull-ups than one drinking white milk. There are also a lot of vegans who are great athletes, so milk seems to not have any effect on athletic ability or energy.", "title": "choc. milk in schools", "pid": "7c7b248b-2019-04-18T15:09:21Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.99697875976562}, {"text": "Having a baby is a beautifull,and bonding with your infant directly after it's birth is crucial. Breast feeding inables you to be very close to your new child and give him or her affection every time they eat. A new borns eye's allow them to see only to the mothers face while breast feeding! It takes patience, and a little bit of pain sometimes, but being a mother your job doesn't stop when tht baby is born, it just begins! Parenthood means sacrifice and your body is not yours any more. Sacrificing things you would like to do, such as drink alcohol, smoke, or drugs aren't healthy for you anyway. It would be selfish to decide to bottle feed just based upon the mothers wish to break free from her new little \"bondage\". Breast milk (starting off as colostrum) has antibodies,fat,vitamins,and minerals that your baby needs. Unlike formula there's no air (which cuts down on gas), and your body actually formulates and changes the milk as the baby grows to give them everything there body needs. Formula does NOT do that. Formula can also lead to constipation, stomache aches, makes poop smell bad (YES, breast fed babies do not have smelly poop) it's expensive, and if not used properly unsanitary. Babies need nurturing, eye contact, fondling and to be held and suction (breast feeding takes longer than bottle feeding, and this could eliminate pacifiers). Breastfeeding insures that a baby gets all of these things. Forget about geting together bottles every time you go out. Just take a blanket and you can feed so descretly sometimes my own husband doesn't know I'm doing it. Breast feeding is good for a mother and a babies developments, and should be tried and embraced.", "title": "Breast feeding is healthy for your baby, and able mothers should at least try it.", "pid": "38a4d680-2019-04-18T20:01:06Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.98495483398438}, {"text": "We have all been raised in a society that has convinced us that wrong is right. From childhood, we have actually been taught that animals are something to use, to be made into a sandwich, or a bag or a jacket. That society also once said slavery is okay. All good people follow the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Animals qualify as others. They feel fear, pain and grief, just like people. In terms of suffering there is no difference between killing a cow and killing a person. They both feel the same degree of pain, they are both innocent therefore both cases are wrong. Quite frankly, eating meat is a very selfish thing to do. Meat eaters believe that as long as they get their bacon, animal abuse is okay. They believe that the taste of chicken or beef is more important than the lives of innocent and terrified beings. That mentality is pure evil. Meat is pleasurable to eat,but you can also eat a totally healthy vegan diet. Therefore meat is killing for fun. Meat eaters make the same excuses Nazis made, and slave owners. They decide that because someone is different, they are inferior. If humans were really superior to animals, we would know better than to slaughter 150 billion of them per year. Yeah, you read that right. This is the worst holocaust that has ever taken place, and yet it's happening right this second. The only time it is okay to eat meat is to save your own life. Not because it tastes good. You also don't need to eat meat or animal products like dairy and honey to be healthy. Humans are biologically herbivores. Our teeth are designed to chew plants. Our jaws can move side to side, like a cow. Dogs and other meat eaters can't do that. We also have the correct intestine length in relation to our torso to be herbivores, and we have no carnivorous instincts. People see slaughterhouse footage and it makes them upset. If a bear saw a slaughterhouse he would think it's a buffet. Slaughterhouse workers have been known to get PTSD. Think about that for a second. Meat, in my opinion is disgusting. When you eat meat you are literally eating a dead body. A corpse. Gross. You don't need cows milk to be healthy anymore than you need dog milk to be healthy. You can get plenty of calcium from fruit. Besides torturing and slaughtering billions of innocent animal per year, the meat industry cause 51% of the carbon emissions on this planet and destroy more forest than any other industry in order to raise cattle that will be murdered one day. In short, we've all been duped. Bad health, a shitty planet and torture are not, and never will be worth the taste of bacon.", "title": "Veganism", "pid": "69711db8-2019-04-18T12:50:51Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.97445678710938}, {"text": "I have some actually have some FACTUAL... REAL WORLD... EVIDENCE! A study in Ethiopia was conducted in 2017 to see the effects on people who poured their milk in before their cereal, as oppose to their cereal before their millk. The Results were... Inconclusive...?! Oh wait the study cite's a quote on quote \"lack of food\" in Ethiopia for the reason they were unable to complete the study. Huh. But the math behind the argument still cheks out, as Jesus prophesised in Al Quran 21:33 \"He who shaltif pour thy milk of thy ox before thy wheat thou shalt of sowed, SHALL BE STONED!!!", "title": "Milk should be poured before cereal.", "pid": "e7f110e-2019-04-18T11:23:13Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.91868591308594}, {"text": "So, lets take a look at the topic of this debate: Breat feeding is healthy for your baby, and ABLE mothers should at least TRY it. Never in my opening statement or topic, did I state that bottle feeding mothers were bad. Nor, did I say that everyone should (for one year) breast feed their babies. My debate is about TRYING to breast feed. In the begining colostrum is very important. The arguments I gave were incintives to why you should at least TRY to breast feed. Some mothers don't even see if they could or like to breast feed. Of course not everyone feels that breast feeding is exceptable because of societies biased it is not gross or perverted to breast feed. Our culture should make natural feeding mothers feel more comfortable. As you say there are other ways you can bond with your child. Personally, I think there all good interactions... but don't discredit the fact that breastfeeding is a good way to bond. Personally, I believe you should do more than one thing to bond with your offspring. Just as you say there's more than one way to bond with babies other than breastfeeding, aren't all the wonderfull examples you gave ways for a Father to bond with the baby as well? It takes patience, and a little bit of pain sometimes, but being a mother your job doesn't stop when tht baby is born, it just begins! Parenthood means sacrifice and your body is not yours any more. Sacrificing things you would like to do, such as drink alcohol, smoke, or drugs aren't healthy for you anyway. It would be selfish to decide to bottle feed just based upon the mothers wish to break free from her new little \"bondage\". // In the excerpt, I never said a mother was selfish for having to go back to work, or having something physical happen to deter breast feeding. Not sacrificing uneeded things is what I suggested was selfish. Was the smelly poop baby eating baby food? Some familes are not in the proper financial bracket to receive WIC, and you can only get certain types of formula with it. Please realize this is not an attack on bottle feeding familes... and if there's any more confusion please report back to the topic of the debate. So, do you belive women SHOULDN'T TRY to breast feed?", "title": "Breast feeding is healthy for your baby, and able mothers should at least try it.", "pid": "38a4d680-2019-04-18T20:01:06Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.899658203125}, {"text": "Definitions : Milk : The milk of cows, goats, or other animals, used as food by humans.[1] Bones : The dense, semirigid, porous, calcified connective tissue forming the major portion of the skeleton of most vertebrates.[2] Rules : 1. No semantics 2. No trolling 3. No spamming 4. No profanities The first round is for acceptance only. The debate will start in the second round. If you think that milk is actually good for your bones, feel free to join. 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "title": "Milk is good for your bones", "pid": "ece5e0e4-2019-04-18T18:03:47Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 211.89364624023438}, {"text": "Eggs have many health benefits. Eggs are a very good source of inexpensive, high quality protein. More than half the protein of an egg is found in the egg white along with vitamin B2 and lower amounts of fat and cholesterol than the yolk. The whites are rich sources of selenium, vitamin D, B6, B12 and minerals such as zinc, iron and copper.(www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/ingredient-focus-eggs) And while boosting your health, the eggs may also taste pleasant, given that you can fix them any way you like.", "title": "Humans should eat eggs.", "pid": "ce6ccf44-2019-04-18T14:20:35Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.86642456054688}, {"text": "Eggs have many health benefits. Eggs are a very good source of inexpensive, high quality protein. More than half the protein of an egg is found in the egg white along with vitamin B2 and lower amounts of fat and cholesterol than the yolk. The whites are rich sources of selenium, vitamin D, B6, B12 and minerals such as zinc, iron and copper.(www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/guide/ingredient-focus-eggs) And while boosting your health, the eggs may also taste pleasant, given that you can fix them any way you like.", "title": "Humans should eat eggs.", "pid": "ce6ccf63-2019-04-18T14:20:16Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.86642456054688}, {"text": "We cannot say that we are creating fairness among young babies by making breast feeding compulsory. The quality of each mother’s milk will differ. Some mothers may have dietary concerns themselves and therefore their breast milk will not contain all the nutrients their child would need. Therefore children would still be disadvantaged in comparison to those who had healthy mother milk, even if breast feeding were compulsory.", "title": "All children are entitled to a healthy start in life", "pid": "c7f58e-2019-04-19T12:48:05Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 211.86215209960938}, {"text": "Hello, thank you for taking the time to read my position on veganism. Living a vegan lifestyle is the best way to ensure your own personal health, as well as the stability of the environment, and the health and happiness of sentient beings. ENVIRONMENT: Animal agriculture is an absolute disaster for our planet for many reasons. It is a major cause of deforestation and ocean dead zones. There is a constant demand for more land to keep livestock and grow crops to feed said livestock and most of the time, the only available land is covered by forest. Forests are an extremely important part of keeping the planet's climate in check and provide habitats for wildlife. The waste from the animals ends up in our fresh water and in the oceans, which creates incredible amounts of pollution, which create dead zones in the oceans. Factory farms majorly contribute to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In fact, animal agriculture adds at least 32 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere EVERY YEAR. There is also the ridiculous amount of methane produced by cattle. In addition to all of this, animal agriculture is a massive waste of water. Think about it, there are millions of animals that drink many, many gallons of water every day. Agriculture uses around 70% of the world's fresh water. That water could be going towards humans who need it and towards sustainable crops to feed humans. The land used by animal agriculture could also go towards growing sustainable crops for human consumption, which would result in diminishing world hunger. HEALTH: Consuming animal products increases our chances of serious diseases and shortens our lifespans. Proteins in animal products can not be properly and fully digested in our systems. Consumption of animal products contributes to cancer, heart diseases, and strokes, among other issues. Animal products also change the pH in our bodies, creating a great environment for bacteria and cancer cells to thrive. This pH change in combination with the proteins and hormones (particularly from dairy) also decreases our bone density, which ultimately results in osteoporosis. Animal products are also dangerously high in saturated fats and cholesterol, which are common knowledge awful for our health, and are the main causes of the health issues from animal products. ETHICAL Humans exploit and enslave animals in a multitude of ways, but here, I will focus on the food aspect. I will start this with dairy. Humans are the only animals on the planet that not only continue to consume milk after they are weaned from their mothers, but we are also the only ones to take the milk from mothers of different species. Dairy cattle are forcefully bred each year, and within a couple days of a cow's calf being born, her calf is ripped away from her and forced into a veal crate. If you are against veal, you are also against dairy, because without dairy, there is no veal. These cows live in unforgivable conditions. More often than not, they don't even have room to even turn around and they spend their days up to their ankles in their own waste. They are hooked up to milking machines which hurt the cattle and create open sores on their udders. Keep in mind that the blood and pus from these open sores ends up in your milk, along with traces of feces and urine. Beef cattle are packed like sardines into holding pens and live (and die) in extremely stressful, traumatizing conditions. Killers attempt to knock the cattle unconscious before hanging them upside down and slitting their throats, but more often than not, the cattle are still alive throughout the entire process until they eventually bleed to death or choke to death on their own blood. Both egg and meat chickens live either in tiny cages or packed warehouses. These chickens are packed with hormones to grow faster and to produce more eggs. The chickens endure debeaking (having the tips of their beaks burned off) while fully conscious with no painkillers or aftercare. Once chicks hatch from eggs, if they are male, they are typically ground up alive, and if they are female, they are forced to live the miserable life of an egg laying hen. Pigs also live in very confined spaces and up to their bellies in their own waste. There are so many atrocities, I can not list them here. If you take the time to watch Earthlings (link is in my sources) you will see just how cruel humans are to animals. Animals are sentient, self-aware creatures who want to live and be healthy just like the rest of us. They feel fear and pain their entire lives up until the very moment they are brutally murdered. FINAL THOUGHTS Human beings were never supposed to consume animal products on the scale we do today. It is unsustainable for our planet and our own well being. If we were meant to eat it, we would be able to eat it raw without worries and we wouldn't have to season and marinate it in order for it to taste good to us. Animal agriculture is unnecessary and detrimental. You can get the same exact flavors from plant based items and far more health benefits. VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLAR AND YOUR LIFESTYLE. SOURCES Environment https://news.mongabay.com... https://www.mission-blue.org... http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.ibtimes.com... https://academic.oup.com... http://www.cowspiracy.com... Health https://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://www.pcrm.org... Ethical", "title": "Veganism is the Best Lifestyle for the Planet, Animals, and Human Health", "pid": "c7ac82f2-2019-04-18T12:32:29Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.8561553955078}, {"text": "Nancy Solomon. \"Breastfeeding in Public Is a Basic Civil Right.\" WEnews. August 7, 2002: \"breastfeeding offers significant health benefits to nursing mothers, including reduced risks of breast and other types of cancers, as well as osteoporosis.\"", "title": "Breastfeeding improves health of mothers", "pid": "ce875d98-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00024-000", "bm25_score": 211.85491943359375}, {"text": "According to the World Health Organization, “Infants should be exclusively breastfed – i.e. receive only breast milk – for the first six months of life to achieve optimal growth, development and health. 'Exclusive breastfeeding' is defined as giving no other food or drink – not even water – except breast milk.”[1]", "title": "Breastfeeding is best for the health and development of babies", "pid": "ce875d98-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00021-000", "bm25_score": 211.85157775878906}, {"text": "Okay.....ummmmm......milk is nasty and wrong!!!!! There's more than just milk in that milk mustache of yours!!!!!!! But hey!?!?!?!?!?! who doesn't want puss in their milk in the mornin'!?!?!?!?!", "title": "MILK IS NASTY!!!!!!", "pid": "ca9fde68-2019-04-18T19:48:18Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.84048461914062}, {"text": "Okay we're only on round two, so before I begin decimating your faulty logic I want to ensure you are familiar with how evolution works. Let's agree on the following fact before continuing:Fact: Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption. The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock. It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection. Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist, and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not.Agreed?", "title": "Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide.", "pid": "47d8ce9-2019-04-18T14:11:34Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 211.82229614257812}, {"text": "Before I begin I didn't define milk. By milk I meant cow's milk. Milk \" a white liquid produced by a woman to feed her baby or by female animals to feed their young; especially : milk from cows or goats that is used as food by people : a white liquid produced by a plant\" [1] Merriam-webster Outline I. Prove animal sentience and ability to suffer. II. Prove suffering from milk production. III. Establish purchasing of milk causes suffering. IV. Milk in not needed for human survival. V. Prove animal cruelty VI. Prove endorsement VII. Rebuttal of Con's argument VIII. Links I. Prove animal sentience and ability to suffer. Suffer \" : to experience pain, illness, or injury : to experience something unpleasant (such as defeat, loss, or damage) : to become worse because of being badly affected by something \" merriam-webster.com [2] \"After 2,500 Studies, It's Time to Declare Animal Sentience Proven (Op-Ed)\" Marc Bekoff livescience.com [3] \"With a focus on vertebrates, this section presents a brief discussion of what constitutes good evidence of the capacity to experience pain. The discussion emphasizes the strength of the evidence that all mammals (including rodents) are able to experience pain; raises the possibility that fish may feel pain\" National Research Council (US) Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009. [4] As a cow is a mammal, mammals can feel pain, therefore cow can feel pain and thus the ability to suffer. II. Prove suffering from milk production. \"All forms of dairy farming involve forcibly impregnating cows. This involves a person inserting his arm far into the cow\"s rectum in order to position the uterus, and then forcing an instrument into her vagina. The restraining apparatus used is commonly called a \"rape rack.\"\" Humanemyth.org [5] \"Most cows used for dairy production are kept indoors, with some having access to outdoor concrete or dirt paddocks. They are often forced to stand on hard surfaces\"something their hooves are not designed for. This contributes to lameness, a condition where cows\" feet become inflamed, making it painful to walk. Additionally, cows in the dairy industry are forced to suffer through: Widespread Infections: Unnaturally high milk production leads to mastitis, a painful bacterial infection causing a cow\"s udder to swell. In 2007, 79% of farms that reported permanently removing cows from their herds did so because of mastitis.\" ASPCA.org [6] III. Establish purchasing of milk causes suffering. Some are of the train of thought \"the milk is already produced, so no harm is being done by purchasing the milk.\" Yet, purchasing the milk at the supermarket will eventually lead to suffering. The simplest explanation is if nobody bought any milk, demand would rapidly fall. Supply would follow suit. Less cows would be needed to met the supply, therefore less cows being bred into existence and finally less cruelty. The opposite is also true. If more people bought milk more demand would be created, more supply, more cows, and more cruelty. IV. Milk in not needed for human survival. A.Vitamin D \"People who live in areas receiving plenty of sunlight develop darker skin from excess melanin and need more sun exposure such as two hours or more to get their vitamin D. Those with lighter colored skin require less exposure, anywhere from 15 to 30 minutes.\" examiner.com/ [7] \"Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that is naturally present in very few foods, added to others, and available as a dietary supplement. It is also produced endogenously when ultraviolet rays from sunlight strike the skin and trigger vitamin D synthesis.\" ods.od.nih.gov [8] B. Calcium \"Collard greens, cooked1 cup357\" Reed Mangels, PhD, RD [9] That's 357mg of calcium in a cup of collards. \"Dairy milk has long established itself as a rich source of calcium, containing about 300 milligrams of calcium per 8-ounce serving. \" fitday.com [10] From above one can see that a vegan can meet his/her nutritional needs. Besides they are plenty of health vegans. Including Al Gore and Bill Clinton. huffingtonpost [11] V. Prove animal cruelty Animal cruelty which is distinct from suffering is now established since one does not need to drink milk to survive. \"Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival.\" wikipedia [12] VI. Prove endorsement At the supermarket you are in public. People can see you. If you pay by check or credit card you must sign. You are publicly signing for the purchase of the good. Since your purchase of milk will cause animal cruelty, when you sign for your purchase you are literally endorsing animal cruelty. Even if you pay cash you are still giving your approval and support publicly through non-verbal communication. VII. Rebuttal of Con's argument \"Hello, there!!! Today, I will be debating on the motion that purchasing milk from super markets doesn't endorse animal cruelty, instead it dissuades us from doing so. Now, if you go deeper, you will understand that purchasing meat from markets endorses this cruelty, not purchasing milk. \" Con Buying both milk and meat from the supermarket endorse animal cruelty. There is no way to know what product people would buy in lieu of milk. They could buy meat, but fruit is just as likely. Since meat production is very similar, its safe to say if purchasing milk endorses animal cruelty so does purchasing meat. Thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to your argument. VIII. Links http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.humanemyth.org... http://www.aspca.org... http://www.examiner.com... https://ods.od.nih.gov... http://www.vrg.org... http://www.fitday.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Purchasing milk from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty", "pid": "97845105-2019-04-18T14:12:09Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.8180694580078}]}
{"idx": 20, "qid": "21", "q_text": "Is human activity primarily responsible for global climate change?", "qrels": {"d147246-2019-04-18T19:23:57Z-00002-000": 0, "fc0a3aff-2019-04-18T17:17:59Z-00003-000": 2, "f7800a2b-2019-04-18T20:02:41Z-00002-000": 1, "f2c6760a-2019-04-19T12:44:58Z-00047-000": 0, "ea4db6b4-2019-04-18T19:24:51Z-00003-000": 0, "d24f411a-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00022-000": 1, "c8d31d0c-2019-04-18T12:54:10Z-00005-000": 0, "b567d7db-2019-04-18T12:55:48Z-00004-000": 0, "b567d819-2019-04-18T12:55:25Z-00001-000": 0, "b567d7fa-2019-04-18T12:55:36Z-00004-000": 0, "b567d7db-2019-04-18T12:55:48Z-00000-000": 0, "b567d7bc-2019-04-18T12:55:55Z-00003-000": 2, "b567d77e-2019-04-18T12:56:04Z-00001-000": 1, "b4646bd5-2019-04-18T13:45:25Z-00002-000": 0, "abd6ace-2019-04-18T19:16:43Z-00003-000": 2, "a05d84f6-2019-04-15T20:24:47Z-00007-000": 0, "b567d838-2019-04-18T12:55:37Z-00001-000": 0, "a5cb0429-2019-04-18T19:47:04Z-00003-000": 1, "603ee756-2019-04-18T11:22:47Z-00005-000": 2, "148bb110-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00001-000": 0, "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00003-000": 2, "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00005-000": 1, "98ed94cf-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00039-000": 1, "8a1bbb2c-2019-04-18T18:46:37Z-00005-000": 0, "842a72e0-2019-04-18T16:56:47Z-00004-000": 2, "842a72c1-2019-04-18T16:57:36Z-00005-000": 1, "81972726-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00034-000": 0, "80500e82-2019-04-18T16:59:01Z-00002-000": 2, "7852a724-2019-04-18T14:16:39Z-00004-000": 0, "71f54413-2019-04-18T19:36:05Z-00005-000": 0, "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00000-000": 2, "70cb061-2019-04-18T16:39:12Z-00005-000": 2, "70cb061-2019-04-18T16:39:12Z-00007-000": 2, "69584658-2019-04-18T14:36:51Z-00004-000": 0, "61b46571-2019-04-18T12:27:50Z-00002-000": 2, "603ee756-2019-04-18T11:22:47Z-00006-000": 2, "5d920354-2019-04-18T16:11:42Z-00001-000": 2, "5a7e0d6d-2019-04-18T12:55:57Z-00004-000": 0, "4733bf42-2019-04-18T15:17:57Z-00005-000": 1, "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00027-000": 0, "29d685d9-2019-04-18T13:29:32Z-00004-000": 1, "70f4899d-2019-04-18T13:19:33Z-00002-000": 2}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "It's been said that humans are responsible for \"Global Warming\" due to our carbon emissions and high atmospheric pollution rate. While I agree that we are polluting the atmosphere at an extremely high rate, I disagree that, our carbon emissions are to blame. According to Science Magazine, measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years), periods of natural global warming preceded global increases in CO2. Also, A 2005 study published in Nature found that \"high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 - occurred around AD 1000 to 1100\" in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, any human produced CO2 is re absorbed by the oceans, trees and plants, preventing the CO2 from gathering in the atmosphere. I look forward to debating you, and good luck!!", "title": "Humans are responsible for global warming", "pid": "74fc08ec-2019-04-18T12:32:40Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.07168579101562}, {"text": "I believe global warming is not caused by humans.", "title": "Global warming is not solely humans fault.", "pid": "71f54413-2019-04-18T19:36:05Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.9237823486328}, {"text": "wow Krebs, way to show up BUDDY. If we were in a real debate round I would have to insist that I take this match because of my opponents lack of second speech. Because of this, I have nothing to rebutt.", "title": "Human activities are the main cause global warming.", "pid": "66212ba4-2019-04-18T19:44:16Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.85791015625}, {"text": "My position on climate change is that not only do I believe in it but I believe it is man caused. I will start My opening argument to state that global warming is a proven fact and anyone that disagrees with me is ignorant on this subject. 97% of scientists believe that climate change is primarily human caused. Also the arguments stated by Human-caused climate change deniers are pointless and not fact driven. I wish my opponent the best of luck. Sources(s): Shaftel, H. (Ed.). (2012, January 5). Global Climate Change: Consensus. Retrieved February 3, 2015, from http://climate.nasa.gov...", "title": "Climate Change is man caused", "pid": "4733bf42-2019-04-18T15:17:57Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.85443115234375}, {"text": "In my debate I will be trying not to persuade you that humans are totally responsible for global warming, but the major cause is from animals etc, with still little help from the humans. It would be totally biased if you wanted me to defend humans completely out of global warming for such as a fart contributes. At the end of this debate I hope to have abolished the Anthropogenic title from your moot, and (as seen from the previous debate) from your stubborn mind. No need for any clarifications. Thank You and good luck!", "title": "Anthropogenic global climate change.", "pid": "61b465af-2019-04-18T12:27:15Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.84104919433594}, {"text": "Same.", "title": "Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.", "pid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.8246307373047}, {"text": "The biggest collection of specialist scientists in the world say that the worlds climate is changing as a result of human activity. The scientific community almost unanimously agrees that man-caused global warming is a severe threat, and the evidence is stacking.", "title": "The significant bulk of scientific research says it is happening", "pid": "212f2296-2019-04-19T12:47:07Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.76182556152344}, {"text": "Natural causes are principally responsible for global warming today, making Kyoto irrelevant. Every 100,000 years, a cycle of glacial and inter-glacial periods occur. We are at the peak of the 10,000 year interglacial warming period before the next 100,000 year ice age. Our warming now is part of this cycle. Only planetary interactions between the sun and earth can cause such regular, but lengthy cycle's. This leads to the conclusion that the sun is most responsible. Yet, the Kyoto Protocol bases its carbon-cutting objectives on the assumption that humans are chiefly responsible for global warming; a false assumption.", "title": "Humans are not causing global warming so Kyoto can't solve it", "pid": "b58ff37e-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00074-000", "bm25_score": 216.747802734375}, {"text": "Same, Same.", "title": "Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.", "pid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.6826171875}, {"text": "Same", "title": "Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.", "pid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.65370178222656}, {"text": "Thank you for your quick response. Your position was human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. My position was that human activity is an addition to climate change just like other species. You can say human activity contributed more global warming than other species, but no more than the sun. So why aim the gun at us only? If we want to save humanity or other life on earth in the long run, we should not focus our effort in fighting over something insignificant as our demise is inevitable due to the sun. Maybe we should consider decreasing the sun activity to receive a greater impact. The statement \" human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change\" is only partially true, and therefore is not the truth, and could be considered to be false if it is not the entire truth. With technological advancement, we might just be able to put on an extremely large sun glass to protect our earth from the sun's harmful activity. You may see human advancement or human activities to be harmful, but it could be the necessary ingredient to save the day.", "title": "Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change", "pid": "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.6091766357422}, {"text": "The word 'main' as used in the debate heading presents the position that humanity's contribution to global warming is greater in magnitude than any other factor. The definition of 'main' could be explained as: chief or principal in rank, importance, size, etc. Therefore, Pro must prove that the human portion is in fact the largest of factors. Of course, the human portion needn't be greater than 50% of the total effect if there are multiple elements/factors at play. I also agree that it is more than possible that human activities could affect, change or initiate natural processes, but again, that would have to be quantified (what portion of a natural system has been altered by human elements versus natural change). Natural and human effect can be intertwined and extremely complicated, if not impossible to differentiate and separate. This is referred to as the \"attribution of recent climate change\". I will reference the following scholarly article: https://gfdl.noaa.gov... \"Detection and Attribution of Recent Climate Change: A Status Report\". The authors make several important conclusions in this comprehensive study: \"Greenhouse warming alone is insufficient to explain the observed pattern of climate change.\" and \"The most probable cause of the observed warming is a combination of internally and externally forced natural variability and anthropogenic sources (see also Tett et al. 1999). But given the large model uncertainties and limited data, a reliable weighting of the different factors contributing to the observed climate change cannot currently be given. In short, we cannot attribute, at this time, with a high level of statistical significance, the observed changes in global and large-scale regional climate to anthropogenic forcing alone.\". This research contradicts Pro's assertion that human causes are definitively more important than natural ones. In addition, to say that our current warming trend was caused solely by the industrial age based on the chart I presented (in round 3) would be to dismiss the fact that the sharp rebound from the Little Ice Age and commencement of our current warming trend (1600-) was initiated and occurred well before human activity was a relevant factor. I agree with much of the content contained within the two sites referenced by pro, but none of them contains information that establishes that human activity plays a greater role than natural variability. The CO2 now website asserts that \"The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions.\" and lists several of the unique contributions and circumstances associated with human activity and greenhouse gasses. It also states that \"the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes.\" These are grand statements, but there is no attempt to quantify them unlike the formal research document I presented above (which contradicts these sites). There is also no mention on Pro's sites of the fact that our current warming period was initiated well before the industrial age and human influence by natural forces. Even the IPCC continues to protect its reputation by using vague terms such as \"...likely\" regarding the position of humanity's \"...dominant role in global warming\". I acknowledge that we currently are experiencing global warming. For those who lived in 1100 BC and 1300 AD, they also experienced global warming on a larger scale than we do today, even though human activity had little correlation to that warming. Thus, to say that Global Warming is unique to the industrial age is false. It is also very likely that scientists will one day be able to prove/quantify what portion of Human Activity is attributable to global warming. Presently, it is not possible as my opponent acknowledges. This is why no scientist(s) or scientific body has declared a victory on this issue (A quantified attribution of recent climate change). In fact, a very large amount of money and large amount of research continues to be spent on this very issue because it has yet to be proved or resolved. I also agree that the current warming period presented on the on the chart I referenced is abrupt and is likely a reflection of the influence of human activity. Being that this warming period has yet to exceed several recent warming periods in effect and duration, we need more time in order to be able to place our current warming period into the context of other prior larger warming periods. It is simply premature to state definitively that human activity is the main factor in global warming. My statement is reflected in the current feverish rate of research being performed into the Attribution of Recent Climate Change. If a definitive conclusion had been reached, this research would not be needed to such a degree. Keep in mind, that I am not advocating that humanity should not take responsibility towards reducing our greenhouse gas emissions; quite the contrary.", "title": "Humanity is the main cause of global warming.", "pid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.5832061767578}, {"text": "Go to the other debate! :)Waive", "title": "Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.", "pid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.53512573242188}, {"text": "I will restate, than in order to establish that the primary cause of global warming is human activity, it is necessary to quantify the amount and effect (not qualify). No scientist or scientific body to date, to my knowledge, has been able to do so. Specifically, anyone making the assertion that humans are the primary cause of global warming must scientifically establish/prove what percentage is human as compare to natural variability and natural causes. It is not good enough to use terms such as \"significant\" and \"substantially\" as they are extremely vague inconclusive terms. An even worse approach is to take the line of reasoning presented on the timeforchange.org site referenced by my opponent, which virtually ignores the question/possibility of natural factors. I will reference the following chart by Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann to illustrate my position: http://www.longrangeweather.com... Note that on this chart there have been two periods with higher and more prolonged global warming periods in 1100 BC and 1300 AD (up to two-fold greater). My opponent also dismissed the importance of the naturally occurring little ice-age, yet its effect was over three-fold greater than our so called current \"human\" caused warming period. Being that natural causes are scientifically established to have created global temperature swings 3 times larger, and hundreds of years longer in duration than our current warming period (as recent as 1600 - 1800 AD), it is complete pseudo-science to claim that natural cycles play an insignificant role in global temperature change. In fact, being that we are presently in a period where we would naturally expect to see a warming period in the natural global temperature cycle, one would expect that human activity would have created the largest warming event in the last 5000 years. The chart/link I presented establishes that this kind of warming simply hasn't happened. The evidence I presented could even be used as an argument that Mankind's impact on global warming is negligible as compared to natural variability. Lastly, I acknowledge that my sources attribute a portion of climate change to human activity, but again, \"significant\" and \"substantially\" is not a quantification as I asserted earlier. I would ask that my opponent reference scholarly material that definitively establishes that human activity outweighs all other possible natural elements and variables in global climate change.", "title": "Humanity is the main cause of global warming.", "pid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.53294372558594}, {"text": "doop-dee-doo", "title": "Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.", "pid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.49952697753906}, {"text": "Before I begin my argument, let me emphasis that regardless of whether \"human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming / Climate Change\", people should try their best to act for the common good. With that said, you have not properly defined what \"human activity\" is and what level of change constitutes \"Climate Change\". Not all human activities cause Global Warming or Climate Change. Furthermore, your evidence at best, only shows that human expels more CO2 than other species, but never considers whether such level of increase is detrimental. If you do not define what is detrimental, then it can be said that the level of CO2 expel by my hamster is causing Global Warming.", "title": "Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change", "pid": "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.472412109375}, {"text": "In conclusion, Con has essentially failed to prove the points I provided wrong. Instead, Con used his/her rebuttal to reply to my rebuttal. On top of that, I have shown that a fairly large chunk of the so-called \"facts\" Con has provided are in fact no facts but inaccurate information/lies. This ranges from \"volcanoes emit more Co2 than humans\" (when in reality humans emit 100x as much as volcanoes) and \"the earth is gaining mass\" (when it is, in fact, losing it). This means that not only has Con failed to prove my points wrong, he/she has failed to provide accurate as well as reliable information that backs their own point up. Regardless, I thank Con for their hard-worked arguments, but I advise them to structure their points more clearly, put citations, and next time don't reply to your opponent's reply... instead reply to the points they provide.", "title": "Global Warming is primarily caused by humans", "pid": "183436dd-2019-04-18T12:34:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.45993041992188}, {"text": "I accept your challenge. I accept the conditions unto which it has been made. Begin when ready.", "title": "Global Warming is primarily caused by humans", "pid": "183436dd-2019-04-18T12:34:27Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.3783721923828}, {"text": "Oompa-Loompa doompadee-doo", "title": "Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.", "pid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.37567138671875}, {"text": "Pass.", "title": "Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming", "pid": "66bd9185-2019-04-18T15:07:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.37228393554688}, {"text": "WE RE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS ACCELERATION...DEFORESTATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS ....UNCONTROLLED POLLUTION", "title": "HUMANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING", "pid": "61d6604e-2019-04-18T19:59:31Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.36380004882812}, {"text": "Throughout Humanity's Existence the species has done nothing but destroyed everything around it. We have seen the extinction of more species at fault of Humanity, we have seen the rising of sea levels and the drying up of rivers and lakes due to Human Activity. This is why I stand in Pro position that human activity is an addition to increased Global Warming/ Climate Change. 1. Humans have increased Climate Change because of Increased C02 emissions Source: Climate Change Causes: A Blanket around the Earth.\" Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA, 11 Feb. 2016. Web. 12 Feb. 2016. Carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. According to the EPA Carbon Dioxide, which includes fossil fuels and industrial processes, contributes 65% of Global greenhouse gases. The Electricity and Heat production industry emits 25% of Carbon Dioxide. This shows how much Co2 contributes to pollution. Emissions released now will continue to warm the climate in the future. The EPA predicts that climate change will cause the demand for water to increase while the supply of water shrinks. Water is not only essential to human health but also to manufacturing processes and the production of energy and food. Climate change is expected to increase rainfall, thereby causing an increase sediments and in the pollutants washed into drinking water Rising sea levels will cause saltwater to infiltrate some freshwater systems, increasing the need for desalination and drinking water treatment.", "title": "Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change", "pid": "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.35804748535156}, {"text": "This debate is being canceled. Please redirect all your attention to the original debate that had been hijacked by a Troll, but is freed back up.http://www.debate.org...", "title": "Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.", "pid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.3302001953125}, {"text": "Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which if not stopped will result in global warming.", "title": "global climate change is human caused", "pid": "a5cb0429-2019-04-18T19:47:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.28204345703125}, {"text": "Good luck. I only have two points at the moment. So here they are: (1) Earth's mean surface temperature has increased about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Scientist are more than 90% certain that human activities' such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, is the primary cause of increases of the greenhouse effect. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a lowest of 2 to 5.2 degrees Fahrenheit and a highest of 4.5 to 11.5 degrees during the 21st century. (2) According to NASA, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil have increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) Sites: (1) en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Gobal_warming (2) climate. nasa. gov/causes/", "title": "Global Warming is caused by humans", "pid": "f16410ab-2019-04-18T18:01:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.2685546875}, {"text": "Yes it is true that Global Warming cannot be stopped. It is also true that it has recently gone up more in the 20th century then it has before. Why do you think that is if not because of the constant burning of fossil fuels humans burn daily. This lets off too many gases into the atmosphere which causes the green house effect which results in Global Warming. Why don't we define Global Climate Change: Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from: •Natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun •Natural processes within the climate system (e.g. ,changes in ocean circulation) •Human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification) Notice the part where it says \"human activities\". As you can clearly see, humans are a huge factor in Global Warming.", "title": "global climate change is human caused", "pid": "a5cb0429-2019-04-18T19:47:04Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.24920654296875}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.", "pid": "a80b0a3-2019-04-18T14:21:27Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.1963348388672}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.", "pid": "a80b0c2-2019-04-18T14:24:32Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.1963348388672}, {"text": "Just for clarification when I say human activity I mean the activity to the addition of climate change, as you could see by the evidence I used. What level of change contributes to climate change would be the rising temperatures. Since that humans release so much C02 and pollute the air it contributes to warming the planet. The EPA predicts in the next 100 years global temperatures will rise by 2 degrees. Now you may say that isn't much but that will cause the melting of the ice caps which will cause rising sea levels which will sink cities, as National Geographic reports. As you said that not all human activities cause Global warming, I acknowledged that in my evidence but as I will state again NASA reports that humans have increased atmospheric C02 emissions by a third since the industrial revolution, and the largest known contribution is fossil fuels, WHICH IS DONE BY HUMANS. My evidence shows more than that humans expel more C02 than any other species, in my evidence you can clearly see that these levels are detrimental. As I said Water shortages, food shortages, Ocean Acidification, the evidence is all there. Also to say I would not have to define detrimental that word is of common knowledge and if you can't accept that I'm sorry you're too incompetent. So I have won this debate because you have not even stated one piece of evidence that goes against my case, and your entire argument is on not defining common knowledge terms so for these reasons this is why Pro as won this debate.", "title": "Is Human Activity an addition to increased Global Warming/Climate Change", "pid": "9c07825d-2019-04-18T13:31:03Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.12368774414062}, {"text": "Firstly. I have not quantified anything in the heading of the debate. I've said 'main cause'. Not 'more than fifty percent' or somethinglike that. Main means a major portion. Since when did 'substantially' get used for a small portion? And it is also not my possible (to my knowledge) to quantify the impact of natural causes on climate change as it is unpredictable and can change any time. Con has also left out my point that human activities can alter the natural conditions of the earth, therefore any change in temperature due to natural causes could have a human factor behind it. As explained in the following. http://co2now.org... Secondly, I never said natural causes play an insignificant role. I said they play an important role but not as important as human causes. In con's reference chart, the temperature has been constantly oscillating between hot and cold, but if you check recent years there have been almost two constant hot periods and the cold period is almost invisible ( in the graph I mean) meaning it is very short. And then in the graph itself it clear that the hot periods have been on the rise since the Age of Induatrialization. And after 2015, the cold period is based on assumptions and predictions, and as I have already made clear that nature cannot always be predicted. Thirdly Global Warming is a reality. Just because there have hotter periods before, doesn't mean it is not happening. The following site also explains that the global warming hiatus in recent times is not true. And that climate only causes short term changes in the climate of the earth, but human activity causes long term changes. http://www.bbc.com... Fourthly scientists will not quanitfy and agree that mankind is responsible for global warming, as it is their community that are primary responsible (in humans). But I will not defame them as some ARE trying their best to prove it. Fifthly , again I refer to the chart provided by Con, the hot periods have gradually developed over a period of time, but in recent years its almost at a right angle. Which means there have been sharp and quick increase in the heat all over the globe.", "title": "Humanity is the main cause of global warming.", "pid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.1148681640625}, {"text": "Now, I'll be the first to admit that liberals and environmentalists have run away with global warming a bit, and it is becoming very political. However, that doesn't change the fact that its true. And not because a \"consensus\" has been reached about it either. I mean, a majority does not dictate what is right, history has shown us that time and time again. HOWEVER, there is conclusive evidence that man is creating significant global warming. It has been proven that CO2 causes a heating effect in the environment, by absorbing and radiating heat onto earth! Man is releasing massive amounts of.....CO2! From those two facts alone, we can deduce that man is creating global warming. It also helps that no natural effects for the heating have been given. There has always been opposition to new theories and ideas, as people naturally are resistant to change.", "title": "Scientists have no proof that humans are responsible for a significant amount of global warming.", "pid": "ddbc0081-2019-04-18T19:42:12Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.10287475585938}, {"text": "My argument is that, while global warming may have been intensified by human influence (CO2 emissions, methane emissions, etc.), it is also a product of the Earth itself and this should be considered when reporting on the drastic effects of global warming. The ice caps will melt and water levels will rise. These are leftovers from the most recent ice age, the Quaternary glaciation (1), and should be expected to melt as we move toward the Holocene epoch (2). Rainforests and deserts will change, but this has happened before. Global warming, while real, is not entirely a result of our actions. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Global Warming is Entirely Caused By Humans", "pid": "12ea8fac-2019-04-18T18:53:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.0958251953125}, {"text": "Before I begin I would like to initially reinforce the topic of the debate: CO2 emissions are DIRECTLY responsible for climate change. As the negative, I will rebut the affirmative as to why CO2 emissions (whilst adding to the heat of the planet) are not directly responsible for the changes we are experiencing on our Earth today. The affirmative stated statistics such as- 'CO2 is the largest factor of global warming', '97% of scientists agree global warming is man-made', 'CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas threat'. Whilst these points may be tried and tested, they do not favour the topic when the phrase 'directly responsible' is included. From what I gather, the affirmative believes that CO2 is speeding up the process of global warming. Whilst this may be true, in between the lines of this statement we can discover that another factor is actually CAUSING the process of global warming. As the negative, I believe that the cause is the fluctuation of the Earth's orbit (which the affirmative incorrectly stated as 'stable') and the consistent rise and fall of the planet's historical temperatures. I stand by the points I raised in the first round and have now refuted the rebuttal put forward by the affirmative and regarded it as invalid. Does the affirmative have anything within it's case to state why my reason for global warming is incorrect? Do they believe that CO2 emissions are the initial cause of the Earth heating world-wide? By now, they should surely agree that CO2 emission are not directly responsible for climate change.", "title": "CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.", "pid": "29d685d9-2019-04-18T13:29:32Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.02914428710938}, {"text": "The CON must prove humans do not play a significant role in global warming. I recommend a experienced debater that opposes global warming to debate with me. EDIT: Per Ron-Paul's request, the resolution is changed and the voting period is now 1 month. My Starting Arguments: Yes, the Earth is warming. Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 \"C (1.4 \"F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[1] Is it caused mainly by humans? Humans have increased the amount of Co2, a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases increase the Earth's temperature. \"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 397 ppm, despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions through various natural \"sinks\" involved in the carbon cycle.\"[2] Plus, global warming could cause ice cap melting. Dan Miller said that the ice caps can be gone by 2020. (From video) http://www.youtube.com... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Humans are the main cause of global warming", "pid": "1f15702f-2019-04-18T18:02:44Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 215.99234008789062}, {"text": "My opponent was not able to post a new argument within the allotted time, therefore I am extending my arguments.", "title": "Global warming is not solely humans fault.", "pid": "71f54413-2019-04-18T19:36:05Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.9873809814453}, {"text": "Since it looks like we're starting to throw around data, figures and historical graphs (all of the things that suck the life out of a good philosophical debate) let me just leave you with one link: http://www.speroforum.com... It is a list of the many respected scientist who disagree with much of the data you cite. You say CO2 (whatever its source) has increased a WHOPPING 37 PERCENT over the last 100 years. Since this last 100 years coincides with only a .6 degree celius temperature increase (well within the range of naturally occuring temperature changes), it could be easily argued that CO2 has a much more mild effect on temperature changes than claimed. And again, since this .6-degree change is well within historic levels, it could be argued that we do not even know if the increase in CO2 is reponsible. But let's get back on track. I am not hear to debate whether there is a good argument for global warming. There are very convincing arguments for and against it by many esteemed scientists. I am just submitting that a valid debate continues because neither side can (as of yet) conclusively prove its case. There is simply no definitive proof that humans make a significant contribution to global warming. There are only opposing viewpoints based on inconclusive evidence.", "title": "Scientists have no proof that humans are responsible for a significant amount of global warming.", "pid": "ddbc0081-2019-04-18T19:42:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.95843505859375}, {"text": "I believe that climate change is serious and urgent problem facing us today. In my opinion it is caused by the idea of capitalism and also by the spread of capitalistic production system of 20th century. Both of them have brought the collapse of ecological system and led to climate change facing the people of the world. I look forward to having a good debate and learning a lot from it.", "title": "Climate change is happening and is caused by human activity", "pid": "ff5b0936-2019-04-18T12:09:41Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.89340209960938}, {"text": "Main point - Every major science academy in the west supports it, 97%-98% of scientist support it. 1. 75% of the 20th century increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2 is directly caused by human actions like burning fossil fuels. CO2 levels were 389ppm (parts per million) as of Apr. 2010 - the highest they have been in the past 650,000 years. This increase in CO2 was a substantial contributor to the 1\"F to 1.4\"F warming over the 20th century. 2. Human-produced CO2 is warming the earth, not natural CO2 released from the ocean and other \"carbon sinks.\" CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a specific isotopic ratio that is different from CO2 released by natural \"carbon sinks.\" 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that the rise results from human activities, not natural processes. 3. Human produced greenhouse gases will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere causing climate change because the earth's forests, oceans, and other \"carbon sinks\" cannot adequately absorb them all. As of 2009, these carbon sinks were only absorbing about 50% of human-produced CO2. The other 50% is accumulating in the atmosphere. 4. Human greenhouse gas emissions, not changes in the sun's radiation, are causing global climate change. Measurements in the upper atmosphere from 1979 - 2009, show the sun's energy has gone up and down in cycles, with no net increase. While warming is occurring in the troposphere (lower atmosphere), the stratosphere (upper atmosphere) is cooling. If the sun was driving the temperature change there would be warming in the stratosphere also, not cooling. 5. Computer models show that increased levels of human produced greenhouse gases will cause global warming and other climate changes. Although these climate models are uncertain about how much future warming will occur and how it will affect the climate, they all agree that, to some degree, these changes will happen. The reality of climate change is not contradicted by this uncertainty. 6. Although the amount of human-produced greenhouse gases may seem small to some people, their warming potential is amplified by the water vapor positive feedback loop , allowing them to cause significant warming and climate change. As greenhouse gases heat the planet, increased humidity (water vapor in the atmosphere) results. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, it can double the warming effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. 7. Human greenhouse gas emissions are heating the planet, and climate models consistently show that this warming causes an increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones. The fact that 1975-1989 had 171 category 4 and 5 hurricanes while 1990-2004 had 269 [51] of them (a 57% increase) validates these climate models and the reality of human-induced climate change. 8. Human-produced CO2 is changing the climate of the world's oceans. As excess CO2 is absorbed, oceanic acidity levels increase. Oceans have absorbed 48% of the total CO2 released by human activities and acidity levels are 25-30% higher than prior to human fossil fuel use. 9. An 8\" rise in the ocean level has occured (1961-2003) due to human-induced global warming. Global sea levels rose an average of 1.8 mm (.07 in) per year between 1961 and 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 mm (.1 in) per year from 1993 to 2003. [3] This sea level rise is the result of warming waters and the melting of glaciers, ice caps, and polar ice sheets. From 1870-2004, a \"significant acceleration\" of sea-level rise occured, an important confirmation of climate change models. 10. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is changing the earth's hydrologic climate. Rainfall is increasing in many areas due to increased evaporation stemming from global warming. Higher temperatures are also causing some mountainous areas to receive rain rather than snow. According to researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, up to 60% of the changes in river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack in the western US (1950-1999) were human-induced. 11. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases is changing the rate of glacial melt and altering the local climate of many regions. Since 1850, records show a \"strong increase\" in the rate of glacial retreat. From 1961-2004 glaciers retreated about .5mm per year in sea level equivalent. According to the World Glacier Monitoring Service, since 1980, glaciers worldwide have lost nearly 40 feet (12 meters) in average thickness (measured in average mass balance in water equivalent). 12. Warming caused by human-produced greenhouse gases and soot (black carbon) produced from burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, is reducing the size of the Arctic ice cap. A smaller ice cap reflects less of the sun's energy away from the earth. This energy is absorbed instead, causing air and water temperatures to rise. From 1953\"2006, Arctic sea ice declined 7.8% per decade. Between 1979 and 2006, the decline was 9.1% each decade. Climate models predict that Arctic sea ice will continue to retreat through the 21st century further disrupting the global climate. [15] 13. Many organizations believe that human activity is a substantial cause of global climate change. These groups include: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the InterAcademy Council, the Network of African Science Academies, the European Science Foundation (ESF), the European Space Agency (ESA), the Royal Society (UK national academy of science), the US National Academies of Science, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 14. Nearly all climate change studies show humans as the main cause, and studies which contradict this claim are often funded by petroleum companies, making their conclusions suspect given the obvious conflict of interest. From 2004-2005, ExxonMobil gave $2.2 million in grants for climate change research to organizations that deny human caused climate change. In 2006 US Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) chastised ExxonMobil for providing more than $19 million in funding to over 29 \"climate change denial front groups.\"", "title": "That Humans Are Causing Climate Change", "pid": "e505d905-2019-04-18T16:03:11Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.89199829101562}, {"text": "To be honest, I thought it would be a fun thing to debate someone on something controversial and funny. but I just can't bring my self to debate something that is intellectually dishonest and simply false. I withdraw my argument and forfeit. Thanks for the debate so far, I would of totally kept the debate going if it was something I could persist with and have a drive of showing that I was in fact correct. but there is simply no evidence suggesting anything other than man has caused an over abundance of natural gases that has resulted in a process we call climate change. if I continued this debate and got people on my side, I could not forgive my self for 'uneducating' people :P. it would be a disgrace to my growth in science and what I stand for. I will happily continue on another topic on a different debate though. it was good debating you, also, even if I was to make another come back, you have covered everything. the only thing to possibly do is suggest it does not exist. have a good day.", "title": "Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming", "pid": "70f488e3-2019-04-18T14:43:55Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.8613739013672}, {"text": "I never said that Mankind is the sole cause of global warming. I'm saying they are the main cause of global warming. According to the chart provided by Con in the previous argument, we are supposed going through a clod period. Then how come that 14 of the 15 hottest years are in the 21st century? This is shown in Wiki page of Global Warming. Therefore I respectfully say that the site might be wrong. Its true , there have been cold periods every year. But I think those are called winters. Another reason. Global Warming is primarily caused by emission of GHGs, or Greenhouse gases. The primary sources of GHGs are factories and automobiles . Which are human sources. The only major contributor from the natural side are trees which only emit CO2 during the night. Whereas human sources include, CO, CO2, nitrous oxide, methane and other synthetic chemicals emitted is vapour form by humans. And with the tree population declining, and not many volcanoes in the past 10 years, the GHG emission by nature are not that significant as mankind. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... And contrary to common perception there has not been any cool period, the average surface temperature of the planet has been constantly increasing. The concentration of CO2 has been up about 20% from 650,000 years ago. Con has failed to rebut the argument of radioactive forcing which was in one of my sources. Just because its contribution cannot be quantified, doesn't mean it is not the major contributor. http://www3.epa.gov... In the above site, research has indicated that natural causes do not explain the recent climate changes . ( Ever since the Industrial Revolution). The site also gives the natural causes of climate change. 1)Variations in the sun's energy reaching Earth 2)Changes in the reflectivity of Earth\"s atmosphere and surface 3)Changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by Earth\"s atmosphere 1)Its true that there have been changes in the Sun's energy reaching the Earth but none big enough to cause such a change in surface temperature ALONE. 2) The constant GHG emissions have damaged our ozone layer and are causing UV rays to enter the atmosphere which is also increase the temperature of the planet. Again . A human source. 3) The changes in the GreenHouse effect, is that we humans have been constantly increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere in our quest for development and comfort. A human source. 4) There have been no volcanic eruptions, atleast not big enough for the atmosphere to change and for the aerosol count to become so high. Therefore one can conclude that a human source is now behind almost every natural cause that MAY have caused this spike in temperature. Therefore Humanity is the Main Cause of Global Warming.", "title": "Humanity is the main cause of global warming.", "pid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.8390350341797}, {"text": "Global Warming is likely impacted by humans.", "title": "Global Warming is likely impacted by humans.", "pid": "7852a724-2019-04-18T14:16:39Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.82601928710938}, {"text": "I accept this debate and will be arguing against the resolution that mankind is the main cause of global warming. The main thrust of my argument will be thus: that although mankind may (or may not be) a contributor to global warming, he is by no means thee main cause of it. I look forward to this debate. Thanks", "title": "Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming", "pid": "70f4897e-2019-04-18T13:23:25Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.79795837402344}, {"text": "Yes, I agree with Pro's sources in Round 5 that list all of the ways in which human activity plays a role in affecting global climate. Unfortunately, Pro failed to acknowledge the issue of \"Attribution of Recent Climate Change\" which I brought up in Round 4. Without doing so, it is impossible to conclude that \". .. Humanity is the Main Cause of Global Warming\" as Pro has done. To further bolster my argument, I will reference the 376 page scholarly book (published in 2015) \"Climate Change, Multidecadal and Beyond\" . https://books.google.ca... which flatly states outright in the introduction \"Many questions concerning the nature and causes of climate variability on the multidecadal time scale are still unresolved. \". This book also references a Technical Summary of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report which acknowledges \"Difficulties remain in attributing temperature changes at smaller than continental scales and over time scales less than 50 years. \" (Solomon et al. , 2007). While generalist websites for the public (such as the ones referenced by pro) may ignore the issue of attribution, clearly scholars and climate scientists cannot and do not. The book I referenced demonstrates that scientists are working very hard on the attribution issue, and may resolve it in the near future thanks to ever improving technology, statistics and modeling. However, being that the world's top scientists have not resolved the issue of climate change attribution, it is far too premature for \"pro\" declare a victory or a conclusion that humanity is the \"main\" cause of climate change (based on the information contained in generalist websites), especially in the context of a Multidecadal view. I was very much hoping that Pro would address the issue of 'Attribution of Recent Climate Change' which I introduced in Round 4.", "title": "Humanity is the main cause of global warming.", "pid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.78065490722656}, {"text": "i'd like to refute my opponents points and then return back to defending mine. regarding my opponents first point, his point simply stated that humans pollute the earth. duh. of course human pollute the earth but this evidence is not conclusive enough to state that they are the main cause of the earth's rising temperature. we must look to a far greater source of carbon and other greenhouse gases: the earth itself. trees, volcanoes, and cosmic rays all cause the atmosphere to trap in heat. and there is far more carbon being produced by these natural occurances than humans as proven by avery's and singer's studies. to place this blame of such great magnitude on humans is proposterous. and also, no where in any research could i find a stat that humans cause \"more than 50%\" of global warming. in my opponents second point, he simply stated that people believe in the greenhouse gas theory. although this is true, i have evidence to support the other side. recently a petition was circulating around the oregon institute of science and medicine of over 17,000 highly qualified scientists who believe that humans releasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will not cause a catastrophe in the foreseeable future. in response another petition had been created recieving only 2,600 signatures stating that humans are causing this change. signatures for this survey consisted of only 10% scientists and of that 10%, only 1% were climatologists. and also a recent court case in britain ruled that \"an inconvenient truth\" could not be shown in school because it was ruled non-factual. my opponent states that the UN agrees with him that humans are the cause of global warming but if you gander at his debate history, he is involved in a debate that states the UN is a bad organization. a little hypocritical, huh krebs? :) moving to my side of the argument my opponent showed no means of proving that global warming is not happened because of the earth's dawning ice age so this point still stands. i clearly prove that because we are coming up on an ice age, this is the culprit of rising temperatures and not humans my second point covered fossil fuel emissions which is most commonly named for causing global warming and i disproved this and stated that rising temperature actually causes rising CO2 levels and not the other way around thank you.", "title": "Human activities are the main cause global warming.", "pid": "66212ba4-2019-04-18T19:44:16Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.7672882080078}, {"text": "I do not dispute the existence and reality of Global Warming. I do assert, however, that it is impossible to quantify on a global scale, what part of global warming is attributable to Human activities as compared to natural change. Therefore, to state that humanity is the main cause of global warming is, at time present, impossible to prove. Geographers and Geologists consider the state of the Earth at time present to be in an ice age, albeit a late stage. This means that there have been periods in the history of the earth with less ice coverage, higher sea levels, and warmer mean global temperatures. As an example, a major component of the Glacial retreat we are witnessing today is attributable to natural rebound from the little ice age (approximately 1300 to 1850). Certainly human activity has amplified this rebound, but to what degree is indefinable. There are also many other potential amplifying factors, a few of which are listed on the Environmental Protection Agencies Website: . http://www3.epa.gov... Note, that even this reputable website is unable to quantify human contribution vs natural causes. I will also cite an article on the little ice-age for the benefit of my opponent: . http://www.britannica.com... I would also refer my opponent to the regional research of Glaciologist Dr. Johannes Koch regarding glacial retreat in Garibaldi Park (and other regional locations) which document the geological evidence of glacial retreat since the Little Ice Age glacial extant. The immense role of the Little Ice Age on climate is well established in this research. . http://kochj.brandonu.ca... or . http://kochj.brandonu.ca...", "title": "Humanity is the main cause of global warming.", "pid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.76190185546875}, {"text": "There, I said it. And it's true. Even scientists who \"believe\" humans are largely repsonsible for recent temperature changes will admit they do not have definitive proof. The PR campaign of the left claiming scientists \"have reached\" a consensus implies the research is finally complete. However, a \"consensus\" is only 51 percent, and no one is stopping to consider that legitimate science is a product of fact and not popularity or speculation in the absence of conclusive evidence. The liberals and environmentalists have swallowed the global warming theory hook, line and sinker, and accept it as though it were an undeniable truth. They even call opponents (who would rather rely on traditional standards of proof before making momentus policy decisions) \"flat earthers.\" That is not a very good analogy considering flat earthers were the ones who relied on popular opinion (\"consensus\") versus real science.", "title": "Scientists have no proof that humans are responsible for a significant amount of global warming.", "pid": "ddbc0081-2019-04-18T19:42:12Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.75856018066406}, {"text": "Changes in the temperature or direction of the Gulf Stream, which carries warm water north from the Gulf of Mexico, have heated sediments in a strip along the North Atlantic seafloor by 8 degrees Celsius, unlocking 2.5 billion metric tons of methane from deep-sea caches, scientists report in the Oct. 25 [1] Understanding these processes is important to global climate studies because the Gulf Stream plays a major role in the distribution of heat in the northern hemisphere.[4] This shows that evidence that humans are not the main cause of global warming. You are telling me that humans produces CO2 can move Gulf Stream. Can human drilling with machines move the seven continents on earth or even the fault lines that are in earth surfaces? It is estimated that more than 50 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities, according to the EPA. A.The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts. [2] There are going to make numbers up so people working for the EPA now will be rich in 5 years when those policy come into effect. It\"s the same idea that President Bush and Big Oil companies got accused during 2000 thru 2008. It\"s all about money. B.Estimated is A tentative evaluation or rough calculation, as of worth, quantity, or size. [1] http://www.sciencenews.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...", "title": "Humans are the main cause of global warming", "pid": "1f15704e-2019-04-18T17:53:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.75253295898438}, {"text": "Pros CasePoint A: Man-Made Global Warming existsSub point 1: Scientific consensus\"Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U. S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century. \" Scientists are undoubtedly sure that Man-Made Global warming is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement. (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)Point B: man-made global warming is the primary cause of Global WarmingSub point 1: Scientific Consensus\"The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow. '\"(3)\"The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible. \"(5)\"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. \"(6)Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Scientific research has been done by a countless number of experts, and they have all come to a similar agreement. Humanity is the primary cause of global warming. To challenge this claim is to challenge the authority of research giants such as NASA. Environmental scientists are the authority on this subject, and they agree with the Pro. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity\"The only way to explain the pattern [global warming] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans. \"(2)\"Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the \"greenhouse effect\" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as \"forcing\" climate change\"(7)Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of global warming. Point C: The effects of global warming are extreme. Global climate change leads to:-Increased temperatures-Changing landscapes-A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods-Endangered wildlife habitats-Rising sea levels-Greater damage from extreme storms-More heat-related illness and disease-Economic problems(4)Sub point 1: man-made global warming encourages natural disaster\"Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger. \"(2)\"Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size. \"(8)With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10)Man-made global warming is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with global warming left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding\"Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). \"(2)\"Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years. \"(2)As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, man-made global warming could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of man-made global warming could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that man-made global warming will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. \"Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes. \" (2)\"Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either. \" (2)\"Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:-North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions. \"(11)Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11)Current Effects Future Effects Human lives are at stake, and even the economies of the world are at stake. SummaryThere is overwhelming evidence to prove that man-made global warming is indeed real. Furthermore, the effects of man-made global warming are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of man-made global warming. Sources1. . http://www.sciencemag.org...2. . http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...3. . http://www.nrdc.org...4. . http://www.mfpp.org...5. . http://www.edf.org...6. . http://climate.nasa.gov...7. . http://climate.nasa.gov...8. . http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...9. . http://www.usatoday.com...10. . http://www.nbcnews.com...11. . http://climate.nasa.gov...;", "title": "Man-Made global warming exists* and poses a serious threat to humanity.", "pid": "70cb061-2019-04-18T16:39:12Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.7515106201172}, {"text": "A major claim among environmentalist groups lately is that man made global warming is destroying the Earth. My opponent must show how the Earth is in fact getting warmer and how humans are the direct cause of this warming trend. I will be arguing that climate change is a natural process with very little influence from humans. First round is for setting up arguments and agreeing to terms of the debate. All other rounds are for actual debate.", "title": "Global warming is occurring and it is the fault of humans.", "pid": "89a0c1f4-2019-04-18T18:45:40Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.7451629638672}, {"text": "Thanks to Ron-Paul for the response. CO2 Correlation The sunspots actually rose after the temperature in 1960, according to the chart from [A]. If my opponent's claim is right, then global warming causes sunspots to rise, which is not the case. The chart from [A] shows a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, in the short term without apparent lag. Sun \"Sun - Recent Activity Highest in 8000 Years and magnetic field has decreased in size by 25%\" Again, my sun argument still stands. Predictions say that Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78. Right now, the solar cycle is in a valley--the deepest of the past century. In 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind, and low solar irradiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare. [B] The sun is not in a period of high activity. \"Also, by the way, since CO2 does not correlate with temperatures, your Pluto-to-Earth claim is fallacious.\" I have proven this wrong with [A]. Cosmic Rays The most recent IPCC studies disputed the mechanism. The 2007 IPCC reports, however, strongly attribute a major role of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the ongoing global warming, but as \"different climate changes in the past had different causes\" a driving role of carbon dioxide in the geological past is neither focus of the IPCC nor purported. [C] PDO/AMO The 10-year correlation record of CO2 is on there, but the 10 year correlation record of PDO/AMO is not on there, therefore this does not prove that CO2 has less influence. \"There. Cosmic rays, the sun, and all the Earth's natural cycles have a .95 correlation. \" The PDO/AMO does not have a 10 year chart to compare with CO2, the sun is refuted in earlier rounds. The sunspots are lagging behind the temperature. IPCC disputes the cosmic rays and instead attribute the warming to CO2. Position in galaxy (Only a chart given by opponent) Per Ron-Paul's request, this is the full quote: (formatting changed for character count, no changes in content, words taken out in R3 are marked) \" To combat global warming, militants say we must all accept drastic reductions in our standard of living starting now, steadily increasing year-after-year, until much of industrial society is swept away. Only thus can the earth, and perhaps mankind, be saved. [[To achieve this radical restructuring of human society, global warming proponents demand that we give virtually unlimited power to government to control what we eat, how we travel, and how our industries operate, with no dissent or resistance permitted.]] Cars, jet travel for the public, air conditioning, refrigeration, and indeed many if not most of the conveniences of modern life will simply have to be abolished, as quickly as politically feasible. As one environmental activist puts it, Everything modern has to go!\" -ISIL Medieval Warm Period \"I will keep coming with more. There is a clear correlation.\" There is no correlation if you give nothing to compare. The data before 1600 was scarce [D], which means that the temperatures can be colder or warmer than now, but the chart at [E] shows that the MWP is colder than the temperature at 2004. The Sun Back in 2008, the solar cycle plunged into the deepest minimum in nearly a century. Sunspots all but vanished, solar flares subsided, and the sun was eerily quiet. As 2011 unfolds, sunspots have returned and they are crackling with activity. On February 15th and again on March 9th, Earth orbiting satellites detected a pair of \"X-class\" solar flares--the most powerful kind of x-ray flare. The last such eruption occurred back in December 2006. [F] As you can see, the solar activity was unstable. Then we should see many huge dips and rises in the chart at http://ossfoundation.us... , but the sun spots dipped down in 2000, while the temperature still rose with the CO2 with little to none delays on the CO2 part. CO2 correlates more than sun spots on [A]. And [A] is a short term graph from 1860 to 2000, so the CO2 should be delayed like crazy, right? Nope, that is not the case. In Conclusion, my opponent's claims have been refuted. [A]http://ossfoundation.us... [B]http://science.nasa.gov... [C]http://en.wikipedia.org... [D]http://en.wikipedia.org... [E]http://upload.wikimedia.org... [F]http://science.nasa.gov...", "title": "Humans are the main cause of global warming", "pid": "1f15702f-2019-04-18T18:02:44Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.72935485839844}, {"text": "\"Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim.\" harrytrumanSunspots play a minimal role. As for CO2 levels only being a small part of the greenhouse gases this is true. Neverthless, naturally occuring CO2 is balanced out. Human industry made CO2 is not. Thanks for the debate.http://www.scientificamerican.com...", "title": "Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.", "pid": "b567d7fa-2019-04-18T12:55:36Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.7289581298828}, {"text": "Just curious as to see what your argument will be! Looking forward to it. But just to clarify, I'm talking about the rising of global temperatures caused by increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leading to the greenhouse effect. Good luck!", "title": "Climate Change is real and caused by humans", "pid": "87e262b9-2019-04-18T15:11:41Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.6955108642578}, {"text": "Good Luck.", "title": "Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming", "pid": "66bd9166-2019-04-18T15:23:39Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.69496154785156}, {"text": "Thank you for that last round. 1. While a rise in global temperature is undeniable, I disagree that the greenhouse effect is the cause. I repeat my original point that the recent warming of the Earth has to do with solar cycles and that a 2013 study proved that the rising global temperatures that have been observed in the 20th century are similar to those observed around the 11th century [2], and the recent rise in global temperature are within the borders of the natural temperature variations that have been recorded within the past 3,000 years [2]. Additionally, to address your point concerning the declining Arctic sea, it's true that it was slowly descending, but since 2012, Arctic ice has gone up by 50% [4]. Even the increase between 2012 and 2013 was visibly significant [5]. This increase is equally as important as the decrease. I again repeat my original point concerning receding glaciers. They have been growing and receding for thousands of years due to natural causes [2], and the recently receding glaciers in Antarctica were due to atmospheric circulation changes, which is the “large scale movement of air” [3]. 2. My opponent has argued that 97% of scientists believe that global warming is due to human activities.However this is not entirely true. David Henderson went through everything that Cook et all claimed and found that only 64 out of the 11,944 scientists that were examined claimed explicitly that global warming was a cause of humans. This number brings the 97% down to 1.6% [1, 2]. Here is Henderson’s list providing all the numbers: While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believes that human activities have caused global warming, there are still many scientists who disagree.In 2010, a report by Climate Depot claimed that over 1,000 scientists (many of which were form UN IPCC scientists) disagreed that humans are “primarily responsible for global climate change” [2].Again, in 2014, 15 scientists declared that the US National Climate Assessment’s declaration of human caused climate change to be “NOT true” [2]. Conclusion:It remains that many scientists agree that global warming exists only as a solar cycle and is not caused by human activities. Thank you for reading! Sources:1. http://econlog.econlib.org...2. http://climatechange.procon.org...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://townhall.com...5. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org...", "title": "Global Warming is likely impacted by humans.", "pid": "7852a724-2019-04-18T14:16:39Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.68472290039062}, {"text": "Observations Ob1: Under “Full Resolution”, it clearly says the existence of GW is assumed, and Con must show that it is not man-made. This is violated by Con, but I shall rebut it nonetheless. Ob2: Once more, Con’s entire case is C/P’d from his source (albeit the source is presented this time), thus there are no original arguments presented by Con. Ob3: Con violates the debate structure by dropping ALL my arguments. I extend all my arguments to this round. Rebuttals R1) Global Warming Exists According to NASA’s GISS surface temperature analysis, the global mean land-sea temperature rose from 1980 to 2014 by 0.8 degrees Celsius, and the corresponding graph shows a constant increase in temperature throughout the years from 1980 to 2014 [1]. The alleged 17-year pause is incorrect, as there has been a 0.8 degrees C increase in temperature. The global land-sea average temperature in December 2014 was the highest monthly land-sea average in 135 years [2]. There have been major temperature anomalies throughout December 2014 itself [3]. R2) Scientific Consensus A study published in Science reviewed the ISI web of science in order to take a survey of relevant climate literature as to what the causes of climate change are. The study failed to find a single paper which was in opposition to the consensus position, that the main driver of climate change is anthropogenic. 75% of the papers supported the consensus position, whereas 25% had no position (they were focused on things other than forgings, like impacts or paleoclimate) [4]. “[T]he National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.” [4-5] A 196 page report representing 13 governmental agencies, and written by 28 authors from scientific institutions, has stated “[t]he global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases …” [6] According to NASA, “[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.” [7] Above is a graph presented by 4 major institutes that have taken a study on the temperature anomaly, and the results from NASA, MOHC/CRU, NOAA Climatic Data Center, and the Japanese Meteorological Agency have almost identical results [7]. R3) Arctic Ice Con concedes that this is irrelevant to the issue, and this is merely a prediction made by some supporters of global warming, thus I need not address this. Nonetheless, I wish to point out that “[t]he European Space Agency’s CryoSat mission has returned its latest map of Arctic sea ice volumes, recording a slight decrease in thickness over previous measurements.” [8] R4) Climate Models While climate models may have been wrong, they were only predictions of the increase. A certain level of increase happened nonetheless, and that is relevant to the resolution, while this is completely irrelevant to the resolution. R5) Predictions This is a repeat of “Climate Models” and “Arctic Ice”. The current data is not faulty unless proven otherwise, thus this argument is useless and irrelevant. I sincerely request Con to frame his own argument for the next round instead of C/Ping it. Arguments ALL my arguments are dropped. I extend all my arguments. Sources 1. http://data.giss.nasa.gov... 2. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://www.sciencemag.org... 5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001). 6. http://downloads.globalchange.gov... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov... 8. http://www.gizmag.com...", "title": "Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming", "pid": "66bd91a4-2019-04-18T14:56:36Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.6787109375}, {"text": "I am certain that the emission of green house gases produced through human activity has affected climates and temperatures world wide. There is no question about this in my mind. It is not even a matter of mere correlation really. Greenhouse gases trap heat and human beings are pumping out excessive amounts of ghg's into the Earth's atmosphere. I am not certain that human caused global warming is as big of a threat as the scientific community and popular media purport. Specifically, I am not convinced that the following claims are true: 1. Human caused global warming will accelerate the arrival of the next ice age (in less than 100 years). 2. Human caused global warming will result in large areas of land (such as the majority of Bangladesh) to become submerged in water (in less than 100 years). 3. Human caused global warming has lead to an increase in the frequency of hurricanes and other storms around the globe. I believe that BOP is on con to prove that the above statements are true. alternatively, Con can also argue that no one actually makes such statements about human caused global warming, and/or that there are other more serious effects that merit even greater media attention. My position is that human caused global warming is 'overhyped' because statements like 1,2, and 3 are regularly made but all of these predictions are difficult to back up with science because our current understanding and knowledge of climate patterns is very limited. Admittedly, there is a lot I need to learn about global warming and my primary aim here is to find out what I am missing.", "title": "Human caused global warming is 'overhyped'", "pid": "7011cf2f-2019-04-18T16:47:48Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.66690063476562}, {"text": "\"It has been proven that CO2 causes a heating effect in the environment, by absorbing and radiating heat onto earth!\" This statement is debatable in the scientific community, but I will let it stand as true since it has nothing to do with my argument. \"Man is releasing massive amounts of.....CO2\" I agree, but in comparison to what? Certainly not in comparison to the amounts of CO2 that is created naturally on this planet. This is where we disagree. There are no scientist that have proved humans contribute a significant amount of CO2 in comparison to that which is created naturally. For example, if we could prove that humans and human activity give of 2% of the world's CO2, then we would have some information to act (or not act depending on whether one considers that a significant amount). So far no one has been able to prove to what degree we contribute to global warming. \"It also helps that no natural effects for the heating have been given.\" Well, since it can be proved that earth has gone through many large temperature swings, and long before humans were around, there would be a very strong case for \"natural\" global warming (and cooling).", "title": "Scientists have no proof that humans are responsible for a significant amount of global warming.", "pid": "ddbc0081-2019-04-18T19:42:12Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.66407775878906}, {"text": "it is acknowledged by the global warming theory that man is accelerating the process of the warming of the earth and that it is not ONLY due to human activity so pretty much, by what you are saying in your statement, you agree with the global warming theory so is this a debate?", "title": "Global Warming Was NOT Caused By Humans", "pid": "f600de9a-2019-04-18T20:00:34Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.65512084960938}, {"text": "While I don't think Nature alone could bring the methane concentration levels up to 145%, I also don't find it plausible to say that man played the greater role in this. Global Warming really became a major cause for concern 10 or 15 years ago, was CO2 not the cause 10-15 years ago??? (FYI they weren't concerned with the impact humans had on the environment back in 1750, they were just excited to finally discover what that strange thing called The Atmosphere was...) And was it never really this warm??? Because there are still archives of 'hottest day on record', that hail from the 1900's...", "title": "Who is to blame for Global Warming? (Pro: Nature Con: Man)", "pid": "1896d3f9-2019-04-18T13:41:41Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.63485717773438}, {"text": "My opponent has ran out of time for this debate and could not counter any of my arguments.", "title": "Global warming is not solely humans fault.", "pid": "71f54413-2019-04-18T19:36:05Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.6309814453125}, {"text": "It is the sun that is the driving force of our climate and so it makes sense that it has the biggest impact on our climate rather than anything that humans might be doing. The sun is therefore the most likely cause of global warming. Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen argues that climate change is caused by solar activity.[[Louise Gray, 'Copenhagen climate summit: global warming 'caused by sun's radiation'', The Telegraph, 8/12/09, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6762640/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html%5D%5D Solar activity, as determined by sunspot activity, is historically high being at its highest over the last 60-70 years for over 8000 years. Solar activity could affect climate by variation in the Sun's output or potentially through having an effect on cloud formation. Solanski et al. Sunspot numbers and cosmic ray fluxes... show correlations and anti-correlations with a number of reconstructions of the terrestrial Northern Hemisphere temperature, which cover a time span of up to 1800 years. This indicates that periods of higher solar activity and lower cosmic ray flux tend to be associated with warmer climate, and vice versa... This suggests that effects induced by cosmic rays may affect the long-term terrestrial climate. The positive correlation between the geomagnetic dipole moment and the temperature reconstructions provides further evidence favoring the cosmic ray influence on the terrestrial climate. [[I.G. Usoskin, S.K. Solanski, M. Schussler, K. Mursula, Solar activity, cosmic rays, and Earth’s temperature: A millennium-scale comparison, 1/10/05 http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2004ja010964.pdf%5D%5D", "title": "The sun drives the global climate", "pid": "8ff43ff3-2019-04-19T12:45:46Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 215.62734985351562}, {"text": "Yes, but I wouldn't say that are the only cause, there are other causes. With there being so many of us humans using cars and other things we create a big percentage of global warming. The other things id say create global warming... volcanoes, constantly releasing heat into the air. Also if you look at the earths history, its been through a hellish world covered of lava, to an ice age, I'm guessing the next phase will be coming up soon (in respect of the earths total span). But as I said I wouldn't say we are only but a contributor to the issue of Global Warming.", "title": "are humans the cause of global warming? (pro=yes con=no)", "pid": "10d1d2f8-2019-04-18T12:21:35Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.6209259033203}, {"text": "Climate changing is one of the most important issues on the last decades. The results of climate changing appears around the world. For example, earthquakes and tsunamis in Japan, lack of water in Africa, and anomalous warming on the Earth. What does cause all these changes? It seems to me that human beings influences to climate and I am going to prove it. At first, burning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural gas, to generate energy has the greatest impact on the atmosphere. How much harmful things are on the atmosphere because of factories, vehicles and burning trash. All these things gather and hinder rain, snow and even sun. It changes climate. (1) Second, deforestation is one of the biggest harm that people do to the nature. Forests help protect the planet by absorbing massive amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most abundant type of pollution that causes climate change. However, people cut trees, too. So, it causes climate changing. What do human beings think about? (2) Those are main problems that are lead to climate changing and that are caused by people. To conclude, it means humans influence climate changing. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://worldwildlife.org...", "title": "Humans cause climate changing", "pid": "fb47c4dc-2019-04-18T18:05:44Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.61253356933594}, {"text": "I affirm and thank 101 for this debate. == My case ==C1) Existence of a scientific consensus on climate changeThe scientific opinion on climate change is clear that mankind is probably the main cause of global warming. In fact, a survey has concluded that there are no scientifically relevant studies that provide a direct rebuttal to the idea that mankind is the main cause of global warming. [1] The IPCC, the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all agree that the evidence for human-caused global warming dominating climate change is overwhelming and clear. [1] \"That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.\" [2] A study by Doran (2009) found that 82% of climate scientists with a master degree or Ph.D agreed that mankind is the main cause of global warming. [3] NASA agrees, and notes that \"most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position . . . Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.\" [4] A report written by 28 scientists representing 13 governmental agencies has stated, \"The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases.\" [5] C2) Human-induced increases in carbon dioxideAll scientists agree that carbon dioxide traps heat. That carbon dioxide traps heat is basic physics. Excess carbon dioxide traps heat. Harries, et al. (2001) finds \"direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect\" at the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide and methane trap heat. [6] The debate on carbon dioxide comes down to \"climate sensitivity,\" defined as the increase in global land-sea mean temperature per doubling of carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. All serious skeptical scientists and supporters of global warming agree that -- in a default state -- the climate sensitivity is likely 1.1 degrees Celsius. [7] The argument is about feedbacks. What are feedbacks? Feedbacks are mechanisms -- such as clouds and volcanic activity -- that amplify or dampen the effect that carbon dioxide has on temperature. The mechanisms that amplify the effect are called positive feedbacks, while those that dampen it are called negative feedbacks. [8] I argue that positive feedbacks dominate climate. Many studies agree. \"Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value.\" [9] This is demonstrated in the below graph: In simpler explanation, a feedback amplifies the effect of a forcing -- in this case, carbon dioxide. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, which is the \"dominant\" method in the literature, one can conclude that the average climate sensitivity is four degrees Celsius. [9] It is empirically demonstrable that climate sensitivity is at least three degrees Celsius. CO2 concentrations have increased from around 275 ppm to 400 ppm -- a 40% increase. This should manifest itself with a temperature increase of a little less than 1.5 degrees C. And temperature levels have increased precisely to this amount. [10] Below is a graph that showcases how much sensitivity different studies have found. [13] The following picture demonstrates the evidence that shows a climate sensitivity of around 3 degrees Celsius. It is well-known that CO2 levels are increasing. The below graph shows a direct rise in CO2 levels. [11] Much of CO2 increase is human-induced. \"In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million.\" [12] C3) Paleoclimatology suggests that mankind causes global warmingMultiple paleoclimate records suggest that CO2 has a direct effect on climate change. According to many studies, after the beginning of the Cenozoic Era 65.5 million years ago, carbon dioxide has been the dominant climate forcing. [14] The sun increased slightly over that time period, whereas temperatures cooled. CO2, however, fell steadily through that time period. An ideal example of this is the Vostok ice cores. \"There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.\" [15] The below graph documents the correlation between increase in CO2 concentration and rise in temperature over 700,000 years. In fact, 2014 was the warmest year since 1400, suggesting that increased human activity drives climate change. Therefore, I conclude that human emissions increase temperatures, and, thus, mankind is the main cause of global warming. == Sources ==[1]: http://www.sciencemag.org...[2]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...[3]: http://tigger.uic.edu...[4]: http://climate.nasa.gov...[5]: http://downloads.globalchange.gov...[6]: http://skepticalscience.net...[7]: https://mises.org...[8]: Roy Spencer, \"The Great Global Warming Blunder,\" p. 54[9]: http://www.giss.nasa.gov...[10]: https://www2.ucar.edu...[11]: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...[12]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...[13]: http://www.skepticalscience.com...[14]: http://www.columbia.edu...[15]: http://cdiac.ornl.gov...", "title": "September Beginners Tournament: Man and Global Warming", "pid": "cf5179a4-2019-04-18T14:23:26Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.6000213623047}, {"text": "First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for joining this debate and wish them best of luck to them now to clarify a few definitions: (merriam-webster) human- of, relating to, or characteristic of humans activities- the quality or state of being active (in this case, pollution and burning of fossil fuels) main- primary cause- a reason for an action or condition global warming- an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution 1.) the earth is heating up because of the dawning ice age a.) About 10,000 years ago, the last Ice Age had come to an end with carbon dioxide levels at an all time low. As the temperature had some drastic changes, rising from about negative 8 degress celcius to about one degree celcius, the carbon dioxide levels continued on its downward slope before slowly rising until recent years when it sky-rocketed. Also, during the last era of warming about 115,000 years ago, the temperature had risen well above what we are experiencing now, yet the carbon dioxide levels were well below the average level ever recorded. Over the past century, the temperature has risen less than half of a degree even though the carbon dioxide levels are nearly twice the highest amount that have been recorded. b.) \"Within the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. The current warming began about 1850 and will possibly continue for another 500 years. Their findings are drawn from physical evidence of past climate cycles that have been documented by researchers around the world.\" (Warming Caused by Natural Cycle, Not Humans.) This is the side of global warming according to Avery and Singer, two scientists studying climate change. Their research was compiled from years of research on tree rings, ice cores, prehistoric villages, fossils, titanium profiles and numerous other sources. 2.) burning fossil fuels only accounts for a small percent of greenhouse gases a.) The burning of fossil fuels by humans is most often the culprit of global warming but in Avery and Singers research they go on to say that the burning of fossil fuels has little effect on global warming and does not speed up the process. In fact, studies show that humans burning fossil fuels actually account for aprox. 18% of greenhouse gases. Other sources are main contributors. These sources are volcanoes, trees, and even cosmic rays from space can greatly increase greenhouse gases. b.) New research involving ice core results allow us to distinguish which came first, temperature change or change in CO2 levels. Scientists from an organization called icecap concluded that temperature change actually preceded change in CO2 levels by over 800 years. So in fact, temperature change actually causes CO2 levels to rise and NOT HUMANS.", "title": "Human activities are the main cause global warming.", "pid": "66212ba4-2019-04-18T19:44:16Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.59498596191406}, {"text": "pass", "title": "Global Warming is Chiefly caused by Natural Phenomenon and NOT Humans", "pid": "9416a94c-2019-04-18T19:03:34Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.58824157714844}, {"text": "As Con, I will argue that mankind is indeed providing the main cause of global warming. I eagerly await my opponent's argument.", "title": "Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming", "pid": "66bd9128-2019-04-18T17:28:46Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.55325317382812}, {"text": "I am devils advocating. Opinion(devils advocate): global warming is driven by certain factors, and currently those factors are human related ones.", "title": "Global warming a \"Human cause?\"", "pid": "2c7b65bb-2019-04-18T18:16:44Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.54351806640625}, {"text": "I will be arguing that global warming is not significantly impacted by human activity, and my opponent will be arguing that humans are the cause/have a big effect on global warming. Please begin your argument.", "title": "Global Warming is not significantly affected by human activity", "pid": "723ea482-2019-04-18T15:56:13Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.52880859375}, {"text": "StructureR1 - Acceptance onlyR2 - Each side presents their claimR3 - RebuttalsR4 - Closing StatementsRules1. ) Use Reliable sources2. ) List sources at the end of the text3. ) No trolling4. ) No forfeiting5. ) No \"K's\"6. )", "title": "Global Warming is primarily caused by humans", "pid": "183436dd-2019-04-18T12:34:27Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.5269775390625}, {"text": "NASA states that, changes in the brightness of the Sun can influence the climate from decade to decade, but an increase in solar output falls short as an explanation for recent warming. (1) My argument: (1) Volcanoes release very small amounts of carbon dioxide compared to human emissions. (2) Not only have humans admitted carbon dioxide, but other greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons, which are thickening the atmosphere. Thus causing heat to stay trapped close to the Earth's surface. Sites: (1) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... (2) http://www.globalchange.gov...", "title": "Global Warming is caused by humans", "pid": "f16410ab-2019-04-18T18:01:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.520263671875}, {"text": "I do agree with you that we are partially responsible for global warming. we are accelerating it, yet not CAUSING it. Why did you challenge me to this debate? i really don't even understand you're arguement. :[ sorry!", "title": "HUMANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING", "pid": "61d6604e-2019-04-18T19:59:31Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.5149688720703}, {"text": "I'm arguing that global climate change is not impacted by humans. My reasons for believing this are as follows: 1. Earth's climate has often warmed and cooled, and the recent rise in global temperature is within the borders of the natural temperature variations that have been recorded within the past 3,000 years. A study from 2013 claimed that the rising global temperatures that have been observed in the 20th century are similar to those observed around the 11th century. 2. Changes in global temperature are generally due to variations in the sun's heat, not by human activity. The majority of the observed climate changes between the 20th and 21st centuries has corresponded with multiple solar cycles. In 2012 it was discovered that there was a strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic, not by human activity.3. The receding glaciers are not a result of human activity, but rather have been growing and receding for thousands of years due to natural causes. A 2014 study of over 2,000 glaciers in the Himalayas proved that 86.6% of the glaciers were not receding. Another study claimed that receding glaciers in Antarctica were due to \"atmospheric circulation changes\" that caused West Antarctica to warm rapidly. 4. CO2 is not the cause. In 2003, a study showed that over the past four climactic cycles (which have occurred during the past 240,000 years) warming has not followed, but rather preceded, a rise of CO2.Of the CO2 that humans have produced between 2002-2011, about 50% has been re-absorbed by earth's \"carbon sinks.\"Within the past 16 years there has been an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2, and still the earth has not warmed significantly. http://climatechange.procon.org...", "title": "Global Warming is likely impacted by humans.", "pid": "7852a724-2019-04-18T14:16:39Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.5137176513672}, {"text": "My opponent as PRO has the BOP, this shall not be negotiated. Definitions: CO2 emissions: \"emissions of CO2 from burning oil, coal and gas for energy use. Carbon dioxide also enters the Atmosphere from burning wood and waste materials and from some industrial processes such as cement production. Emissions of CO2 from these sources are a relatively small part of global emissions and are not included in these statistics.\"[1] In other words, it is a naturally occurring gas that supposedly causes the majority of global warming. ==> What we argue <== PRO (my opponent) argues these CO2 emissions cause global warming (which we assume exists). CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions. In this debate I must provide a time frame. The little ice age - present. 1st round acceptance by PRO. No abusive arguments please. [1] http://www.wikiprogress.org...", "title": "Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions", "pid": "422c0992-2019-04-18T18:12:13Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.50088500976562}, {"text": "\"Certainly not in comparison to the amounts of CO2 that is created naturally on this planet.\" Well, the major natural emissions of CO2 come from volcanoes. Volcanoes are estimated to be releasing 200 million tons of C02 annually. Now, compare that to the estimated 26.8 BILLION TONS released by humans annually. That is about 130 times greater than the amount emitted by volcanoes. (http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov...- the US Geological Survey.) Since the start of the industrial revolution, there has been a climb in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere of about 280 ppm to 364 ppm. This clearly is larger than what is created naturally. \"For example, if we could prove that humans and human activity give of 2% of the world's CO2, then we would have some information to act (or not act depending on whether one considers that a significant amount).\" Well, as I have just shown that humans are the greatest contributers to CO2 output, now we have some information to act on. 27 billion tons annually is definitely a significant amount. \"So far no one has been able to prove to what degree we contribute to global warming. \" To what degree? How far does it need to go before it is considered a \"degree\"? 400,000 miles of the Arctic ice sea have melted, roughly the size of Texas. If we continue current projections, by 2030, there will be no glaciers left in glacier national park. Hurricanes and tropical storms have increased estimated 75% increase in category 4 and 5 hurricanes since 1970 according to a study done by MIT. ( http://www.nature.com... ) \"Well, since it can be proved that earth has gone through many large temperature swings, and long before humans were around, there would be a very strong case for \"natural\" global warming (and cooling).\" Well, it would be a strong case for \"natural\" global warming....except for the fact that no natural causes have been found, and humans are emitting enough CO2 into the air to cause a definite and serious heating effect.", "title": "Scientists have no proof that humans are responsible for a significant amount of global warming.", "pid": "ddbc0081-2019-04-18T19:42:12Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.474853515625}, {"text": "Thank you for reading.", "title": "Global Warming is likely impacted by humans.", "pid": "7852a724-2019-04-18T14:16:39Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.45611572265625}, {"text": "First of all I would like to apologise for themy forfeiture, as my internet connection was not available for a few days. I hope that voters disregard the forfeit. My opening statements. 1) Humanity IS the main cause of global warming.The IPCC Report of 2015 states: Its extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 wascaused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period . Anthro-pogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century over every continental region except Antarctica.. Anthropogenic influences have likely affected the global water cycle since 1960 and contributed to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s and to the increased surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet since 1993. Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea-ice loss since 1979 and have very likely made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0\"\"700 m) and to global mean sea level rise observed since the 1970s.\"One of the major contributions to global warming is caused by automobiles, a man made i.e. anthropogenic industry.Other include garbage disposal, factories, burning of leaves , bonfires etc. All of these are anthropogenic causes. 2) One could argue that global warming would take place with or without humanity , but that is not and would not have been the case. Global warming is not JUST the warming of the Earth , it is the EXCESSIVE warming of the Earth's atmosphere. 3) The following site also concludes that mankind is the main contributing factor of global warming. http://timeforchange.org... My Rebuttals 1) Con's source itself says that human activities have contributed substantially to climate change I.e. global warming. 2) I didn't know that global warming consisted of parts. Global warming, simply put is the heating up of the earth, which is mainly caused by greenhouse gases which are emitted by both anthropogenic and natural sources. But the amount is substantially more by man made sources. 3) Another reason given by Con's site is the sun's reflectivity , which can also be altered by human activities. 4) This debate is not whether this is the Little Ice Age or any other age. Its about mankind's impact on global warming. 5) Even if the role of Ice Age is as important as it is alleged, it cannot overtake the impact of civilization and development.", "title": "Humanity is the main cause of global warming.", "pid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.4390411376953}, {"text": "Humans do not cause CLIMATE CHANGE, cutting grass with non renewable resources does. Humans do not cause climate change, refusing to live closer to your choice of work does. Humans do not cause climate change, planes burning jet fuel as an alternative to slower flights does. Humans do not cause climate change, neglecting to grow trees in concrete jungles does. HUMANS are incapable of causing climate change, Its everything we preference that causes problems. like not growing food, flat ground, and damned house pets. I'mma smoke ur turkey. SO it's ur shot. Lay out ur case. you can argue with mine later.", "title": "Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!", "pid": "ad1940fe-2019-04-18T13:29:29Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.42413330078125}, {"text": "It's unfortunate that my opponent decided to write up his response to the contradiction in his data so rashly. Perhaps if he had taken a day to digest the argument he would have been able to come up with a better response.Since this is a long debate I'm going to use this round as a tldr to summarize the evidence, and give my opponent one last chance to attempt to refute the challenges he's chosen to ignore, or breeze past.EvidenceNot Human Caused1) 1970 has more ice than 1870My opponent seems to be unable to read his own graph, Figure 12. According to his own data, which he did not decide to toss out, the Sum total of Ice loss in 1970 was between -300 and -400, and in 1870 it's clearly more than -400. Because it's going with a communalative total this means there was an increase in Ice.Now I gave my opponent, and you the judges lots of leeway to reject the evidence completely. However, he has not, and misunderstands what I was talking about with the change in the number of sampled glaciers. When you add in a large amount of sample like in Figure 7 when the number of Weather Stations goes from about 500 to over a thousand the graph becomes exaggerated. According to Figure 17 that's exactly what happened with the glacier data around 1976 where the sampling nearly double.2) Weather Station data shows no correlation change with human activity in the 115 year range of this debate.This is simply a fact that can't actually be refuted. The truth is that when you do a comparative analysis for weather stations that use the complete set. In other words. they exist at the start, 1900, and exist at the end 2015 you get no noticeable correlation with an increase in temperature. My opponent was even nice enough to find a second source confirming this with a smaller more restrictive dataset.So, why would you want to include a bunch of weather stations from 1970 that have no records going back to 1900 when you want to know what changes in weather can be observed from 1900 to 2015?The answer is simple. Figure 10 shows 1970 as a low point in temperature, and, if Figure 12 is not discarded, is corroborated by the ice data. The several thousand stations added thought the 70's can only show an increase because they started at the bottom, and have no past beyond that, like the high of the 30's, to be compared to. It results in the increase being exaggerated, in much the same way Figure 12 has exaggerations.3) The Pan Evaporation Rate is by far the most important fassett of this debate.The fact that this rate stays relatively constant from 1980 to 2005 corroborates the conclusions drawn from Figure 10. The fact that it changes in late 2010 to strongly correlate to solar cycle 24 which NASA has predicted in 2008 would subject the Earth to an unusually large volume of Solar Storms because of an effect with our Electromagnetic field suggest some important things. Most importantly that is shows changes in the Earth's Energy footprint, and second that the changes that it shows has nothing to do with the actions of man. So if we blame the heat waves of 2012, and the record heat of 2014 on global warming the real culprit is solar storms made possible by a weird effect in our electromagnetic field, and a dual peak, 2012 and 2014, in solar cycles 24.Man Caused Evidence1) Sea LevelsOn the surface it may seem that sea levels support my opponent. However, this requires that he reject his own glacial data. After all if the Volume of Ice is high in 1970 than it was in 1870 where did this ice come from? Then without the dataset to recreate the graph we can't reliably show the CO2 and Sea Levels side by side to see how well or not well they correlate. In my view the bulge of CO2 from the 70's isn't visible the poor quality graph of the Sea Levels, and the source for that dataset has long since taken it down, or moved it. It's even possible that sea levels, and the Ice Data are both correct, but that would require believing something like our pumping of groundwater could have had an impact on the amount of available water, but that's not global warming if you accept that.2) Mixed Methodology Temperature GraphsA good portion of my argument involves a bit of education about how mixed methodologies can warp a graph. The easiest way to resolve this kind of an argument is to separate out the methodologies, and treat each of them separately. I've done this with the weather station data.Now his latest temperature graph does attempt at showing a correlation between CO2, and temperature. However, if we accept the Round 3 temperature graph there are a few problem. First I'm glad my opponent finally has a graph that shows a clear run up in temperature for the 30's unlike his others. However, this exposes that the correlation only exists for about 1960 to 2000 maybe 2015 since it's hard to tell on the edge of a graph if the trend is continuing, or not. In his graph the temperature is noticeably higher compared to the CO2 levels breaking the correlation for the 30's, 40's, and 50's. Then in the early 1900's it's noticeably lower breaking the correlation yet again. Finally in the 1880's it's noticeably higher than the CO2 would imply. If CO2 so definitively correlates for a brief period in the 20's and from 1960 to present why does it deviate so violently in the other periods? It could be that the CO2 measurements in that graph are an over smoothed representation of the truth, or it could be that the correlation never really was to begin with.3) VenusThis is actually a minor point, but I'm aware that some people will look at the example of Earth, Mars, and Venus, and think that it is somehow proof.Fact, even if we burned all the Coal, and Oil on the planet, and even if we were in the orbit of Venus we still wouldn't even approach the temperatures of Venus. The reason has to do with Atmospheric pressure and Ideal Gases. CO2 and O2 are close enough to Ideal Gases that they actually obey the Ideal Gas Laws.When we burn Coal we actually end up taking O2 out of the air, and put in CO2. Now we just need to apply Avogadro's Law.Avogadro's Law“equal volumes of all gases, at the same temperature and pressure, have the same number of molecules”This means that the atmospheric pressure will remain the same at 1 Bar for Earth, but Venus has 92 Bars of pressure, or 9200%. No amount of burning will cause us to add atmosphere. We can only convert it. Now volcanoes can inject CO2 without burning, and that's one of the few ways it can be approached. However, even with the same exact atmosphere we'd still be colder because when our electromagnetic field is working we don't get the additional heat that Venus does because it spins too slowly to have a field large enough to deflect them.This is why the Venus, and Mars analogy is false. It is a gross over simplification of the truth. It neglects that we don't add atmosphere, but rather convert it. It also ignores out electromagnetic field which is the main difference between Earth and Venus, and Mars.Thank you, and I await our final round.", "title": "Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.", "pid": "a80b0a3-2019-04-18T14:21:27Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.42189025878906}, {"text": "In this debate, I ask you to reject any past assumptions regarding global warming because this resolution may be affirmative favored in that the majority of society assumes that humans are already the cause of global warming. --------------------- I will first analyze the resolution, then reaffirm the negation side of this debate, and then refute the opponents' arguments. Now let's look at the resolution word for word \"The human effect on global warming is significant.\" I agree with the opponent on the definition of the human effect. The key word in this debate falls on the word significant. Princeton word net defines it as \"important in effect or meaning\". |-Burden-| The affirmation must prove that humans are the main cause of global warming to win this debate, while the negation (me) need only to prove that humans are not the main cause (less than 50% of the cause) to win this debate. |-Contention 1-| {The main cause of global warming is not humans but water vapor.} Now you may be confused at this point, thinking how exactly does water vapor contribute more to global warming? Well first off I need to relate to scientific analysis. The earth's rotation moves on an oscillating orbit meaning it does not move in the same elliptical shape each and every year. Therefore each year, the elliptical orbital path of the earth shifts little by little. Scientists argue that every thousands of years, the earth goes on an orbital path where the sun shines the most on the Earth. Yet the increased intensity of heat is still not the main cause of global warming. What happens is that the sun increases its intensity of light, thus increasing the evaporation rate of water particles. The increased evaporation rate causes the global warming by trapping heat on the Earth. S.M. Freidenreich created a chart detailing the main gases causing global warming. He found that water vapors (H20) were 95% of the problem. Furthermore, CO2 was 3.502% of the cause for global warming. The same study is backed by the EIA (Energy Information Agency). My opponent has conceded that human emissions relate to increases in the CO2 level, and by showing you that CO2 gas is only 3.502 % of the cause of global warming, the human effect on global warming is insignificant. |-Contention 2-| {I will add later in the debate} Now let's look at the opponent's contentions His first contention argues that CO2 levels have been increasing and that human emissions have been increasing; therefore humans must be the cause of global warming. I have 2 responses to this 1)I will cross apply my first contention, showing that CO2 gas is only 3.502% of the cause of global warming, to prove that even if humans are 100% of the cause of CO2, their effect on global warming is still less than 50% (refer to burden) therefore their first contention falls. 2)This is correlation NOT causation. I agree CO2 levels have been increasing. Human emissions also have been increasing, yet it does NOT mean one is causing the other. His second contention (part I) argues that because many scientists and scientific agencies agree that humans are the main cause of global warming then it must be true (by following the majority rules ideals of a democracy) I have 3 responses to this 1)Judging the issue on a democratic scale, or any biased scale at all, is unfair. By weighing the issue on a mindset that many people may not believe in is unfair to those who view the opposite. I could hypothetically say that I can look at the issue on a stance that I believe in an all powerful god, instead of a democracy, and say that God made global warming happen and not humans. Therefore in this debate, we cannot look to who agrees with what or how many people believe in it and instead look to warrants, facts and validation. 2)Scientists are not always right. The creation of string theory countered many past physics laws. Many believed the earth was flat, many believed in the 4 humors, many believed in Aristotle's' laws, which were later proven false. Thus consensus among a group of people does not mean a fact is true. The majority of the US is Christian, who believe in God; does that mean that God is actually real? Therefore we must again look to warrants, facts and validation. 3)Because most of society believes humans are the cause global warming, the scientists who reject this idea \"have been ridiculed and called stupid, mostly in the political arena. No one in the media or in politics is listening to any of the scientists who say it isn't so.\" (quote from a scientific article) Because scientists are actually discouraged from looking into the other side of the resolutional spectrum, the amount of people who actually state that humans are the cause of global warming, thus appeasing the majority of society, is bound to be more than the scientists who are discouraged to look at the other side of the debate (where humans are not the main cause). His second contention (part II) argues that Science magazine found that the majority of scientific articles say that humans are the cause of global warming. I have 2 responses to this 1)Scientists are not always right. The creation of string theory countered many past physics laws. Many believed the earth was flat, many believed in the 4 humors, many believed in Aristotle's' laws, which were later proven false. Thus consensus among a group of people does not mean a fact is true. The majority of the US is Christian, who believe in God; does that mean that God is real? Therefore we must again look to warrants, facts and validation. (repost) 2)Many of these articles and papers, found by the Science magazine, assert that humans are the main cause of the sudden increase in CO2 levels, and therefore causing global warming. I could similarly link turn this because global warming is only 3% caused by CO2. Therefore I agree with the many articles found that humans are increasing CO2 levels yet, because CO2 does not significantly cause global warming, humans are not the main cause of the epidemic. Now in summing up, the opponent does not give any warrants, facts or important evidence. What the opponent has brought you is assumption, in regards to his first contention, and bias in thinking that because many people believe global warming is caused by humans then it must be true. No where does he give how much of an effect humans have on global warming, nor show why humans are the main cause. What the negation (me) has brought you is cold hard facts showing that global warming is not mainly caused by humans (thus appeasing the burden) and warrants for all my points. Therefore because I have followed the burden, and refuted all the opponents' points, you should vote for the negation in this debate.", "title": "The human effect on global warming is significant.", "pid": "fb709d6b-2019-04-18T19:23:36Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.42129516601562}, {"text": "Lets keep this professional.", "title": "That Humans Are Causing Climate Change", "pid": "e505d905-2019-04-18T16:03:11Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.41920471191406}, {"text": "It was unknown that emitting greenhouse gases caused climate change until the 1980s – over a century after the industrial revolution. Developing nations were not initially aware of the damage they were causing, therefore the harm was unintentional. It is unfair to retrospectively punish these nations for something that was unknown to be harmful when it was done. The responsibility should therefore be based upon either current emissions or at most emissions from the period in which the damage caused was known and emissions could have been reduced.", "title": "The developed world is mostly to blame for climate change", "pid": "a05d84f6-2019-04-15T20:24:47Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 215.41751098632812}, {"text": "You have a good argument, and it is truly disgusting what humans are doing to this Earth, BUT they are not the cause of global warming, as I will argue. My opponent spends most of his argument explaining the process of global warming, which I find unnecessary, but at least now all the voters know exactly what's going on. Now, my opponent mentions the greenhouse gases (CO2 in this case) and that with humans, their concentration increases, therefore causing global warming. While humans do, in fact, increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (as my opponent proved), this does not significantly impact the process of global warming. http://upload.wikimedia.org... (I request that the voters take a look at this as well) These graphs clearly show that even hundreds of thousands of years ago, when humans were not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperatures regularly cycled. They peaked about every 100,000 years before dropping back to a minimum. This correlation shows that even without the effect of humans, global warming is a natural process that occurs about every 100,000 years before subsiding once again. It is evident that humans do not significantly affect the process of global warming and it is only a big deal right now because we are reaching a peak (as shown on the graphs). I await my opponent's response.", "title": "Global Warming is not significantly affected by human activity", "pid": "723ea482-2019-04-18T15:56:13Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.4165802001953}, {"text": "\"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.\" (http://www.canadafreepress.com...) I agree with this speaker's theory. The only reasons that are credible for the current rise in Earth's CO2 Levels are that global warming and the ice ages are natural phases of the Earth. Humans are not causing it. They didn't a long time ago and they aren't now.", "title": "The environmental impact of industrialization is the primary cause of earth's current warming trend.", "pid": "d23f3b88-2019-04-18T19:58:38Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.4127197265625}, {"text": "Thanks for letting me debate you on this. My opponent doesn't believe we humans have caused global warming. I believe we did. Here, you can see it's very likely that humans caused it. Experts said it. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... \"99 percent\" is what it is, ladies and gentleman. Human activity, such as fossil fuel emissions from not-so-eco-friendly humans, agriculture, and other human-stuff has cornered our climate into the \"heat zone.\" Our atmosphere can withstand only so much smog and exhaust from automobiles, airplanes, and boats. Smoking of cigarettes can also make a small contribution. Here are some of the biggest contributors. Source: http://www.ecobridge.org... - Carbon Dioxide from Power Plants - Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Cars - Carbon Dioxide from Airplanes - Carbon Dioxide from Buildings - Methane - Nitrous oxide - Deforestation As you can see, these projects were introduced to the Earth by man.", "title": "Global warming is not solely humans fault.", "pid": "71f54413-2019-04-18T19:36:05Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.39712524414062}, {"text": "I want to start off by mentioning that this my first debate with another person and this is a very controversial topic and I hope we can both be informative to each other To start I wanted to address your source, in the source one of the first points it makes is that humans are the main cause of global warming, however there actually is a good deal of evidence that humans aren't the main cause, the earth has natural heating and cooling periods and around 1945 people were actually worried about the cooling effect (1) And this isn't without any evidence there is a petition signed by thousands of scientists (2). the general public and many environmentalists believe that since there are charts and graphs it must be true but humans also once wholeheartedly believed the world was flat. It is widely believed and accepted that global warming is causing the ice caps to melt and this will cause \"great floods\" and whatnot but anyone who knows anything about displacement can obviously tell that's outrageous. Around 400 million years ago during the Ordovician period greenhouse gases were at levels 16 times more than they are at now and the earth was wildly populated with flora and fauna still capable of life.(3) This was brought about by volcanic emissions this can be read about in source 3. SO really the recent rise in carbon emissions inst actually that devastating at all. Also al gores prediction of the melting ice caps due to the carbon emissions is false, according to this (4) in fact it has grown up to 50% larger. the Northern ice cap actually gained area roughly equal to the size of Alaska since 2012. Its silly to say that humans don't make an impact on the environment, and I wont say that because we do have an impact but the earth itself has had much bigger changes in temperature before. to claim that humans are destroying the planet is crazy at most humans will raise the temperature by a couple degrees Celsius. My closing thoughts are that I don't believe global warming is a serious issue the earth has had to deal with much more influential things than humans and ultimately adapts and changes because of it. The U.S. government has spent billions of dollars to fund global warming efforts (5) and this money could be used to fix actual problems that we have identified instead of funding research nearly as heavily as we are. (1)http://www.batteredmen.com... (2) http://www.petitionproject.org... (3)https://en.wikipedia.org... (4)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (5) http://www.gao.gov...", "title": "Climate change is both real and a serious issue", "pid": "67064b1f-2019-04-18T12:27:23Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.38682556152344}, {"text": "What is a greenhouse gas? Wikipedia says: A greenhouse gas is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. [1] 1. CO2 is increasing. The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 395 ppm (parts per million) as of June 2012 and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000\"2009. This current concentration is substantially higher than the 280 ppm concentration present before industrial times, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources. [2] The burning of fossil fuels has caused CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise from 280 ppm to 397 ppm. [1] 2. Methane is increasing, too. In 2010, methane levels in the Arctic was at 1850 nmol/mol, which is over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years before the industrial revolution. The Earth's atmospheric methane concentration has increased by about 150% since 1750, and it accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases (Excluding water vapour). [3] 3. Did the temperature rise? Statics say yes. The graph at [4] shows that it has risen by roughly 0.6 Degrees C. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://data.giss.nasa.gov...", "title": "Humans are the main cause of global warming", "pid": "1f15702f-2019-04-18T18:02:44Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.36703491210938}, {"text": "Even though my opponent forfeited her last round (for obvious reasons), I will reiterate my rebuttals to her opening statement and premise of this argument: \"global climate change is human caused\" -I presented scientific arguments from liberal as well as conservative sources disproving this premise. My opponent (who, as Pro, has the burden of proof) never presented one argument in favor of this premise. My opponent contradicted this statement with the following \"Climate change may result from: • Natural factors...\" \"Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature\" -Again, I presented scientific arguments contrary to this statement, even though my opponent never presented any scientific arguments in favor of this statement. I suggested it was impossible for humans to \"cause\" global climate change, which occurs and has occured without the presence of humans on this planet (according to scientific evidence from both liberal and conservative sources). \"which if not stopped will result in global warming.\" -I presented arguments denouncing this statement. Global warming cannot be, and should not be stopped. If the Earth did not have a natural mechanism to warm it's climate, life on Earth would be impossible. My opponent conceded this with the statement \"Yes it is true that Global Warming cannot be stopped.\" presented in Round 2. Not only did my opponent not present any scientific arguments in favor of her premise, she contradicted statements she intended to support her premise.", "title": "global climate change is human caused", "pid": "a5cb0429-2019-04-18T19:47:04Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.36534118652344}, {"text": "Obviously a counter-study to global warming would be predominantly funded by thoe who the myth of global warming woudl affect most. Billionaires want to stay rich, not lose customers due to a myth. That is jsut a stupid argument and irrelevant to your debate. I have nothing more to say because you raised no valid point regarding evidence supporting global warming nor why it deserves to be a major concern when deciding American policy. You merely discussed climate change itself. Not at all explaining why it's due to humans. Thus you have not achieved your BOP and I win.", "title": "Global warming is human caused and deserves to be a major concern when deciding American policy.", "pid": "2ccb168c-2019-04-18T18:10:28Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.3616943359375}, {"text": "For the record- I believe in Global Warming (not all theories, but the basic premise of most). What I don't believe in is feeding the conservative view of global warming with lackluster arguments in favor like \"humans are causing the rise in global temperatures\" which can be easily debated against. I will debate against my opponents simple statements with simple statements of my own, as well as a rebuttal. \"Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature\" -This is impossible. Yes, humans give off heat, but unless you can prove that our collective body temperatures are somehow raising global temperatures, then this statement cannot be true. \" Humans are causing the rise in clobal temperature, which if not stopped will result in global warming.\" -The natural cycle of global warming cannot be stopped. For thousands of years the Earth has had a warming period in which the ice caps melt, the sea levels rise, and weather patterns are drastically affected which in result cause global cooling- the Earth's natural protection mechanism which brings about periodic ice ages. Because of the dynamic between our atmospherical makeup, our proximity to the sun, and other factors like the moon's effect on tides- global warming cannot be stopped.", "title": "global climate change is human caused", "pid": "a5cb0429-2019-04-18T19:47:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.35791015625}, {"text": "The resolution is that humans have caused the modern climate change. However, most of my opponent's arguments either deals with the existence of global warming itself, or rules out (rather invalidly) other alternatives. He does very little to actually satisfy his burden of proof that humans are causing global warming. My arguments will be predicated on one simple assumption \" that the vast majority of the claimed human impact is the result of greenhouse gas emissions. Humans Have Not Caused the Modern Global Warming There are many indicators that point to CO2 emissions not being the cause of the modern global warming. First, CO2 is actually a lagging indicator compared to temperature. As it turns out, temperature may be what's causing CO2 levels to rise. \"The most recent study on this concluded that the results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that \"the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years. \" There is also shorter correlations, but again, temperature seems to cause CO2 rise instead of the reverse. [1] This graph shows just one of the lags: [1] Second, according to the greenhouse effect, global warming should be starting from the lower atmosphere and moving to the surface (because the CO2 collects in the upper troposphere first). However, this is not happening. \". .. satellite and high-altitude balloon data confirm that the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat due to higher CO2 concentrations. It is hard to know how fast the Earth's highly variable surface is warming, but it is warming faster than the lower atmosphere where the CO2 is accumulating. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary climate factor. \"[2] Here is a graph showing how the surface has warmed more than the troposphere: [1] (Blue line is lower troposphere temperature) Third, global warming is not starting at the poles like it should be, by the greenhouse theory. In fact, there has been general, relative cooling: \"If the greenhouse theory were valid, temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic would have risen several degrees Celsius since 1940 due to the huge emissions of man-made CO2. .. Recently, a team led by the University of Chicago's Peter Doran published a paper in Nature saying, 'Although previous reports suggest recent continental warming, our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000'. The data from 21 Antarctic surface stations show an average continental decline of 0.008 degrees C from 1978 to 1998, and the infrared data from satellites operating since 1979 show a decline of 0.42 degrees C per decade. David W. J. Thompson of Colorado State University and Susan Soloman of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration also report a cooling trend in the Antarctic interior. . .. report that satellite imaging shows increases in Southern Ocean sea ice parameters from 1978 to 1996 and an increase in the length of the sea-ice season in the 1990s. \"[2] To illustrate, here is a picture of the southern hemisphere sea ice anomaly, which shows that southern sea ice is actually increasing: [3] Fourth, current levels of CO2 have very little effect on temperature. The greenhouse effect certainly exists, but it doesn't become linearly stronger with increasing amounts of CO2. CO2's effect on temperature is logarithmic, meaning that each additional increase has a smaller effect on the climate than the last. \"The carbon that is already up in the atmosphere absorbs most of the light it can. CO2 only soaks up its favorite wavelengths of light and it's close to its saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more light from wavelengths that are close to its favorite bands but it can't do much more, because there are not many left-over photons at the right wavelengths. \"[1][4] This chart shows approximately the effect that each additional increment of CO2 increase has on temperature: [4] Note how the pre-industrial to modern level increase has had less than a 0.2 C increase in temperature. Fifth and most importantly, the predicted \"hot-spot\" 10 miles above the tropics that would be a signature of CO2-induced global warming is absent. \"The computer models show that greenhouse warming will cause a hot-spot at an altitude between 8 and 12 km over the tropics between 30 N and 30 S. The temperature at this hot-spot is projected to increase at a rate of two to three times faster than at the surface. However, the Hadley Centre's real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that atmosphere warming theory programmed into climate models are wrong. \"[1] Here is the plot of predicted temperature changes due to CO2: However, here is the actual observed temperature changes: [1] The hot spot is completely missing, which is pretty much a knockout blow to the anthropogenic global warming theory. Even so, CO2 has not correlated well with the climate anyway. Throughout the past 600 million years, almost one-seventh of the age of the Earth, the mode of global surface temperatures was ~22C, even when carbon dioxide concentration peaked at 7000 ppmv, almost 20 times today's near-record-low concentration. Here is a graph showing CO2 concentrations versus temperature over the past 600 million years: [1] Note especially how high CO2 concentrations were earlier in Earth's history, reaching as high as 7000 ppmv. It was around 4500 ppmv during the very cold Ordovician era. Considering My Opponent's Arguments I was going to wait until the next round to consider his arguments, but after reading them, I thought I would discredit the majority of pro's arguments, as they aren't even worth arguing against. Arguments 1-3 are irrelevant - they don't show how human-emitted greenhouse gases have caused global warming. Argument 4 eliminates (rather invalidly) that the sun is not causing global warming \" that still doesn't show that humans are causing global warming. Arguments 5 and 6 are relevant and I will consider them. Arguments 7 and 9-12 just show evidence for global warming \" not anthropogenic global warming. Arguments 8, 13, and 14 will be considered. So essentially, only arguments 5, 6, 8, 13, and 14 are relevant to the resolution that pro made. All the rest either only prove global warming itself or demonstrate that humans have caused the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, and so have no bearing on a debate considering anthropogenic global warming. I will consider those relevant arguments and those arguments only in the next round, along with any objections pro has to my own arguments. Sources [1]: . http://www.friendsofscience.org... [2]: Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years [3]: . http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu... [4]: . http://joannenova.com.au...", "title": "That Humans Are Causing Climate Change", "pid": "e505d905-2019-04-18T16:03:11Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.35525512695312}, {"text": "I agree that carbon emissions have been rising before modern technology, but humans are the cause of it rising at such a rate as it is now. At this moment the best us (humans) can do to limit global warming we would still be at a two degree world temperature rise. This doesn't sound like much, but this large of a change can cause reefs to die (as they are already) and the ocean (water level) to rise and \"swallow\" coastal cities such as Florida, New York City, and parts of New Jersey. And this isn't just because of the CO2 emissions, but due to methane produced by beef cows that are used in so many foods, hamburgers, steaks, roast beef, etc.", "title": "Humans are responsible for global warming", "pid": "74fc08ec-2019-04-18T12:32:40Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.34573364257812}, {"text": "Pro claims that greenhouse gases are unrelated to global warming. a comparison of co2 concentration and earths temperature clearly refute this point. If you look on the graph provided on source 1. you will see an obvious connection between CO2 and earths temperature. Pro cites the 1940-1970 period of cooling to disprove CO2s effect. This conclusion clearly contradicts our long term date. It seems much more likely that this cooling was caused by a factor unrelated to greenhouse gases and human activity, such as the 1940 eruption of Mauna Loa (2) which released volcanic ash into the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and creating a cooling effect. looking closely at the graph in source 1 you see that by the natural cycle earth should be cooling. Using excel i graphed earths relatively recent temperature and found that we probably should be cooling by the natural cycle. 1) http://blogs.edf.org... 2) http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org...", "title": "Global Warming is Chiefly caused by Natural Phenomenon and NOT Humans", "pid": "9416a94c-2019-04-18T19:03:34Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.33526611328125}, {"text": "I accept and look forward to the debate", "title": "Humanity is the main cause of global warming.", "pid": "c09112b2-2019-04-18T14:00:47Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.325439453125}, {"text": "One of the major mistakes I see in your opening argument is the blaming of the 2003 killer heat wave on global warming. Quite the contrary the heat wave was caused by an atmospheric circulation anomaly within the jet stream. Another is the assumption that co2 is the main cause of global warming and the greenhouse gas effect. In reality however it is water vapor that contributes more to the greenhouse gasses. The world has always had periods of global cooling or global warming. Two of the most famous would be the great ice age or the medieval warming periods. Now I don't believe that they had coal plants next to castles so how would we explain that. Plus the medieval warming was actually just as hot if not more warm than now. Deforestation is a major problem but I believe that global warming is highly overestimated. And I do have one question for unrelated purposes. Did you watch Al gores Movie about global warming?", "title": "Global Warming: Climate Change", "pid": "be8a8dc9-2019-04-18T15:18:34Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.32150268554688}, {"text": "Extend", "title": "Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming", "pid": "70f488e3-2019-04-18T14:43:55Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.29647827148438}, {"text": "I accept but just because you think my source is bias doesn't mean it is or that your isn't.", "title": "Global warming is human caused and deserves to be a major concern when deciding American policy.", "pid": "2ccb168c-2019-04-18T18:10:28Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.26675415039062}, {"text": "This shows that evidence that humans are not the main cause of global warming. You are telling me that humans produces CO2 can move Gulf Stream. Can human drilling with machines move the seven continents on earth or even the fault lines that are in earth surfaces?The above is as wrong as: \"anti-warmists say that humans use CO2 to make patties\"I drilling move contenent! This debate is not about geography. CO2 does not move continents, plus I never told you that. This is a strawman fallacy, which is misrepresenting your opponent's case.A.The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts. [2] There are going to make numbers up so people working for the EPA now will be rich in 5 years when those policy come into effect. It\"s the same idea that President Bush and Big Oil companies got accused during 2000 thru 2008. It\"s all about money.This is an irrelevent argument. Attacking someone's sources or the person making the claim insted of their arguments is called an Ad Hominem fallacy. [1] Plus, how does the organization working for conservation mean that the source is wrong? That is anther fallacy, called correlation is not causation. The company working for energy conservation has nothing to do with its validity, until you prove it otherwise.B.Estimated is A tentative evaluation or rough calculation, as of worth, quantity, or size.Just because it is a rough idea does not make it wrong.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Humans are the main cause of global warming", "pid": "1f15704e-2019-04-18T17:53:55Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.2648162841797}, {"text": "Even if humans are not actually the \"chief\" cause of global warming, there is little dispute that we play some role, due to our emissions of greenhouse gases, which contribute to the warming of the globe. As such, the Kyoto Protocol is an important tool in the fight against human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.", "title": "Even if humans play a smaller role in climate change, Kyoto is still good.", "pid": "b58ff37e-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00071-000", "bm25_score": 215.24217224121094}, {"text": "First, as Con have said, \"in the Mesozoic era the climate was much hotter and dryer\". It is true, but the important thing is that it was 248 million years ago. The climate had been changing slowly during millions of years, before the industry. While, after people invented factories, vehicles and different weapons, such as nuclear weapons, Atom Bomb, rockets and etc. the climate have been changing quickly and humans caused it. For example, when rockets launches, Atom Bomb and nuclear weapons are used, irreparable damage to the climate is caused immediately. Humans even change the weather as they wish. For example, China attacked to the bank of cloud to transform clear blue skies for the National Day parade. It happens in other countries, too. They try to change weather and get the desire result. But it has consequences, as on the next days there happened a storm. These examples, show that humans changed the weather, as they desire and damaged to the climate a lot. Second, it is true that \"humans are not the only things emitting greenhouse gases\", while humans cause the biggest amount of gases. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world claimed: \"The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.\" It proves that humans cause climate changing and they influences to it quickly than it can be naturally. To conclude, humans are the main creature that caused a big problems in climate changing and damage it during a short period of time. http://climate.nasa.gov... http://www.guardian.co.uk...", "title": "Humans cause climate changing", "pid": "fb47c4dc-2019-04-18T18:05:44Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.24209594726562}]}
{"idx": 21, "qid": "22", "q_text": "Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?", "qrels": {"fb3d70a0-2019-04-18T11:18:26Z-00003-000": 0, "9058833c-2019-04-18T15:42:19Z-00006-000": 0, "8f1b983d-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00051-000": 0, "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00007-000": 2, "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00013-000": 2, "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00005-000": 0, "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00011-000": 2, "fb3d70a0-2019-04-18T11:18:26Z-00000-000": 0, "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00009-000": 2, "f7127a7c-2019-04-17T11:47:21Z-00026-000": 0, "dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00002-000": 0, "df734c1e-2019-04-18T15:15:43Z-00003-000": 0, "df734c1e-2019-04-18T15:15:43Z-00004-000": 0, "dede76-2019-04-19T12:45:54Z-00026-000": 0, "d0093559-2019-04-18T13:41:37Z-00000-000": 1, "c63a5a63-2019-04-18T19:29:06Z-00005-000": 2, "c63a5a63-2019-04-18T19:29:06Z-00004-000": 2, "c63a5a63-2019-04-18T19:29:06Z-00002-000": 2, "c2445951-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00002-000": 0, "87faf04d-2019-04-15T20:22:36Z-00019-000": 0, "f1083ec0-2019-04-18T18:06:09Z-00005-000": 0, "87faf04d-2019-04-15T20:22:36Z-00004-000": 0, "59f2b4b4-2019-04-18T13:34:24Z-00002-000": 0, "71d8bac1-2019-04-18T17:26:47Z-00001-000": 2, "22ff0f07-2019-04-18T19:00:56Z-00000-000": 0, "2aec7682-2019-04-18T12:37:26Z-00000-000": 0, "2aec7682-2019-04-18T12:37:26Z-00002-000": 0, "2aec7682-2019-04-18T12:37:26Z-00004-000": 0, "2cc38a7d-2019-04-19T12:45:25Z-00013-000": 0, "36da2186-2019-04-18T14:57:30Z-00003-000": 2, "3aef71f-2019-04-18T18:02:16Z-00002-000": 2, "3b38021e-2019-04-18T11:38:27Z-00000-000": 0, "3c84a242-2019-04-17T11:47:36Z-00023-000": 0, "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00002-000": 0, "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00020-000": 0, "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00038-000": 0, "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00066-000": 2, "7d7662fb-2019-04-15T20:22:59Z-00007-000": 0, "a1304245-2019-04-18T11:32:09Z-00002-000": 0, "6d80da78-2019-04-18T16:47:39Z-00002-000": 2, "bcd391b6-2019-04-18T19:31:43Z-00003-000": 0, "43033871-2019-04-18T18:23:44Z-00003-000": 0, "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00029-000": 0, "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00053-000": 2, "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00009-000": 0, "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00044-000": 2}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has reached a critical stage. For more than two decades, the two-state solution has been the basis of international efforts to make peace in the region... A failure of the two-state solution will generate further instability in the region, strengthen rejectionist elements on both sides and likely mean that the conflict will drag on for generations... The Palestinian leadership remains committed to a peaceful, negotiated settlement to our conflict with Israel based on the two-state solution.", "title": "Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Con", "pid": "3b38021e-2019-04-18T11:38:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 226.39520263671875}, {"text": "http://articles.latimes.com... I ask the voters on this debate to consider this when voting on conduct.", "title": "Is a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine) an Acceptable Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Con", "pid": "3b38021e-2019-04-18T11:38:27Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 223.66102600097656}, {"text": "One state is more peaceful then a two state solution.", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00029-000", "bm25_score": 223.15841674804688}, {"text": "A two-state solution can offer sufficient territory for both Israelis and Palestinians. For Israel this would mean keeping the vast majority of areas inhabited by Israeli citizens within the state of Israel. The two-state solution would also, however, offer sufficient land to the Palestinians. While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance. The area of the West Bank and Gaza is nine times as large as Singapore's, yet the combined population of Palestinians in both regions is smaller than that of Singapore. Singapore enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world. The Palestinians are capable of achieving similar success, through instituting a modern economy based on science, technology and the benefits of peace.(1) Moreover, throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement.(6) Even the Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.(7) Therefore, the best way to satisfy both sides and achieve peace is to adopt a two-state solution, which is therefore the most just solution.", "title": "Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 222.92626953125}, {"text": "For years, the middle east has been up in arms regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a source of tension between the Muslim world and the west, and a source of tension between populations and their governments. And, as a source of tension between Muslims and the West, it has been considered a source of terrorism. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to relieving these various tensions. In so far as a two-state solution helps end the conflict and establish peace, it helps relieve tensions and restore stability in the broader middle east and in the global fight against terrorism.", "title": "Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability.", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00066-000", "bm25_score": 222.8797149658203}, {"text": "There are many indications that, despite the rhetoric, Israel will not accept a two-state solution. The most important factor is the growth of settlements, which would have to be removed under a two-state solution, which many believe would be met by violent resistance by Jewish settlers. Territorial vulnerabilities from a two-state solution, and the inability to control the borders of the Palestinian state are also problems that make Israel unlikely to accept a two-state solution.", "title": "Israel will simply not accept a two-state solution", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00057-000", "bm25_score": 222.76577758789062}, {"text": "A two-state solution offers the Palestinians a very small amount of territory in the West Bank and Gaza strip. This small amount of space is not going to work for such a large and rapidly growing population of Palestinians.", "title": "Two-state solution does not offer Palestinians enough space.", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00063-000", "bm25_score": 222.73741149902344}, {"text": "Shimon Peres. \"One Region, Two States\". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: \"The difficulties of a two-state solution are numerous, but it remains the only realistic and moral formula to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.\"", "title": "A two-state solution is the least bad option", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00037-000", "bm25_score": 222.6523895263672}, {"text": "Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 222.58206176757812}, {"text": "A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, will alienate Palestinians living in Israeli territory. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.", "title": "Two-state solution would alienate Palestinians in Israel.", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00051-000", "bm25_score": 222.56167602539062}, {"text": "Two-state solution offers adequate territory to Palestinians", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 222.52755737304688}, {"text": "Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop.", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 222.446044921875}, {"text": "Israelis/Palestinians can coexist peacefully in one state", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00031-000", "bm25_score": 222.43226623535156}, {"text": "A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish", "title": "in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 222.27334594726562}, {"text": "Israel will simply not accept a two-state solution", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 222.2462921142578}, {"text": "Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides", "title": "in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 222.17721557617188}, {"text": "Only a one-state solution can end the conflict", "title": "in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 222.15335083007812}, {"text": "A two-state solution is the least bad option", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00034-000", "bm25_score": 222.0916748046875}, {"text": "In the long-run UN action may freeze the negotiations into a discussion of a two-state solution, but UN action is not required to reach this eventuality. Even Avigdor Lieberman on the Far Right accepts that there will be two states, and that has been the basic premise of the Peace Process since 1994. On the issues which have actually prevented a two state solution from coming to fruition- disputes about borders, armaments, security, and settlements, the UN would accomplish nothing. Furthermore, it might well make both sides intransigent, the Israelis due to perceiving themselves as being backed into a corner internationally, the Palestinians due to the belief they no longer need to make concessions.", "title": "The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear", "pid": "3c5b3139-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 222.06398010253906}, {"text": "Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution", "title": "in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 222.04205322265625}, {"text": "A two-state solution will not assuage Iran.", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 222.01483154296875}, {"text": "Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that Iran would support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The success of a two-state solution, therefore, would, at a minimum, gain the support and possibly cooperation of the Iranians. This would be valuable diplomatically, particularly in resolving the larger conflict between Iran and the West.", "title": "Iranian support for a two-state solution is diplomatically valuable", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00064-000", "bm25_score": 222.0077362060547}, {"text": "A two-state solution is best for peace", "title": "in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 222.00711059570312}, {"text": "Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements.(8) It is also naïve to think that a two-state solution would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region.(9) To this end, Iran has an incentive to keep the Israeli-Palestinian conflict big and bloody so as to distract the West from its own regional agenda. Furthermore, an independent Palestinian state would probably be perceived as a security threat to some of its neighbours, particularly Jordan, and thus might actually prompt further tensions.(9)", "title": "Only a two-state solution can satisfy both sides", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 222.0023651123047}, {"text": "Two-state solution does not offer Palestinians enough space.", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 221.9537353515625}, {"text": "Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all", "title": "in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, a two-state solution is better justified than a one-state solution", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 221.93780517578125}, {"text": "A Palestinian state would be dysfunctional", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 221.88226318359375}, {"text": "Inclusive one-state solution adopts democratic principles", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00026-000", "bm25_score": 221.8819580078125}, {"text": "A two-state solution makes Israel too narrow, vulnerable.", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 221.87159729003906}, {"text": "Idea of Jewish state, in two-state solution, is undemocratic", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 221.85470581054688}, {"text": "Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00025-000", "bm25_score": 221.82101440429688}, {"text": "Palestinians are too divided to constitute a state.", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 221.78590393066406}, {"text": "General statements in favor of a one-state solution", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00030-000", "bm25_score": 221.75259399414062}, {"text": "Two-state solution offers peace, the most important factor", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 221.71484375}, {"text": "Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 221.71157836914062}, {"text": "Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability.", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 221.6956329345703}, {"text": "Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 221.62850952148438}, {"text": "One-state solution would end Israel as a Jewish state", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 221.62161254882812}, {"text": "Israeli settlements ought not justify denying Palestinians a state.", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 221.6164093017578}, {"text": "Two-state solution would alienate Palestinians in Israel.", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 221.6072235107422}, {"text": "Palestinians/Israelis cannot live in peace in one state", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00035-000", "bm25_score": 221.55587768554688}, {"text": "Mohammed Khaku. \"The Case for One-State Solution for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict\". Cross-Cultural Understanding. May 2008: \"The only solution for the Palestinians is the creation of a single state in Palestine-Israel. Since the Palestinian and Israeli populations are so intermingled and a million Palestinians live throughout Israel the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote.\"", "title": "Israelis/Palestinians are too intermingled for two state-solution", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00046-000", "bm25_score": 221.51443481445312}, {"text": "A two-state solution, and the establishment of a Jewish state, would kill the idea of the return of Palestinian refugees that were expelled from Israel during various wars and conflicts.", "title": "Two-state solution would prevent return of Palestinian refugees.", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00052-000", "bm25_score": 221.48153686523438}, {"text": "Two-state plan respects democratic will for separate states", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00028-000", "bm25_score": 221.34837341308594}, {"text": "A two-state conflict will not end conflict", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00032-000", "bm25_score": 221.26271057128906}, {"text": "General statements in support of a two-state solution", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00033-000", "bm25_score": 221.24154663085938}, {"text": "A two-state solution could succeed in partitioning the land and the two peoples by including the largest Israeli settlements within Israel, possibly by allowing for non-contiguous “islands” of Israeli territory around the larger settlements surrounded by the new Palestinian state.(13) In any case, a two-state solution can find practical solutions to these problems, while having the advantage of solving the inherent and insolvable problems of having two opposed nations and identities in perpetual conflict within a single state.", "title": "Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 221.1134490966797}, {"text": "Simply because past conflict has existed is no reason to believe that peace and understanding cannot be established through co-operation, shared institutions and interaction. This is exactly what a one-state solution would foster in the long term, but which a two-state solution prevents by separating the two communities. Even if they each have a state of their own, unless the Israelis and Palestinians learn to live in proximity to each other in co-operation, there will be no peace.", "title": "A two-state solution is best for peace", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 221.09762573242188}, {"text": "Iranian support for a two-state solution is diplomatically valuable", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 221.0560302734375}, {"text": "US special envoy George Mitchell: \"In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict.\"", "title": "General statements in support of a two-state solution", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00038-000", "bm25_score": 220.985595703125}, {"text": "I will argue that (1) a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli territorial dispute is a must if we are interested in arbitrating according to a common standard of justice. (1): it is hopeless to assign an exact magnitude of blame in which one side or the other receives a predominant burden of fault. (2): in absence of exact calibrations, a 50-50 model to dispute resolution is both most practical and fairest. (3): natalist combat (meaning the struggle to demographically erode away the other party is practical but immoral)", "title": "Do you think that a two state solution for Middle East is a must", "pid": "df3df8f2-2019-04-18T12:26:13Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 220.97610473632812}, {"text": "Shimon Peres. \"One Region, Two States\". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: \"Dissenters from the two-state solution contend -- not without some reason -- that Gaza and the West Bank are too small to absorb the Palestinian refugees. Yet this would also be the case under the one-state formula; it would result in a state that is merely 24,000 square kilometers and that already overflows with a population exceeding 10 million (5.5 million Jews and 4.5 million Arabs). While cynics might question the size of the West Bank and Gaza, optimists should look no further than Singapore for reassurance.\"", "title": "Two-state solution offers adequate territory to Palestinians", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00062-000", "bm25_score": 220.9269256591797}, {"text": "The Reut Institute described in a May 1, 2008 report, \"a trend towards the erosion of the principle of the Two-State Solution among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements.\"[3]", "title": "Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008.", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00071-000", "bm25_score": 220.92388916015625}, {"text": "\"The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more.\" -- Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000.", "title": "One state is more peaceful then a two state solution.", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00042-000", "bm25_score": 220.92001342773438}, {"text": "The recognition of a Palestinian state by the UN would have de facto effect of freezing out alternative plans for a settlement – i.e. a one state solution, or some sort of autonomy – and making clear that the end result, if not necessarily two states on boundaries approximating those of 1967, will none the less be two states in some form. This is because the Palestinians, once they have gained recognition as a state, are unlikely to ever bargain it away. This in turn removes a number of the fantasies about “autonomy” floating around in Israel, as well as fears about Jews being swamped in a bi-national state. The issues of dispute will therefore be reduced to those of settling boundaries, setting up trade and customs policies, and deciding on sovereignty over holy places.[1] [1] Rosenberg, M.J., ‘Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations’, HuffPost World, 22 July 2011,  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-should-support-pale_b_9...", "title": "The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear", "pid": "3c5b3139-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 220.91270446777344}, {"text": "Palestinian state would be base for terrorism", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 220.9069061279297}, {"text": "One-state would see Israeli minority ruling over Palestinian majority", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00027-000", "bm25_score": 220.87286376953125}, {"text": "The New York Review of Books reported in a 2008 review of the middle east situation that \"[t]hroughout the years, polls consistently showed respectable Israeli and Palestinian majorities in favor of a negotiated two-state settlement.\"[2]", "title": "Many/most Israelis and Palestinians support two-state solution", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00070-000", "bm25_score": 220.8546600341797}, {"text": "A Palestinian state would threaten its neighbors.", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 220.83009338378906}, {"text": "Two-state solution would prevent return of Palestinian refugees.", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00019-000", "bm25_score": 220.80047607421875}, {"text": "A one-state solution is the most just because a two-state solution would inherently result in a worse situation for the Palestinians than the Israelis, whereas a one-state solution would guarantee equal rights for all. The July 2007 Madrid meeting in favour of a one-state solution put firth that: “A two-state solution is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora.” Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.”(14) A two-state solution, particularly one that enables a Jewish state, would also most likely alienate the Palestinian population remaining within Israel. At best, they would be second class citizens. At worst, they would be pushed out, directly or indirectly.(13) A two-state solution, and the establishment of a Jewish state, would also kill the idea of the return of Palestinian refugees that were expelled from Israel during various wars and conflicts. The Palestinian state created would also- if past experience is any judge- be highly divided (between factions such as Hamas and Fatah) and dysfunctional. This situation would have a material impact on the quality of life of citizens of the new Palestinian.(15)(16) Therefore, a one-state solution is more just than a two-state solution.", "title": "Only a one-state solution can guarantee equal rights for all", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 220.7712860107422}, {"text": "Jeff Jacoby. \"Peace isn't Arab goal\". Boston Globe. May 20, 2009: \"International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down.\"", "title": "Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00059-000", "bm25_score": 220.75827026367188}, {"text": "MJ Rosenberg. \"Loving The Two-State Solution to Death\". Huffington Post. December 22, 2008: \"we are further from implementing the two-state solution today than we were in 2001. In fact, it can't be implemented because the Palestinians themselves constitute two states. Without Palestinian unity -- unity that ended with the Hamas election and then full seizure of power in Gaza--the two-state solution is simply not achievable.\"", "title": "Palestinians are too divided to constitute a state.", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00060-000", "bm25_score": 220.73394775390625}, {"text": "Two-state solution gives Palestinians unequal rights", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00024-000", "bm25_score": 220.72137451171875}, {"text": "A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory. This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect).", "title": "A two-state solution makes Israel too narrow, vulnerable.", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00055-000", "bm25_score": 220.70774841308594}, {"text": "The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish the West Bank, known to the Israelis as “Judea and Samaria”. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel would similarly have to undermine its identity to give up these two regions, and so any two-state solution acceptable to Israel would have to mean the retention of Judea and Samaria. Because of the large Palestinian population in the West Bank, even a two-state solution would mean Israel could not be both Jewish and democratic.(3)", "title": "A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 220.65713500976562}, {"text": "Shimon Peres. \"One Region, Two States\". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: \"Those not committed to this solution argue that, after the creation of a Palestinian state, Israel's waist would be too narrow -- some six miles -- to ensure security for its citizens. [...] Indeed, six miles will be too narrow to guarantee full security, which only reinforces our belief that Israel's safety is not embedded only in territorial defense but in peace. Peace provides breadth of wings, even when the waist is narrow.\"", "title": "Two-state solution offers peace, the most important factor", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00053-000", "bm25_score": 220.5956573486328}, {"text": "As described in the above quote by Peres, the vast majority of Israelis desire to live in a Jewish homeland in which they can define their own institutions and culture in light of their Jewish heritage. A one-state solution, however, would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of the Jewish forefathers. From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state, which would be the result of a one-state solution, as the state could not be considered a Jewish one if it housed a very large Palestinian population, possibly even a Palestinian majority.(1) For this reason it is unlikely that any one-state solution would be truly democratic, and rather would be a situation of an Israeli minority ruling over a Palestinian majority, who would be largely excluded from the running of the country and determining their own affairs.(4) A one-state solution would only produce an explosive situation in which Jews would dominate the economy and most other aspects of the new state, creating a reality of exploitation. At that point in time, the new state would be a new form of occupation that would only set the conflict on a more violent track.(5) Therefore, the new state created by a one-state solution would be unacceptable either to Israelis or to Palestinians, as it would cease to be either Jewish or democratic, and so would not be a just outcome. Only a two-state solution can keep Israel Jewish and democratic, and allow a Palestinian state similarly to be Arab and democratic, as it would most likely wish.", "title": "A one-state solution mean Israel would cease to be either democratic or Jewish", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 220.59510803222656}, {"text": "Israel loses strategic West Bank mountains in two-state solution", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 220.58055114746094}, {"text": "Shimon Peres. \"One Region, Two States\". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: \"A minority of Middle East pundits have recently emerged as advocates for a one-state solution, which would undermine Israel's legitimacy and internationally recognized right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state in the land of my forefathers. [...] From Israel's perspective, it is not possible for the Jewish people to accept an arrangement that signifies the end of the existence of a Jewish state.\" [The reason for this is that it could not be considered a Jewish state if it housed a very large Palestinian population].", "title": "One-state solution would end Israel as a Jewish state", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00048-000", "bm25_score": 220.49459838867188}, {"text": "Prof. Hassan Nafaa. \"No Room for Two States\". Global Research. February 12, 2008: \"The conflict between the Palestinians and the Zionist movement is not over disputed borders or material interests and, therefore, resolvable by merely coming to an agreement over permanent borders and a give-and-take over material interests. Rather, it is a conflict between two identities, each of which claims sole propriety right over a given territory. Such a conflict cannot be solved by the same means that are brought to bear on conventional international conflicts.\"", "title": "A two-state conflict will not end conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00039-000", "bm25_score": 220.48728942871094}, {"text": "\"The One State Declaration\". Issued by participants in the July 2007 Madrid meeting. November 29, 2007: \"A two-state solution is] predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora. Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.\"", "title": "Two-state solution gives Palestinians unequal rights", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00047-000", "bm25_score": 220.3955078125}, {"text": "A million Palestinians live throughout Israel even without the West Bank and Gaza strip, and when the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are considered also, it becomes clear that dividing these two populations is simply unfeasible. By comparison, the feasibility of a bi-national state, with the two peoples living in a kind of federation, seems workable. Given this 'reality' on the ground, the most practical solution seems to be a united democratic state offering equal citizenship for all: One Person, One Vote.(12) The ever-expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank particularly represent a barrier to the separation of the two peoples into two states. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.(10) Forcibly removing settlers would be too difficult, could foment civil strife among Jewish Israeli citizens, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.", "title": "Israelis and Palestinians are too intermingled for a two-state solution", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 220.365478515625}, {"text": "\"Two States? Many Problems\". Los Angeles Times, Letter to the Editor. May 7, 2009: \"Iran's disbanding its nuclear weapons program is surely not dependent on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and it wants nuclear weapons so that it can threaten not only Israel but other states in the region. [...] If Iran's motivation to develop WMD was to effect resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Saudi Arabia and Egypt wouldn't have grave concerns.\"", "title": "A two-state solution will not assuage Iran.", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00065-000", "bm25_score": 220.2671661376953}, {"text": "Israel finally accepting the two state solution would be a good thing since the apartheid would end, military oppression would be stopped and peaceful stability could be achieved. The Palestinians will be free of the Knesset, be aloud to properly partake in political elections and not be culturally violated. This solution would entail the removal of the wall, granting most of the West Bank and Gaza independence, signing a peace treaty, Establishing stronger diplomatic relations with each other, halting all building of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and call for the complete retraction of the Israeli military in the occupied territory (Won't go into any more hypothetical detail). Both are victims of each other (con-temporarily Palestine more so though)", "title": "Does Palestine Deserve autonomy", "pid": "74054f75-2019-04-18T16:54:56Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 220.2407684326172}, {"text": "Sandy Tolan. \"George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution\". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: \"The two-state solution is on its deathbed. [...] Since the Six-Day War of June 1967, the two-state solution, based on the concept of 'land for peace,' has been the central focus of almost all diplomatic efforts to resolve this tragedy. But because of Israel's unrelenting occupation and settlement project in the West Bank, the long-fought-for two-state solution has finally, tragically, become unworkable. Consider: In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are 275,000, in more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.\" [Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.", "title": "Israeli settlements make a two-state solution impossible", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00069-000", "bm25_score": 220.1034698486328}, {"text": "Palestinian support for two-state solution declined around 2008.", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 220.09649658203125}, {"text": "Israel will not relinquish Judea, Samaria in two-state solution", "title": "Two-state solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00021-000", "bm25_score": 220.09120178222656}, {"text": "\"Is the two-state solution in danger?\". Haaretz. May 21, 2009: \"The left in Israel has long warned that if settlement construction continues and Israel does not separate from the Palestinians, the country will eventually slide into an apartheid-like reality in which a Jewish minority rules over an Arab majority. The result, they contend: the end of a democratic, Jewish state.\"", "title": "One-state would see Israeli minority ruling over Palestinian majority", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00044-000", "bm25_score": 220.03054809570312}, {"text": "Jonathan Freedland. \"Britain should say yes to Palestinian statehood – and so should Israel.\" guardian.co.uk. September 13th, 2011: \"UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 will breathe fresh life into the ailing idea which, despite everything, remains the last best hope of Israeli-Palestinian peace – a two-state solution. By recognising a state of Palestine alongside Israel, the UN will entrench the notion that the only way to resolve this most stubborn of conflicts is for these two nations to divide the land between them into two states. In so doing it will halt the steady drift, born of despair more than enthusiasm, towards the so-called one-state solution – so-called because while it would bring one state, it offers no solution, just a single entity that would frustrate the yearning for self-determination of both sides.\"", "title": "UN support would breath new light into the two-state solution", "pid": "a9ca9e97-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00039-000", "bm25_score": 219.90658569335938}, {"text": "Prof. Hassan Nafaa. \"No Room for Two States\". Global Research. February 12, 2008: \"The single, bi-national democratic state solution has the advantage of conforming to modern liberal democratic principles officially espoused in the West and in Israel itself.\"", "title": "Inclusive one-state solution adopts democratic principles", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00045-000", "bm25_score": 219.89700317382812}, {"text": "The two-state solution would have Israel relinquish Judea and Samarra. Yet, these are historic regions to the Jews. Israel will not undermine its identity by relinquishing these territories, so it will not and should not accept a two-state solution.", "title": "Israel will not relinquish Judea, Samaria in two-state solution", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00050-000", "bm25_score": 219.85086059570312}, {"text": "It was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a bi-national state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'(10) This position has been adopted by some Palestinian leaders: In October 2005, Nusseibeh, then president of al-Quds University in Jerusalem, and several other liberal Palestinian political activists and intellectuals held a press conference in Jerusalem, stating: “We are pressing now for equal political and legal rights within a single, democratic Israel, and we are confident that our Israeli brothers and sisters will welcome us and that together we will build a free and democratic state in which Jews and Arabs will live together in peace.”(5) A two-state solution, however, would most likely foster continued conflict, for two reasons. Firstly, a Palestinian state would be base for terrorism. As seen when Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians there did not embrace the two-state solution, but the Muslim hardliners who controlled Gaza continued to want nothing less than Israel's destruction, and Gaza's newly-elected Hamas government spent much of its money not on the welfare of Palestinians but on attacking Israel.(11) Similarly, a two-state solution makes Israel too narrow and vulnerable. A two-state solution would make Israel only 6 miles wide at a number of points where the West Bank juts into Israeli territory.(1) This creates a number of vulnerabilities, particularly the risk that Israel may become divided during a war (a not unlikely prospect). For all these reasons, a two-state solution cannot offer true peace, but a one-state solution built on co-operation and equal rights can, and so a one-state solution is more just.", "title": "Only a one-state solution can end the conflict", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 219.79685974121094}, {"text": "Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly. The White House. September 21st, 2011: \"One year ago, I stood at this podium and I called for an independent Palestine. I believed then, and I believe now, that the Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. But what I also said is that a genuine peace can only be realized between the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. One year later, despite extensive efforts by America and others, the parties have not bridged their differences. [...] the question isn’t the goal that we seek -- the question is how do we reach that goal. And I am convinced that there is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations -- if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians -- not us –- who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.\"", "title": "US supports two-state solution, but not via UN", "pid": "a9ca9e97-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00074-000", "bm25_score": 219.67660522460938}, {"text": "US supports two-state solution, but not via UN", "title": "UN recognition of Palestinian statehood", "pid": "a9ca9e97-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.63755798339844}, {"text": "Shimon Peres. \"One Region, Two States\". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: \"The Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defense. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages.\"", "title": "Two-state plan respects democratic will for separate states", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00043-000", "bm25_score": 219.46107482910156}, {"text": "These arguments about 'sympathetic cooperation' ignore the realities on the ground of two people who are and seem certain to remain violently opposed to each other as long as they struggle over control over a single state rather than each having a state of their own. Furthermore, offering the Palestinians a sovereign state of their own, free from Israeli control, would likely go a long way to satisfying the vast majority of Palestinians, and thus actually make a war against Israel far less likely. As Peres argues: “Indeed, six miles will be too narrow to guarantee full security, which only reinforces our belief that Israel's safety is not embedded only in territorial defence but in peace. Peace provides breadth of wings, even when the waist is narrow.”(1)", "title": "Only a one-state solution can end the conflict", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 219.41973876953125}, {"text": "\"Why plans for a two-state solution in the Middle East have failed.\". International Journal on World Peace. March 1, 2008: \"The plan for a Palestinian state failed to comprehend that the Palestinians, unlike the Jews, had not created an apparatus for self-government.\"", "title": "A Palestinian state would be dysfunctional", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00061-000", "bm25_score": 219.40345764160156}, {"text": "Palestinians and Israelis will not be able to live together in peace in the same state any time in the foreseeable future. The idea that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principles of inclusion, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas. Israeli President Shimon Peres has argued: “Establishing a single multinational country is a tenuous path that does not bode well for peace but, rather, enforces the conflict's perpetuation. Lebanon, ravaged by bloodshed and instability, represents only one of many examples of an undesirable quagmire of this nature.”(1) This stance has been endorsed by leaders and officials from around the world: US special envoy George Mitchell has stated “In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict.”(2) Pope Benedict XVI has similarly called on Israel’s leadership to embrace the two-state solution for peace with the Palestinians: “I plead with all those responsible to explore every possible avenue in the search for a just resolution of the outstanding difficulties, so that both peoples may live in peace in a homeland of their own, within secure and internationally recognized borders.”(3) Even Colonel Gaddafi, the late Libyan leader, argued that a two-state solution was essential for peace.(1) The reason the two-state solution has been recognised as the best for peace is because it respects the democratic will of both peoples for a state of their own. As Peres argues, “The Jewish people want and deserve to live in peace in their rightful, historical homeland. The Palestinian people want and deserve their own land, their own political institutions and their right to self-determination. It is vital that this cause be based on the prospect of coexistence between Jews and Arabs, which translates into cooperation in fields such as the economy, tourism, the environment and defence. Achieving all this will be possible only by granting each people its own state and borders, to enable their citizens to pray according to their faiths, cultivate their cultures, speak their own languages and safeguard their heritages.”(1) Because only a two-state solution allows for this peaceful co-existence and development, a two-state solution is best for peace and thus more justified than a one-state solution.", "title": "A two-state solution is best for peace", "pid": "8d325e50-2019-04-15T20:22:20Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 219.31027221679688}, {"text": "Jerusalem - PLO Executive Committee Secretary Yasir Abd-Rabbuh replying to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's statements that he is ready to negotiate immediately with the Palestinians by affirming that no negotiations will take place before the suspension of the settlement activities. \"Abd-Rabbuh said in statements to Al-Ayyam: There can be no negotiations unless the Israelis stop the settlement activities and we no longer wish to meet with the Israelis on the same table to exchange views and ideas while they change the facts on the ground in Jerusalem and all the West Bank. This is a policy that represents the highest forms of deception.\"", "title": "Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop.", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00058-000", "bm25_score": 219.04043579101562}, {"text": "\"Gaza and the two-state solution\". The Recliner Commentaries. May 16, 2009: \"Gaza was the perfect test case for Palestinians to prove they were ready for \"the two state solution\" which everyone seems to think is the best solution to peace in the mid-east--everyone but Muslim hardliners who want nothing less than Israel's destruction, that is. [...] And yet the Gaza experiment has failed miserably. The people elected a terrorist government which has spent so much of its money, not on the welfare of the Palestinian people, but on attacking Israel! [...] How can Israel be expected to support a two-state solution when Gaza has only turned out to be a base for attacking Israel?\"", "title": "Palestinian state would be base for terrorism", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00054-000", "bm25_score": 219.0064697265625}, {"text": "UN recognition would force final negotiations of two-state solution.", "title": "UN recognition of Palestinian statehood", "pid": "a9ca9e97-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00037-000", "bm25_score": 218.74586486816406}, {"text": "Sandy Tolan. \"George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution\". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: \"it was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a binational state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'\"", "title": "Israelis/Palestinians can coexist peacefully in one state", "pid": "402902df-2019-04-17T11:47:31Z-00040-000", "bm25_score": 218.7407684326172}, {"text": "The answer is not obvious, because splitting the land between the two parties will not create happy people on both sides. Both sides want it all. Also, it is impossible to split the states among lines that will be acceptable to both parties. There is not a clear delineating line between \"Jewish Areas\" and \"Palestinian Areas\". Are you willing to force the sides to live apart? A solely Palestinian state will lead to reprisals against the Jewish communities. A solely Israeli state (perhaps with limited Palestinian administration) is the best option. This is why: Because the Israelis have shown that they are willing to live in a liberal democracy, not a terrorist theocracy (the Palestinians, when given the chance, voted Hamas into power in the legislature). The Palestinians are hostile to their neighbor Israel, while Israel just wants to live in peace.", "title": "A Palestinian State", "pid": "bcdf1d5e-2019-04-18T19:59:53Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.62890625}, {"text": "Traditionally US policy was that 2 state solution is a must. President Trump declared that he will support any solution that both parties like. He is showing flexibility and since prior approach didn't work, Trump is asking people to think outside the box.", "title": "Do you think that a two state solution for Middle East is a must", "pid": "df3df8f2-2019-04-18T12:26:13Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.4957275390625}, {"text": "One of the major obstacles to peace has consistently been the unrealistic expectations which have existed on the Palestinian side. From 1994 onwards, the Palestinians have confused the Peace Process with a process by which “wrongs will be righted” and their “rightful demands” met, rather than a compromise process of give and take. This has been fed by leaders like Yasser Arafat who have told Palestinians for so long that they will have a state with a capital in Jerusalem, with a right of return, etc. that it has become impossible for them to then go back to their constituents and sell concessions. The fact is that no viable Peace Deal with satisfy everyone, and Israel has minimum demands of its own – some settlements will be maintained, millions of Palestinians will not be allowed to settle in Israel proper, and Israel will not allow an armed Palestinian state. The problem with UN recognition is that while at best marginally improving the Palestinian negotiating position it will dramatically increase popular expectations, making it next to impossible for the Palestinian leadership to take advantage of any gains they achieve vis-à-vis Israel through recognition. In this sense you may well have a much greater gap between the Palestinian minimum and Israeli maximum than before recognition.", "title": "Such a move will make Palestinian expectations much higher and their position more intransigent", "pid": "3c5b3139-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 218.38638305664062}, {"text": "One of the major problems with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict up to now is that it has been localized between the Israelis and Palestinians, with outside involvement limited to putting pressure on one side or the other at various times. The result is that negotiations have become a zero-sum game where concessions from one side have to be extracted from the other. Allowing the Israelis to keep settlements means that the Palestinians must give up land. Allowing a “Right of return” to Palestinians is seen is something Israel alone must carry the burden of, when the vast majority live in other Arab states that perhaps should play a part in any sort of compensation scheme. Consequently, negotiations have been far more brutal than they otherwise might have been. UN Recognition or at least a debate about it would move the forum of the discussion away from bilateral talks, and into the international sphere. The UN, by acknowledging responsibility for mishandling things on the Palestinian side in 1948, would in effect pave the way to help solve issues like the right of return and the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab states that cannot be resolved satisfactorily on a bilateral basis.", "title": "A UN move would internationalize the problem, and pave the way for broader for international solutions", "pid": "3c5b3139-2019-04-15T20:22:23Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.2991485595703}, {"text": "MJ Rosenberg. \"Obama Should Support Palestinian Statehood at the United Nations.\" Huffington Post. July 22nd, 2011: \"Recognition of the State of Palestine by the United Nations would be a first step on the road toward successful negotiations which must follow UN action. After all, no UN action can force Israel to end the occupation of the West Bank. The army and the settlers will still be there, UN or no UN. That is why the Palestinian leadership says that one of the first things the new State of Palestine would do will be to ask Israel to commence negotiations over borders, security arrangements, refugees, Holy Places, etc. The only difference UN recognition would make is that it would be near impossible for Netanyahu to say 'no' after the United Nations had, in effect, declared that it was occupying not some vague entity but another people's state.\"", "title": "UN recognition would force final negotiations of two-state solution.", "pid": "a9ca9e97-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00040-000", "bm25_score": 218.2063751220703}, {"text": "Israeli's looking for peace negotiations is total bullsh!t. For a start, if they did want to make amends with the Palestinians, perhaps they ought to stop occupying more and more land, building more and more settlements. It's like trying to make peace with someone whilst shoving the barrel of a pistol further and further down their throat. Secondly, Palestinians have been looking for a two-state solution, whilst Benjamin Netanyahu and Shimon Peres have openly objected to it on state TV. Even whilst their major ally, the US has presented peace talk proposals, Israel denying the majority, and totally screwing up the others. Palestinians now need special permits to enter their own fields, they have no rights to their own homes, they cannot cross border control on to what used to be their own land, and if they are caught trying to sneak back in to what was lawfully their land, they are arrested. Children even are arrested for protesting against the Israeli's maltreatment of their neighbors. I could also talk about the numbers of innocent Palestinians in jail or who have been killed by Israeli police forces, totally unjustly, but we would be here forever. Israel had no right in the first place in Palestine, and now it has no right to continue expanding in to another countries land.", "title": "Palestine", "pid": "95d75426-2019-04-18T17:15:19Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.17735290527344}, {"text": "Trump is not advocating for either solution. A good negotiator looks for creative win-win options that don't impose unnecessary constraints. It is important to remember that prior approach didnot result in any meaningful outcome, so trying to open the possibilities may introduce other creative outside the box thinking.", "title": "Do you think that a two state solution for Middle East is a must", "pid": "df3df8f2-2019-04-18T12:26:13Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.16285705566406}]}
{"idx": 22, "qid": "23", "q_text": "Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?", "qrels": {"cd5c8b93-2019-04-18T19:27:46Z-00003-000": 0, "9f12f501-2019-04-18T19:55:28Z-00003-000": 2, "cf401f08-2019-04-18T15:17:34Z-00004-000": 2, "9e1db4e2-2019-04-18T12:53:30Z-00004-000": 1, "e21a5046-2019-04-18T15:14:26Z-00000-000": 2, "df37aacb-2019-04-18T18:23:08Z-00006-000": 0, "d80382e8-2019-04-18T15:28:06Z-00003-000": 0, "a2c85c65-2019-04-18T16:57:45Z-00002-000": 2, "a2c85c65-2019-04-18T16:57:45Z-00003-000": 2, "a7b24794-2019-04-18T14:18:31Z-00007-000": 0, "d1c59b91-2019-04-18T16:00:42Z-00003-000": 2, "c8f72601-2019-04-18T15:27:47Z-00004-000": 2, "e21a5084-2019-04-18T12:37:53Z-00003-000": 0, "bdcebe60-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00001-000": 1, "27275881-2019-04-18T12:45:40Z-00001-000": 1, "9386ee6d-2019-04-18T15:04:34Z-00001-000": 1, "114892b1-2019-04-18T11:52:47Z-00007-000": 2, "1e884b5d-2019-04-18T15:59:17Z-00006-000": 0, "b1869884-2019-04-18T13:49:38Z-00001-000": 0, "29343e58-2019-04-18T12:48:29Z-00001-000": 0, "2a7a3832-2019-04-18T14:51:38Z-00005-000": 2, "32c18ac6-2019-04-18T12:19:10Z-00002-000": 2, "41c20845-2019-04-18T16:34:45Z-00004-000": 0, "41c20845-2019-04-18T16:34:45Z-00003-000": 0, "41c20845-2019-04-18T16:34:45Z-00000-000": 1, "41ed75c9-2019-04-18T13:41:02Z-00003-000": 2, "49cd40b7-2019-04-18T11:56:34Z-00001-000": 2, "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00004-000": 0, "9386f26c-2019-04-18T13:35:08Z-00003-000": 2, "5e43acac-2019-04-18T17:42:07Z-00003-000": 0, "7301aafd-2019-04-18T14:11:51Z-00007-000": 0, "7d6799b0-2019-04-18T17:09:31Z-00000-000": 0, "7dba56a5-2019-04-18T12:15:17Z-00000-000": 0, "84a6fafa-2019-04-18T14:47:38Z-00005-000": 2, "88e3525b-2019-04-18T18:52:58Z-00009-000": 2, "89c45bda-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00034-000": 1, "9386dc62-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00004-000": 1, "9386dfc6-2019-04-18T17:05:50Z-00008-000": 1, "9386e349-2019-04-18T16:54:59Z-00005-000": 0, "9386e70a-2019-04-18T16:09:37Z-00004-000": 2, "9386eaea-2019-04-18T15:39:40Z-00001-000": 2, "9386eaea-2019-04-18T15:39:40Z-00004-000": 2, "60881920-2019-04-18T13:22:37Z-00005-000": 2, "4a9c9344-2019-04-18T13:30:56Z-00002-000": 0, "fe13b6d0-2019-04-18T17:15:38Z-00006-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, should be made legal in the United States because it many cases in is in the patient's best interest. Many painful, terminal conditions exist that lead to long-term suffering and severely effect the quality of life. Life is sacred, yes, but when that life is blind, deaf, paralyzed, unable to swallow, and seizing uncontrollably then there is nothing \"sacred\" about it. Physician assisted suicide would be handled in a similar way to a DNR legally speaking, with the patient signing a paper stating that in the even of a certain illness or medical state they would be okay with having their life ending painlessly, gently, and professionally by a trusted doctor.", "title": "Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America", "pid": "7dba56a5-2019-04-18T12:15:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 221.94126892089844}, {"text": "I accept!Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide should be legal in extreme cases where the patient is willing and suffering from excruciating pain for an extended amount of time with no certain end in site.", "title": "Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide", "pid": "dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 221.81471252441406}, {"text": "Should Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide be legalized for the terminally ill that have no chance of recovering? Please answer yes or no.", "title": "Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide", "pid": "d80382e8-2019-04-18T15:28:06Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 221.5504150390625}, {"text": "In light of Jack Kevorkian speaking at my school tonight, I offer up this debate to anyone who wishes to take it on. Bottom line, physician-assisted suicide should be legal. It is absurd that anyone or any group should have the authority to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their own life with regard to this issue. I believe it to be the height of arrogance that someone can feel as though they can enforce their morality on someone suffering from a terminal disease. The overly moralistic person is not feeling the pain. They will not be affected in any way whether the dying person takes their own life or if they needlessly prolong their suffering. Yet, they insist on using the government to enforce their morality on people they don't even know. A dying person, suffering from cancer or some other horrific illness that promises nothing but a slow, painful death, should be able to die on their own terms, with dignity. I eagerly await someone to accept my open challenge.", "title": "Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal", "pid": "9f12f501-2019-04-18T19:55:28Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 221.21620178222656}, {"text": "Physicians are suppose to help people not kill them and if they do kill them they should be arrested for murder", "title": "Physician assisted suicide should be legal nationwide.", "pid": "9230094f-2019-04-18T14:30:38Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 221.17483520507812}, {"text": "Physician Assisted Suicide or PAS is defined by Merriam Webster as \"suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information\" Two states, Oregon and Washington have already made this legal. I believe that a terminally ill patient who has undergone psychiatric evaluation and been deemed sane and competent to make their own decisions should legally be able to do so. I would like to debate someone who has an opposing opinion.", "title": "Should Physician assisted suicide be legal", "pid": "83a06a6-2019-04-18T15:41:35Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 220.8516845703125}, {"text": "Well okay, debating now is going to be difficult because you sort of convinced me, so... I mean I tried to write a rebuttal but I mean, that's difficult now.", "title": "Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America", "pid": "7dba56a5-2019-04-18T12:15:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 220.51779174804688}, {"text": "Full Resolution: Physician-Assisted-Suicide should be universally legalized in the United States.DefinitionPhysician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS): The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life. [1][1] http://www.medterms.com...\"Rules\"First round is for acceptance only.Last round is for rebuttals/cloing statements only.Obvious other things (no ad hom, etc)If you have any questions or clarifications or whatever, please say so in the comments. Thanks!", "title": "Physician-Assisted-Suicide Should Be Legalized (2)", "pid": "443158c1-2019-04-18T18:43:38Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 220.2926025390625}, {"text": "Rules: BOP will be shared. Both sides need to provide specific evidence supporting their position. Round 3 should be for rebuttals (not constructive! ). If you accept, please use Round 1 to simply state your position (ex: I am arguing for the con side).", "title": "Physician assisted suicide should be legal nationwide.", "pid": "9230094f-2019-04-18T14:30:38Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 220.28294372558594}, {"text": "Firstly, while yes I agree that there are, \"Terminal conditions that exist leading to long-term suffering and severely effect the quality of life\", Hospitals are outfitted with extremely strong painkillers such as morphine, oxycodone, and pethidine to name a few. I also 100% agree that the undesirable symptoms would be horrific and aren't sacred. But there are many dangers in legalizing euthanasia. First and foremost, executing euthanasia would give a certain paycheck to the physician who aids in this activity, which could cause mental trauma over time, I mean, you're killing someone. While yes it may be a wanted and legal murder, you are still watching the life flow out of another person's eyes. Not only this, but the heartless people in the world may even run a scam just for the paycheck. This would simply be done by the physician who clears his patient for mentally ill, says that he will deteriorate over time, and then kill his patient. The DNR style confirmation from the patient could simply be forged by the doctor or accidentally signed by the patient if the physician provides a medicine that puts the patient into a drowsy state or half-conscious state. Furthermore, if the patient could've been cured, the physicians career could be ruined, the victims family could even go to court and sue for murder. This legalization would clog the government because they need to create clauses, hear court cases, endure protests.", "title": "Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America", "pid": "7dba56a5-2019-04-18T12:15:17Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 220.10586547851562}, {"text": "Assisted suicide is to be defined as 'the act of accomplishing suicide with the aid of another person. ' Currently, such an act would be viewed by the eyes of the law as murder on the part of the assistant. However, I see no reason as to why, when it has been checked by a medical professional and deemed as acceptable under the circumstances by the same medical professional, it should not be legalized. This, I feel, would negate at least most of the controversies of the debate, as well as negate the arguments that are commonly used to combat the view that euthanasia should be internationally legalised. It was not uncommon, in the realms of History, to hear of doctors bringing about the end of their patients lives to help them avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. It is already legal to allow a person to die of natural causes, for example in the signing of a DNR, when we are able to help them yet recognise their right to die. So why is that different in the case of people who are not imminently suffering from heart attacks or other fast-acting, terminal conditions.", "title": "Euthanasia should be legalized internationally when approved by a trained medical professional", "pid": "294713ae-2019-04-18T15:54:26Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 220.05931091308594}, {"text": "Full Resolution: Physician-Assisted Suicide (Hereafter reffered to as PAS) under lawful regulations, should be universally legalized.Definition:Physician-Assisted Suicide: The practice of a liscensed physician willingly perscribing a lethal drug at a patient's request for said patient to ingest or otherwise take, effectively ending his/her own life.Rules:There will be 4 rounds:First: Acceptance/any clarifications or additional definitions.Second: Opening arguments (with a rebuttal from Con)Third: More arguments/rebuttals from both sides.Fourth: No more arguments. Closing statements only (With the EXCEPTION of Pro being able to provide a rebuttal for Con's Round 3 argument)To restate what I said, if the Contender has any questions, or wants to add any definitions, you can do that in your acceptance. Thanks, and I'm looking forward to this debate!", "title": "Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS) should be Legalized", "pid": "7d751371-2019-04-18T18:44:43Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.98226928710938}, {"text": "I am happy to accept, and look forward to your opening arguments.", "title": "Should Physician assisted suicide be legal", "pid": "83a06a6-2019-04-18T15:41:35Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.8438720703125}, {"text": "Not all pain can be alleviated with palliative care, so both assisted suicide and palliative care should be options for the patient.\"If the person would like to end their life right away\" I support waiting a long time before proceeding with euthanasia in case the patient changes their mind.", "title": "Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide", "pid": "dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.83779907226562}, {"text": "\"This is just me, but I would definitely like it if my doctor would go to the fullest to save me, try everything he/she can, not just be like, oh sorry your dying, want me to kill you?\" That is not relevant to my definition. I understand the point you're making, but it is unrelated to the debate at hand. You seem to be confusing physician-assisted suicide with euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide is when a physician helps someone commit suicide (see my definition). Euthanasia is the killing of an unconscious (usually terminally ill) patient by a physician, i.e. \"pulling the plug\". (http://depts.washington.edu...) \"just because people in hospitals are pulling the plug, does not mean that people who are crazy are going to stop killing themselves. the two things are not relevant to each other.\" Generally, people who commit suicide are not crazy. They usually are suffering from severe depression or are experiencing extenuating circumstances. These people are reasonable enough to seek help from a physician. My opponent's contention is definitionally irrelevant, and two of my contentions stand unrefuted.", "title": "physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "25dc8ac6-2019-04-18T19:24:09Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.82901000976562}, {"text": "The legalization of euthanasia would be the first step to legalizing homicide. There is no pain great enough to allow for euthanasia. Obviously if someone is in pain or depression they will not think clearly about the value of life. Several icons in America such as Oprah, Matthew McConaughey, and John Adams all went through a period in their life where they had a major depression disorder up to the point of wanting death. If euthanasia was legal, we would of never had these great men/women. Also, from the perspective of the person who helps kill his friend. That could easily be a traumatic experience for them to endure for the rest of their life. The death of their friend, in their hands.", "title": "Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised.", "pid": "fe13b6d0-2019-04-18T17:15:38Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.7998046875}, {"text": "While pain medication is an option for providing comfort towards the end on a person's life, there is only so much medicine can do. For example, look at Tay-Sachs Disease, a degenerative brain disorder primarily affecting Ashkenazi Jews that typically begins at the ages of six months and causes the child to lose their skills over time. By the time the child is three, they are completely paralyzed, nonverbal, unable to swallow, blind, cognitively impaired, and have constant seizures that do not respond to medication. There is nothing you can do for that child but watch them die. That is why euthanasia needs to be an option. It is an act of mercy. Also, to prevent the DNR type document from being falsified as with any legal document there would need to be a witness at such a signing.", "title": "Physician Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia Should Be Made Legal in America", "pid": "7dba56a5-2019-04-18T12:15:17Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.75718688964844}, {"text": "but it still should be illegal becaus letting people kill themselves is still wrong", "title": "resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "3fcde3d5-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.73788452148438}, {"text": "I accept", "title": "Physician assisted suicide should be legal nationwide.", "pid": "9230094f-2019-04-18T14:30:38Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.71263122558594}, {"text": "In 1997 Oregon passed the death with dignity act. Since then around 750 have taken their lives from perceptions written by doctors. Oregon has safeguards in place to prevent abuse of this law by people who may be suicidal or unable to make this very important decision competently. The physician has to educate the patient on all their possible options including pain management and hospice care. The person must be a resident and deemed mentally competent. The patient must make several requests over a period of time giving them adequate time to consider the decision. Since the law was enacted Washington and Vermont have followed suit alone with British Columbia and Quebec. According to a public health publication the majority of patients who took their lives with the DWDA had baccalaureate degrees or higher and were enrolled in hospice care prior to dying. This means that the patient is educated and has tried other options. The majority of patients concerns with their terminal illness were loss of autonomy. It stands to reason that these patients did not want to be a burden to others or lose the dignity of taking care of themselves. This is a reasonable and sane argument for wanting to take ones own life. http://www.nytimes.com... https://public.health.oregon.gov...", "title": "Should Physician assisted suicide be legal", "pid": "83a06a6-2019-04-18T15:41:35Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.7047119140625}, {"text": "Physicians are supposed to act in the best interest of the patient. Should a terminally ill patient, which is defined as \"an individual who has been certified by a physician as having an illness or physical condition which can reasonably be expected to result in death in 24 months or less\", choose to forgoe treatment that would have minimal positive impact on their quality or length of life, the physician is not obligated to force treatment [1]. A patient who requests life-ending medications is expressing their legal right to explore all options. Should the physician decide that the patient is capable of making a rational decision to end their life and is not suffering from impaired judgement, that physician is not and should not be held liable for fufilling the reasonable request of the patient [2]. [1] http://definitions.uslegal.com...;[2] https://depts.washington.edu...;", "title": "Physician assisted suicide should be legal nationwide.", "pid": "9230094f-2019-04-18T14:30:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.68174743652344}, {"text": "But the fact of someone wanting to commit suicide with the help of an doctor is just different", "title": "resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "3fcde3d5-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.6542510986328}, {"text": "I affirm the resolution resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. This is true because when a person is in excruciating plain, on their death bed, should be able to be put out of their misery, and to be with Jesus.", "title": "resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "3fcde3d5-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 219.6133575439453}, {"text": "if physician-assisted suicide is legalized, then it will greatly reduce the risk of suicides gone awry\" How is this? just because people in hospitals are pulling the plug, does not mean that people who are crazy are going to stop killing themselves. the two things are not relevant to each other. contention one: the physician should try to save there life, not take it away. The physician is there to save the person's life,not to just give up and pull the plug. This is just me, but I would definitely like it if my doctor would go to the fullest to save me, try everything he/she can, not just be like, \"oh sorry your dying, want me to kill you?\"", "title": "physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "25dc8ac6-2019-04-18T19:24:09Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.58135986328125}, {"text": "I would like to reinforce my statements that for a doctor to kill someone or help them kill themselves, they must go against ethical guidelines, killing someone is never in their best interest, and that a desire to commit suicide is a sign of mental illness. Assisted Suicide is immoral, unethical, and should remain illegal.", "title": "Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized.", "pid": "668509e3-2019-04-18T19:24:49Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.5772247314453}, {"text": "If the patient is suffering from an extreme amount of pain, they may enter palliative care. Palliative care reduces the pain as much as they can so that they can spend their last days with their family. If the person would like to end their life right away, how do you know that they're are in the right mental state. Their illness may have affected them so they should not be able to determine to end their life then and there.", "title": "Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide", "pid": "dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.5597686767578}, {"text": "Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make his opening arguments. Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Con and Pro makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Con makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, \"No round as argeed upon. \" If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling. Since Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicides are the same exact thing the terms and wording may be used interchangably throughout the debate Euthanasia- Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) Physician Assisted Suicided- suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)", "title": "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide.", "pid": "4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 219.5089111328125}, {"text": "Alot of people in the world don't believe in Jesus so they probly wouldn't want to they would probly want to go to the land of 72 virging by going to a place and being a suicide bomber", "title": "resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "3fcde3d5-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 219.4521484375}, {"text": "I argue that Euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized. As a Christian, I do believe that Euthanasia is wrong, but I still believe that it should be legal.Definitions: Euthanasia - The painless killing of a patient (at their request) suffering from an incurable and painful disease.Rules for this debate:1. No forfeits2. BoP shared3. No trolling or disrespect4. Con must start his or her opening argument in first round.5. To maintain the same number of rebuttals for both parties, Con must agree not to make any arguments in the final round.6. Pro will provide a closing statement in the final round and not present any new arguments.I look forward for an exciting debate.", "title": "Euthanasia should be legalized", "pid": "2a7a3832-2019-04-18T14:51:38Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 219.44140625}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "Physician-Assisted-Suicide Should Be Legalized (2)", "pid": "443158c1-2019-04-18T18:43:38Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 219.43939208984375}, {"text": "I affirm: Physician assisted suicide should be legalized. Physician assisted suicide: The killing of a person by a physician, assuming consent of both physician and person, and proof that the person is mentally sound. Contention 1: Freedom of Choice People have a freedom of choice. Yes, this freedom has limits when others are in harm's way. But suicide is internal and personal. It affects others far less than it affects oneself. So in the end, it is a personal choice. Contention 2: An End To Suffering When someone is suffering, she may want it to just be over. She has no reason to continue living, so why should she? Requiring someone to continue living when she does not want to is terribly unjust: it is an intentional affliction of suffering unto someone. This is needless, and is why physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. Contention 3: Reduction of Traditional Suicide Those who are suicidal will not stop themselves from committing suicide simply because it is illegal. Personally-executed suicides are dangerous and have the potential to be very harmful due to the carelessness of the suicidal. But if physician-assisted suicide is legalized, then it will greatly reduce the risk of suicides gone awry. Subsequently, the government and health institutions will be able to document the suicides. Keeping accurate records of who has committed suicide greatly increases convenience for the hospitals and insurance companies.", "title": "physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "25dc8ac6-2019-04-18T19:24:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.43792724609375}, {"text": "I negate the resolution, resolved: physician assisted suicide should be legalized. I will let my opponent, whoever that may be, go first.", "title": "physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "25dc8ac6-2019-04-18T19:24:09Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.4059600830078}, {"text": "The government does not have the right to say a citizen must be forced to live against their will. A life is that of the individual and the decisions made with that life, including its existence, should be left to the person living that life. No human being should be forced to suffer through his or her disease, illness, or injury against his or her will. Assisted suicide programs help offer consolation to those who may be in a state of loneliness and despondency while also maintaining dignity in death for the patient. Death is a private matter and although it may affect the family and friends of the patient, it is still a sole right belonging to said patient alone.", "title": "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill", "pid": "241794a9-2019-04-18T15:43:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.40509033203125}, {"text": "Hmm. It seems my opponent has closed his account. Please extend my arguments.", "title": "Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS) should be Legalized", "pid": "7d751371-2019-04-18T18:44:43Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.38340759277344}, {"text": "But still, those people, i'm sure would still want to be put out of excrutiating pain, even if they didn't bilieve in God Or Jesus.", "title": "resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "3fcde3d5-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.37820434570312}, {"text": "Euthanasia is defined as physical assisted suicide for patients who are in extreme physical pain (judged by the patient). I am willing to debate on the moral stand point as well the legal part of the debate. Questions are encouraged . Good luck to my opponent.", "title": "Euthanasia should become Legalized in the US", "pid": "ba1566fe-2019-04-18T15:13:06Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 219.36676025390625}, {"text": "Well, I'll try. I accept.", "title": "Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS) should be Legalized", "pid": "7d751371-2019-04-18T18:44:43Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.32687377929688}, {"text": "As someone in favor of physician assisted suicide, physician assisted death, ie murder, is a horrible idea. Murder is illegal in the U.S, and therefor physician assisted death would be unlawful do to the broad nature of the topic at hand.[1] [1]http://www.law.cornell.edu...", "title": "Physician Assisted Death", "pid": "c44ef8ac-2019-04-18T15:25:35Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.30035400390625}, {"text": "I negate the resolution resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized. This is true because if it was legal in all states a lot of people would be dead just because they don't want to live.", "title": "resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "3fcde3d5-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 219.2266845703125}, {"text": "Thanks for the opening argument detectableninja.Duty Of The PhysicianWhat is the duty of a physician?The Hippocratic Oath states this quite well, and is an oath doctors must swear.Here is an excerpt:\"I will not prescribe a patient a lethal drug.\"This states that physicians are not to kill their patients under any circumstances.Harming other's rights?Hypothetical situation- a girl has a PAS.Her family grieves.This is infringing upon the rights of others to \"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Cost Of Dying 5/6 of US adults have medical insurance, which largely pays for this for them. (1)_=Sources=_http://www.gallup.com...;Sorry if my argument is a bit short, but this is my first debate :I", "title": "Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS) should be Legalized", "pid": "7d751371-2019-04-18T18:44:43Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.20111083984375}, {"text": "Yes because that would be more time I could spend with people I love wouldn't u want to do that", "title": "resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "3fcde3d5-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.1602783203125}, {"text": "I will argue that euthanasia (or assisted suicide) should be legalized. My main arguments will be that it is the individual's, not the state's, right to decide whether one should die or not and that it is inhuman to prolong the suffering of those that are fatally and painfully ill by preventing them from making the choice to die quickly. I present the model. Euthanasia clinics where the patients can make the unpressured choice whether to die. The patients would be subjected to proffesional phsycological tests to determine their mental state and would be killed by an injection of pentobarbitol which is a tried and tested drug for human euthanasia. I eagerly await a challenger.", "title": "Euthanasia should be legalized", "pid": "2a7a3797-2019-04-18T18:16:06Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.03256225585938}, {"text": "Let's not get distracted from the topic and please refrain from hurtful language such as \"Are you cold or stupid?\" While I'm not saying that it certainly can have an emotional effect on the doctor who goes through with the procedure, it should be understood that the doctor is not forced to do such acts. It will be a decision of his own as he will decide his own profession and also if he will offer an assisted suicide procedure. No doctor is being forced to help in the suicide of another. The famous Dr. Jack Kevorkian who helped in the suicide of at least 130 patients still advocated the procedure until his last breath. The point being that obviously certain people are capable of handling such practices. \"Dying is not a crime.\" as Dr. Kevorkian once stated and is certainly not selfish. It is nothing but human nature to have a desire to maintain some control over one's life and ultimate death. Needless for me to point out that bringing religion into a political debate is hardly pertinent.", "title": "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill", "pid": "241794a9-2019-04-18T15:43:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.02149963378906}, {"text": "I extend my arguments again.", "title": "Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide", "pid": "dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.99896240234375}, {"text": "Hey lannan, Thank you for extending this debate opportunity to me. I look forward to an intense clash of minds in which all who observe can enjoy. XI: Intro and Definition I would like to begin this debate by making the clear observation that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) is NOT the same as euthanasia. In my own words PAS is self-administered death while euthanasia is the taking of another's life by the actual doctor, with of without their consent. Basically in euthanasia the doctor pulls the trigger (with or without permission by the patient) while in PAS the doctor simply supplies the gun, very different. These quotes will demonstrate what I am saying: \"Physician-Assisted Suicide is where patients with a terminal diagnosis (life-limiting disease) formally request a prescription for a fatal dose of a drug which they can administer to themselves at a time of their choosing......It is a patient-initiated and controlled form of dying, to treat an unbearable situation, and is legal in two states in the U.S.A. (Oregon [Death with Dignity Act 1994] and Washington [2009]), and in Europe in The Netherlands.\" \"Euthanasia is when a physician or other healthcare provider does something, such as administering a known lethal dose of a drug, to deliberately kill a patient, with or without the patient’s consent. It is not legal anywhere in the U.S.A.\" ~http://comfortcarechoices.com... \"Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia (sometimes called \"mercy killing\").\"~Wiki: Assisted Suicide XII: PAS is Safe and is fairly common in other countries Many people have misconceptions about physician assisted suicide. PAS is a very safe practice, Countries which allow PAS include: Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Canada. In the U.S. these states allow PAS currently: Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Montana and Vermont. ~Wiki: Assisted Suicide. Another fear many people have about PAS is that it is unsafe and leads to family members forcing others to engage in PAS for personal gain such as inheritance. This would be a major concern if it were not for the reasonability of legislation and the opposition to PAS. What I mean by that is, the fact opposition brings attention to the possibility of abuse, special measures are taken to implement especially safe laws. Here is a sample of the legal process to apply and receive PAS: \"Several safeguards in Death with Dignity laws ensure all patients are protected, and if they wish to use the law, they're in full control of the process. These safeguards and the request process ensure there's no chance patients are coerced to hasten their deaths. The terminally ill patient: verbally requests the medication from the physician twice; each request is separated by 15 days. make a written request to the attending physician; the request is witnessed by two individuals who are not primary care givers or family members. can rescind the verbal and written requests at any time. must be able to self-administer and ingest the prescribed medication. The law further requires... The attending physician must be licensed in the same state as the patient. The physician's diagnosis must include a terminal illness, with six months or less to live. The diagnosis must be certified by a consulting physician, who must also certify that the patient is mentally competent to make and communicate health care decisions. If either physician determines that the patient's judgment is impaired, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination. The attending physician must inform the patient of alternatives, including palliative care, hospice and pain management options. The attending physician must request that the patient notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. Use of the law cannot affect the status of a patient's health or life insurance policies. The states' departments of health enforce compliance with the law. Compliance requires physicians to report all prescriptions to the state. Physicians and patients who comply with the law are protected from criminal prosecution. Physicians and health care systems are not obligated to participate in the Death with Dignity laws.\" ~ See more at: http://www.deathwithdignity.org... XIII: The Moral Reason Physician Assisted Suicide Should Be Legal Beyond any facts I have presented I must state the moral reason for which PAS should be allowed, ultimately it comes down to the fact that people who suffer never-endingly, deserve the right to control their own life and as has been said, \"Die with Dignity\". People who oppose PAS often make arguments which are quite contradictory to the way in which we are supposed to treat others in the U.S.. One I often hear is, 'we cannot play god', to which I must respond, \"Which one?\". Not everyone believes in the same god and some lack such a concept. by rejecting the idea of PAS using this logic, are you not imposing your religious beliefs on others and is this not against the way in which we are supposed to operate in the U.S. concerning religion? I find it wrong that people who have never experienced excruciating and continual pain, force their beliefs on those who on a daily basis do. It is very egotistical to believe that you know more than an 'expert' in pain, in essence. So these people who have never experienced such pain prevent laws from being passed which would free people from the prison of their body. A person who is burning in a fire will experience pain so vast that it is incomprehensible, and it should be absolutely morally irreprehensible to allow the continuation of such pain; what deprives one of their right to pursue happiness than something like that? Please let me be clear, if such pain occurs for just a moment, then of course they should not be allowed to end their life. And if this pain is psychological and caused by depression, then of course they should not be permitted to end their life in this name, however it is when this suffering is permanent that we must disallow its continuation. Doing otherwise should be considered a crime, not vice vera. Thanks you for reading and considering, I end my opening statement.", "title": "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide.", "pid": "4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.95516967773438}, {"text": "I extend my arguments.", "title": "Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide", "pid": "dccf7263-2019-04-18T16:52:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.92202758789062}, {"text": "People that are terminally ill should try to enjoy the last portion of their lives instead of deliberately ending it. Euthanasia is assisted murder and the doctors should be charged with said crime. The doctor took a Hippocratic oath to help their patients and to try to ease them into the unfortunate moment of them dying, not being the cause of said death. Who knows, before the person dies of the disease they are trying to avoid dying from by killing themselves, they may come out with a cure. That is my stance", "title": "Euthanasia should be legal", "pid": "e21a5065-2019-04-18T15:14:34Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.9117431640625}, {"text": "I would want my family knowing i was leaving hapy(ish) rather than painfully and sad.", "title": "resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "3fcde3d5-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.88746643066406}, {"text": "Suicide is a grave sin equivalent to murder (Exodus 20:13; 21:23). So this means that you are also supporting murder.", "title": "this house believes that assisted suicide for the terminally ill should be made legal", "pid": "646edc73-2019-04-18T17:46:17Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.86436462402344}, {"text": "So if you were dying a very slow, painful death, you would want to live it?", "title": "resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "3fcde3d5-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.84613037109375}, {"text": "This debate is on the topic of euthanasia, also called 'assisted suicide'. It is the killing of someone with their permission, usually due to pain or distress the person committing suicide has to undergo daily. I wish for a good and enjoyable debate!", "title": "Euthanasia (assisted suicide) should be legalised.", "pid": "fe13b6d0-2019-04-18T17:15:38Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.83836364746094}, {"text": "My opponent makes no argument for why we should favor his interpretation of the right to life over my interpretation. My argument was dropped, so we must assume that the right to life only includes the right to keep your life, and not the right to do with it whatever you wish. However, despite my thoughts on the right to life, I believe that assisted suicide should be legal. Not because it would fulfill a right, but because it would reduce unnecessary suffering to those who will inevitably die without any reasonable chance of recovery or at least any remaining time without pain. Doctors should not kill their patients, and my arguments supporting that were dropped. Pro gives no reason as to why Euthanasia should be legalized that is unique to his plan over my counter plan (assisted suicide), and I have shown that his plan presents disadvantages that mine does not have. Therefore, you must negate.", "title": "Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America", "pid": "bdcebe60-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.81027221679688}, {"text": "California is looking to legalize physician assisted suicide ,with a bill much resembling Oregon\"s own. Introduced by senators Wolk and Monning January,20,2015,They call it the End of Life Act Option. Section 443 states \"This bill would enact the End of Life Act Option authorizing and adult who meets certain qualifications, and who has been determined by his or her attending physician to be suffering from a terminal illness, as defined, to make a request for medication prescribed pursuant to these provisions for the purpose of ending his or her life.\"This bill is giving a individual of the age of 18 the option to commit suicide through a attending physician. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov... Its extremely hard for anyone to accept the loss of a loved one, whether they\"re a child they raised or a sister they grew up with. Yet they call physician assisted suicide a \"just, and dignified death.\"But as the battle of what\"s right and what\"s wrong continues, more citizens of the U.S would prefer having the ones they love for a few more days, a few more minutes, or even a few more seconds than losing them forever without a chance to even say goodbye.", "title": "should California legalize physician assisted suicide", "pid": "2f93939-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.78195190429688}, {"text": "Thanks for your answer, Yerkezhan. I agree with you, that the pain might be intolerable, however, modern palliative care is immensely flexible and effective, and helps to preserve quality of life as far as is possible. There is no need for terminally ill patients ever to be in pain, even at the very end of the course of their illness. It is always wrong to give up on life. The future which lies ahead for the terminally ill is of course terrifying, but society\"s role is to help them live their lives as well as they can. This can take place through counselling, helping patients to come to terms with their condition.", "title": "Assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "4487afa8-2019-04-18T17:09:11Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.77471923828125}, {"text": "Arguments extended. Thank you for this debate.", "title": "Should Physician assisted suicide be legal", "pid": "83a06a6-2019-04-18T15:41:35Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.76419067382812}, {"text": "To conclude, I will summarize my arguments. First, I stated that PAS does not disproportionally affect vulnerable groups. As a result, there is little to no difference in the individuals who recieve and ultimately end up taking life-ending medications and the general public. Second, I argued that adequate screening for mental illness prevents the misuse of PAS. Onocologists and physicians dealing with terminally ill patients that request PAS need to be trained in the recognition of mental illness in those with life-threatening illnesses. This not only improves the quality of life for the patient, it also ensures that those recieving life-ending medications are making rational and informed decisions. Finally, I showed that despite the legalization of PAS, the number of people taking life-ending medications recieved under PAS remains very low.", "title": "Physician assisted suicide should be legal nationwide.", "pid": "9230094f-2019-04-18T14:30:38Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.75830078125}, {"text": "I think that for the overall success of this debate and for the comprehension of it by the readers, we should begin confident of what all terminology and related terminology mean, some of which haven't yet been covered. So let me take some time to explain the bigger picture. Let's start with regular euthanasia (EUTH); EUTH is most accurately described as the taking of another's life by a doctor in order to relieve them of their chronic and terminal pains or future mental degradation. Very extreme forms of EUTH existed in the Nazi regime, where the societal unproductive, disabled in mind or body, and those of a specific race or cultural background were 'euthanized' aka murdered. The main idea being that these people are deficient and not worthy of life. The normal form of EUTH is of course much, much less extreme, usually it is simply a doctor injecting a patient with a lethal drug or cutting of their life support. Here is where euthanasia splits into 2 different divisions. A, is active/ involuntary euthanasia where the doctor does not have any specific permission from the one being euthanized, it comes from other sources whether it be family, or Nazi regime in the past. In this case, the doctor would do something like inject the patient with a lethal drug.The second division of EUTH, B, is passive/voluntary EUTH; where the patient specifically asks the doctor to end their life and under no other party's directive. The doctor will then: pull the plug on life support/ stop giving them medicine/ let the disease take its course.Now we come to Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS), This is where the patient explicitly asks the doctor to give them: medicine, injection...etc. which they will then inject/breath through mask/drink...etc., specifically with the patient doing the action which ends their life. I will defend that PAS is: very passive euthanasia. I believe so because in regular passive EUTH the patient doesn't even pull their own cord, it is the doctor. So in PAS all the doctor does is give them the ability to pull their own cord, which I think is better, because it gives them much more control....Keep in mind that right now, if a family member wishes, they can pull the plug on say a dying father on his last limb in the hospital. This is true in ALL U.S. states. What is really the difference between PAS and puling the plug? Americans generally support the right to physician-assisted suicide, though the number varies depending on how the issue is framed. As of 2013 it was as high as 71% when the phrase \"end the patient's life by some painless means\" was used. That dropped to 51% when the phrase \"commit suicide\" was introduced.But what about the physicians themselves?According to a survey published Dec. 17 by Medscape, an online professional network and information source for physicians, 54% of doctors answered the question, \"Should physician-assisted suicide be allowed?\" with a yes. click=\"document.location='/TheJuniorVarsityNovice/photos/album/4636/30510/'\" src=\"../../../photos/albums/1/5/4636/226693-4636-e89c3-a.jpg\" alt=\"\" /> For this survey, Medscape asked more than 21,000 physicians a list of ethical questions. More than 17,000 of them were US doctors, while 4,000 European physicians responded.Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...In contention 1 my opponent gives us a truck load of facts, however even though he calls them \"horrible\" he never says why. He wants viewers to assume: A, that these people were simply murdered which is expressly untrue, and B, that this indicates a s but beyond that he has not provided evidence to support this suggested assumption so please do no consider this until it is properly warranted and explained. Also his source for this was labeled as an error which should be in the \"opinions sections\" of the website: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... In contention 2 my opponent states that passing laws allowing any form of EUTH leads to massive and involuntary euthanasia however I would actually classify this claim under the Slippery-Slope fallacy because there have only been facts presented thus far, yet these facts alone do not indicate that passive EUTH has lead to involuntary EUTH; he may have stated that but that doesn't make it true. For instance he stated that strict laws were passed supported by medical associations in 1987 and less so in 2001. These are neat facts but that's is all they are, they don't imply actual cause and effect. Please remember that Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary proof! click=\"document.location='/TheJuniorVarsityNovice/photos/album/4636/30510/'\" src=\"../../../photos/albums/1/5/4636/226693-4636-u9ags-a.jpg\" alt=\"\" /> In contention 3 my opponent basically states that the sickly just need to take ownership and get over their pain. I state that most people who are terminally ill aren't irrational they are simply regular people who are in constant and unbearable pain, with thoughts still intact. Please provide evidence stating that all people who are chronically ill are irrational, only then can we accept contention 3.Here are quotes which attack statements and assumptions made during the last round:\"There is no evidence demonstrating that the Netherlands has a greater rate of non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia than other Western countries. Indeed, there is a significant amount of evidence demonstrating the prevalence of both voluntary and involuntary active euthanasia in various jurisdictions in which euthanasia has not been legalized, looking at criminal prosecutions, admissions by doctors and anonymous surveys of medical professionals.\" -Penney Lewis, LLM, Reader in Law at the School of Law and Centre of Medical Ethics at Kings College, stated in a Spring 2007 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: article titled \"The Empirical Slippery Slope from Voluntary to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia\"Basically there is evidence that the percent of involuntary EUTH is less is the same in countries without legislation on the matter and as will be shown next, the legislation has actually decreased the amount of involuntary EUTH\"look to the Netherlands, where they’ve had progressive laws on assisted dying for over a decade now. In 2005, a study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 0.4 percent of all euthanasia procedures were carried out without the patient’s explicit permission. You might argue that that’s 0.4 percent too many, but get this: A 1991 report—written a decade before euthanasia was legalized—put the number at 0.8 percent. In other words, giving a nationwide go-ahead for doctors to legally end their patient’s lives actually halved the number of unwanted deaths. But hey, that’s just Holland, right? They do things differently there. Doctors in a less-hippie-liberal culture would never kill off patients without their consent, right? Well think again. In Britain, a 2012 study discovered that as many as 57,000 patients each year die without being told that efforts to keep them alive have been stopped. Instead, they’re just shoved onto a “death pathway” designed to alleviate suffering without ever being told. So basically, doctors in the UK are already practicing euthanasia—only without any of the legal framework to check abuses that would come from legalizing it.\" -http://listverse.com...\"In 2005, of all deaths in the Netherlands, 1.7% were the result of euthanasia and 0.1% were the result of physician-assisted suicide. These percentages were significantly lower than those in 2001, when 2.6% of all deaths resulted from euthanasia and 0.2% from assisted suicide.\" -Agnes van der Heide, MD, PhD, Senior Researcher in the Department of Public Health at Erasmus University As far as the Hyppocratic Oath, the problem arises when \"Do no harm\" is said, however it does more harm to let live in these cases", "title": "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide.", "pid": "4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.70074462890625}, {"text": "Attempting suicide is against the law. Since euthanasia is painless suicide, then it is illegal. There should be no reason why we legalize painless suicide but not painful, convenient, or other methods of suicide.", "title": "Euthanasia should be legal", "pid": "e21a5046-2019-04-18T15:14:26Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.661376953125}, {"text": "Euthanasia is the practice of ending someone's life in a painless manner, under their full conscious consent. This is done when the patient is terminally ill, and there are no foreseeable cures for their condition, a condition in which usually the patient is under excruciating pain. In a way, this is a form of suicide, one that is assisted by a physician who takes into consideration factors such as the condition of the patient; of whether or not they are viable for euthanasia. Individuals have the number one priority in a decision dealing with their own personal health and care. If they consent to euthanasia, then it should rightfully be granted to them. I will develop my arguments in further rounds.", "title": "Euthanasia Should Be Legal.", "pid": "2d207525-2019-04-18T19:36:31Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.64419555664062}, {"text": "I doubt that everyone in America will, and does want to kill them selves, and its not like they are commuting suicide just because they hate their lives, its because there is no chance that they are going to live and they are in pain and want to just speed the process up. Imagine you have cancer, and your going threw Kim and your losing your hair, and the cancer is spreading through out your body and your having lots of surgery, but there is nothing that the doctors can do and your in really bad pain, would you want to be like that for a couple more months or even years, or would you like to go and be in heaven with Jesus?", "title": "resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "3fcde3d5-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.62222290039062}, {"text": "I do not see how my argument is not relevant to the debate. And people who have a mental illness causing them to commit suicide are crazy, you'd have to be crazy to want to kill yourself. Second I was talking about physician assisted suicide, I was just using the term \"pulling the plug\" lightly.", "title": "physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "25dc8ac6-2019-04-18T19:24:09Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.59292602539062}, {"text": "There is one very simple problem with your position. The Hippocratic oath, by which all medicine in this country is practiced, strictly and definitively forbids it. In order to legalize physician assisted suicide you would literally have to re-write the basic code by which all physicians are bound. You argue that morality has no place in medicine, while the exact opposite is true. There is no medicine without morality, else all doctors would be little more than snake oil salesmen. Morality is required as a basic code of being a physician moreso than any other profession save for a preacher. Let's visit your theory for just a moment and assume it should be legal. On what basis or code should the doctor be bound by while making the determination of which patients to \"help\" in this manner? Should it be the Kevorkian method, that is whatever the physician himself believes? Should there be a set of guidelines on when it's acceptable and when it's not? Should it be required to get a second opinion from a consulting physician? How about from a psychologist? Do the ramifications of a suicide on family, particularly dependents, get taken into account? What about the clause in most life insurance policies that explicitly state they don't pay upon suicide? It's clear that some shysters masquerading as caring physicians would quickly take advantage of such a situation for the sake of profit rather than mercy. That is to say, if the first 5 docs say no, you don't qualify, the 6th one will say sure, but not until after the check clears. He'll likely have on staff equally immoral folk with necessary degrees to back him up. I am quite certain that Mr. Kevorkian eloquently stated his position on the matter and he obviously swayed you to his way of thinking, however when one looks at the situation through more than his very narrow viewpoint, it becomes quite obvious there are many obstacles that Jack doesn't adequately address on his lecture tour.", "title": "Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal", "pid": "9f12f501-2019-04-18T19:55:28Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.58590698242188}, {"text": "Euthanasia, assisted suicide, should be legal in all 50 states.", "title": "Human euthanasia is viable option for palliative care", "pid": "29343e58-2019-04-18T12:48:29Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.56370544433594}, {"text": "Looking forward to the debate.", "title": "should California legalize physician assisted suicide", "pid": "2f93939-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.55801391601562}, {"text": "No Round, As Required in The Terms of Agreement.", "title": "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Physician Assisted Suicide.", "pid": "4f51142c-2019-04-18T15:23:59Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.54197692871094}, {"text": "Euthanasia is is the practice of ending someone's life in a relatively painless manner, and with their full consent. This is only done when the patient is terminally ill, and there are no cures for their illness and the patient is usually under unbearable pain. This means that this is not suicide, this is a medical procedure, that is assisted by a physician who decides weather or not the patient are ill enough for euthanasia. If a individual decides that they have so much pain that they can\"t live with it, and that they would rather die than live with the pain until they die shouldn't they be allowed to do so?", "title": "Euthanasia should be legal", "pid": "e21a5065-2019-04-18T15:14:34Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.53131103515625}, {"text": "I being pro will argue for this. Let us define this (1)Assisted suicide is \"Suicide accomplished with the aid of another person, especially a physician.\" Round 1: is accepting the debate. Round 2: Build your case. No rebuttals Round 3: Confrontation, No new points shall be made. Offer rebuttals to your opponents case while establishing a closing statement. Any new points made other than ones that reestablish a previous point will result in loss of conduct points", "title": "Assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "4487af89-2019-04-18T17:22:01Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.52993774414062}, {"text": "Thank you for your concession. I'm still going to present my opening arguments anyway, mostly to save them for another debate. ==Opening Arguments== I would like to thank my opponent for providing his opening arguments. As a pre-med student, this is one issue that I care very deeply about. I am strongly opposed to any form of PAS or euthanasia. I’m looking forward to an excellent exchange. Observations This debate centers around PAS/Euthanasia. We need to understand that the two are not mutually exclusive and they are not synonyms for each other. Although the end goal is the same (death), the procedure is much different. Euthanasia is usually defined as an intentional act undertaken by the physician that intentionally ends the life of a person at his/her request. PAS, on the other hand, a person self-administers a lethal substance provided by the physician (1). Although these differences appear to be moot and non-consequential, they both have a differing set of ethical questions. For purposes of this particular debate, however, it appears that both of them are being treated as synonyms. Therefore, pro will have to show that both PAS and euthanasia should be legalized. I will, however, attempt to negate the resolution by showing that both PAS and euthanasia should not be legalized under any circumstances. Framework My framework will be centered around medical ethics and the harms that legalizing PAS or euthanasia will cause to the medical profession. Legalizing PAS or euthanasia would greatly harm the medical profession and violates the rights and dignity of patients. Corruption of Medicine Legalized PAS would forever change the culture and purpose in which medicine is practiced. Legalization of PAS would corrupt medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used for killing. Furthermore, it distorts the physician-patient relationship, and could eventually lead to forced euthanasia. Finally, the risks of misdiagnosis among terminally ill patients are far too great to allow a physician to determine who should live and who should die.The bedrock to medical ethics is the Hippocratic Oath (more on this in the next round) which states: “I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anyone who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” (2) This is the foundation of medicine. As doctors, we have the responsibility to treat our patients and stay on the side of life. Legalizing PAS would greatly undermine the first roll that a doctor has. Misdiagnosis PAS is seen as a merciful way out for the terminally ill. Under current law in Oregon and other places, the terminally ill can request PAS if they have been given less than 6 months to live. Unfortunately, misdiagnosis among the terminally ill is not uncommon. According to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, medical errors, when added up, may be the third leading cause of death (3). Joseph Perkins asks, “How many of those patients, depressed by the prospect of imminent death, might ask a doctor to prescribe them lethal medication so that they can end their lives, as euthanasia proponents euphemistically put it, ‘on their own terms’?” (4)Distorting the Physician-Patient Relationship As noted by Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, PhD.: “PAS changes the culture in which medicine is practiced. It corrupts the profession of medicine by permitting the tools of healing to be used as techniques for killing. By the same token, PAS threatens to fundamentally distort the doctor–patient relationship because it reduces patients’ trust of doctors and doctors’ undivided commitment to the life and health of their patients.” (5) The Duty to Die When does the right to die become the duty to die? Although the laws put safeguards in place to prevent forced PAS, no guarantee is made that it won’t occur and the safeguards are woefully inefficient. Because it is cheaper to kill a patient rather than treat one, insurance companies will be incentivized to cover medication of PAS rather than keep them covered long-term. This happened in 2008 to Barbra Wagner as CNN reports: “In 2008, came the story that Barbara Wagner, a Springfield, Oregon, woman diagnosed with lung cancer and prescribed a chemotherapy drug by her personal physician, had reportedly received a letter from the Oregon Health Plan stating that her chemotherapy treatment would not be covered. She said she was told that instead, they would pay for, among other things, her assisted suicide.” (7) The slippery slope is real and quite alarming. J. Pereria et al. noted that In Belgium, non-voluntary euthanasia (that is, without explicit consent of the patient) is 3 times higher than the Netherlands and accounts for more than 1% of all euthanasia. Their study concluded: “In 30 years, the Netherlands has moved from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill, to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill; from euthanasia for physical illness, to euthanasia for mental illness; from euthanasia for mental illness, to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering—and now to euthanasia simply if a person is over the age of 70 and “tired of living.” Dutch euthanasia protocols have also moved from conscious patients providing explicit consent, to unconscious patients unable to provide consent. Denying euthanasia or pas in the Netherlands is now considered a form of discrimination against people with chronic illness, whether the illness be physical or psychological, because those people will be forced to “suffer” longer than those who are terminally ill. Non-voluntary euthanasia is now being justified by appealing to the social duty of citizens and the ethical pillar of beneficence.” (7) This is certainly undesirable and has no place in medicine. Conclusion The great harm that it would cause to the medical profession cannot be overstated. Doctors must remain on the side of life and actively work to preserve life, not take it away. Moreover, the risk of misdiagnosis is far too great to risk terminating life prematurely. Instead of encouraging death, we must work to improve end-of-life care. The resolution is soundly negated. 1. http://www.medscape.com......2. http://guides.library.jhu.edu......3. http://qualitysafety.bmj.com......4. http://www.ocregister.com......5. http://www.heritage.org......6. http://www.cnn.com......7. Pereira, J. “Legalizing Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide: The Illusion of Safeguards and Controls.” Current Oncology 18.2 (2011): e38–e45. Print.", "title": "Assisted Suicide", "pid": "8ec49310-2019-04-18T12:55:26Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.52877807617188}, {"text": "I agreed not to make arguments in this round, so I'm limiting myself to some summary and a couple clarifications. Clarification: I argued \"assisted suicide\" because of a misunderstanding. I thought Pro was arguing only for euthanasia, because the title doesn't say anything about \"assisted suicide. \" After I realized the mistake, I dropped \"assisted suicide\" entirely. I switched gears to arguing against it. There's ambiguity about what the resolution is -- is it solely about euthanasia or does it include assisted suicide? This was unclear so I dropped assisted suicide. For purposes of this debate, then, I argue against assisted suicide. All of my contentions apply both to euthanasia and assisted suicide. I want to clarify that my arguments are aimed at both, because Pro mistakenly thinks I support assisted suicide. Don't punish me for Pro's misunderstanding. Summary: Euthanasia gives doctors the right to kill terminally ill patients. I argued based on that fact that euthanasia undermines equality, corrupts doctors, deprives suicide of meaning, and leads down a slope to involuntary euthanasia. I gave two alternatives: the status quo, where things remain as they are now, with euthanasia illegal, and my other option that we make deadly drugs available. Pro's arguments are that euthanasia improves autonomy and saves money. I argued that this isn't true, and I argued that my proposal for deadly drugs does those things better -- autonomy and costs -- while not falling prey to any of the harms of euthanasia. Thanks for the debate.", "title": "Euthanasia should be legalized", "pid": "2a7a3832-2019-04-18T14:51:38Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.51144409179688}, {"text": "Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is a controversial practice in which a doctor ends the life of the patient at his or her request. In the United States, PAS is currently legal in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, and New Mexico [1]. Oregon was the first state to legalize PAS following the enactment of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act on October 27, 1997 [2]. The other four states, Washington, Montana, Vermont, and New Mexico followed suit with the passage of I-1000 in 2008, the expansion of the Rights for the Terminally Ill Act in 2009, enactment of the Patient Choice and Control at End of Life Act in 2013, and a 2nd District Court ruling [3]. Contention 1: PAS does not disproportionally affect vulnerable groups. Although a frequently cited British study declares that PAS violates the rights of vulnerable individuals, this study declared competing interests, as two of the authors \"gave oral evidence to the Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill on behalf of the Association for Palliative Medicine\" and one being a member of that committee [4]. As a result, this study fails to stand in comparison with the various other non-biased studies that show equality in the application of PAS. Looking at data from Oregon, it is evident that PAS does not affect groups that are considered vulnerable at a higher rate than those that are not considered vulnerable. An analysis of 8 years of data from the Oregon Department of Health showed the following [5]: Individuals who were over 85 made up only 10% of PAS deaths, whereas 21% of the total deaths in Oregon were of those 85 and older. Only 2% of PAS deaths were of individuals with AIDS. Individuals who died by PAS were 7.6 times more likely to have a college degree. No patients who received life-ending medication were found to have a mental illness. Contention 2: Adequate screening for mental illness prevents the misuse of PAS.Terminally ill individuals are often concerned about leaving behind family members and may become anxious and depressed. While there have been studies analyzing the rates of depression in those who requested or received aid in dying, these studies have methodological problems, as targeting the desire for death in a PAS-specific manner invokes social and legal constraints [6]. For this reason, research that focuses on PAS in relation to depression rates are unreliable. As a result, scholars encourage those interested in the demographics of those receiving PAS to look into the desire for death as a whole in terminally ill patients [6]. There have been numerous studies conducted with the aim of gauging the prevalence of depression in individuals with terminal illness. For 25% of those with metastatic cancers depression is a major symptom, however \"80% of the psychological and psychiatric morbidity which develops in cancer patients goes unrecognized and untreated\" [7]. Thus, the key to improving the quality of life with those terminal illnesses is the training of healthcare professional in the identification of depression and providing appropriate treatment. By addressing clinical depression, the likelihood of PAS being abused is greatly decreased. Contention 3: PAS remains rare even in states where it is legal. In 2001, deaths by PAS made up 7 out of every 10,000 deaths in Oregon, which decreased since 1999 even though the number of prescriptions for life-terminating medications increased [8]. Washington state saw a similar occurrence, when in the three years since the passage of I-1000, 255 prescriptions had been written for life-ending medications but only 60% of patients chose to use them [9]. The legalization of PAS has not led to a noticeable increase in the number of patients taking life-terminating medications, dispelling the myth that terminally ill patients rushed to end their lives. [1] http://mobile.nytimes.com...[2] https://public.health.oregon.gov...[3] http://healthcare.findlaw.com...[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[6] http://jama.jamanetwork.com...[7] http://pmj.bmj.com...[8] http://www.nejm.org...[9] http://health.usnews.com...", "title": "Physician assisted suicide should be legal nationwide.", "pid": "9230094f-2019-04-18T14:30:38Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.5074005126953}, {"text": "I just have a couple of issues with your last argument and I'll leave it at that. -By definition anyone with a doctorate is a doctor. But even limiting the decisions to licensed physicians in no way, shape, or form is adequate. There is quite a difference between an E.R. Doc and and oncologist, for example. -The process IS arbitrary as long as there isn't a vetting process that would have to include a team of specialists all agreeing. A patient is only \"terminal\" when a doctor says so. Another Doc with the same exact training might disagree, a Doc with more specific training very often would. -Doctor shopping for purpose of getting a 2nd opinion is completely legal. In this case the patient would simply get as many opinions as necessary until he gets the one he wants. -The majority of cases where patients pull out of their illness aren't miraculous recovery, they are usually mis-diagnosis in the first place. The amount of cancer patients who are incorrectly told they are terminal is greater than you apparently realize, for example. I was a training coordinator in a major hospital for 4 years. Doctors incorrectly diagnosing patients and over or under estimating the severity of their illness is very common. It would probably appall you the number of \"medical\" decisions that are made based on insurance coverage rather than best care of the patient. Expanding this out to doctors making decisions such as assisted suicide is a slippery slope best not navigated.", "title": "Assisted suicide/euthanasia should be legal", "pid": "9f12f501-2019-04-18T19:55:28Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.4918975830078}, {"text": "I am a pro for the argument, let us define the point. (1) Assisted suicide is defined as: The suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose. Round one will be accepting the debate Round two will be building the arguments. No rebuttals. Round three will rebuttal . No new evidence will be brought to the table at this phase. Confront each other", "title": "The legalization of assisted suicide.", "pid": "84493d27-2019-04-18T17:16:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.481201171875}, {"text": "The fact of the matter, my opponent has no logical reasoning other than a religious one for denying the right to die in patient. Just as life is an unalienable right, by logic, death is the end result of life and cannot logically be denied. Is it fair to force one to suffer? Of course not. If we deny terminally ill patient their right to a timely death, then the rational thought going through the patient's mind must be committing suicide alone. We shouldn't force that to be a result. If a patient requests their death to be on their own terms and not have to face that task alone, we should honor that right. I once again request that may opponent adhere to the topic at hand.", "title": "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill", "pid": "241794a9-2019-04-18T15:43:47Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.4085693359375}, {"text": "Alright, lets get started! Topic 1- Physician assisted suicide should be legalized in the United States: I am PRO Topic 2- Water borading is a justified method of interrogation for terrorists: I am PRO Topic 3- The Bible supports Young Earth Creationism (YEC): I am PRO Good luck.", "title": "Pick your own debate - 1E", "pid": "f989aae1-2019-04-18T19:23:16Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.40396118164062}, {"text": "that is the damn problem with countries that go awry. ohh, lets not hurt my feelings while i ask absurd questions and provoke negative thoughts. little boy, it is a free for all and i am not in bounds and shackles. but the way america is going down the tubes...we will be soon,. in a world of no moral conscience or value to life. then yeah by all means..kill each other. kill yourself kill everyone. God is part of my answer and assisting someone is murder according to the logical and sane decrees of the ten commandments,.. i answered your question. i didnt give you a recipe for grandmas chocolate chip cookies, i gave you a blunt answer. people cannot take the truth. i said it would leave many consequences. the consequences are not worth it therefor i would be against assisted suicide. oh i am also against legal marijuana. its just another lame excuse to bring decay into society. you can be honest with yourself and look at the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana and there you will see how one bad idea leads to an entire chain of bad ideas. not to mention the health problems and psychological problems marijuana causes compared to giving a sick person an appetite. its the same thing when ever you bring something unatural into life you will get unatural effects. its not even a question. i will answer how ever i choose, i am not in chains or bounds. i am free and fed up with moral decay. sue me.", "title": "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill", "pid": "241794a9-2019-04-18T15:43:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.39170837402344}, {"text": "Firstly, pro argues that you have the right to stop living if you so desire. However, this stands in direct contridiction of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Washington V. Glucksberg where the majority opinion read \"The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.\" Therefore under American Law there is absolutely no right to die. Pro also argues that they would only have the option and not be forced to administer it. Perhaps this is true, but any doctor who administers it violates the medical profession. They go against the body that forms the policy for medical treatment as well as the Hippocratic oath which states \"I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;\" The job of the doctor and physician is to preserve and give comfort to human life, never to end it.", "title": "Euthanasia should be legalised", "pid": "1e884b3e-2019-04-18T16:53:19Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.3630828857422}, {"text": "Suicide is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help", "title": "assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "64e91157-2019-04-15T20:22:54Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.32830810546875}, {"text": "Euthanasia should be legal in the United States. However, only when voluntary. A person has the right to life, and therefore they also have the right to die. Why should they suffer if they don't have to or don't want to any longer? Nobody should have to suffer for a longer period of time if they don't want to. Being terminally ill and fighting for so long is suffering enough. They must grow tired of it and if there is a way to end the suffering peacefully and safely then people should at least have the choice to choose assisted suicide.", "title": "Euthanasia", "pid": "88e3525b-2019-04-18T18:52:58Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 218.324951171875}, {"text": "Some of my opponent's arguments do not link to his conclusion. When someone is given the right to life, that means that the government outlaws murder, and punishes those who infringe on the right. This has nothing to do with the right to do with it whatever they want. With Pro's interpretation of this right, anyone including depressed teenagers and the like, are allowed to commit suicide, even when it would clearly harm society for them to do so.My opponent's sole valid point is basically this: that those who want a way out from their pain should have it by killing them, which is a merciful thing to do. However, I also agree that patients should have the right to die in this circumstance, with assisted suicide. This would achieve the same upsides, without the downsides of the doctor outright killing the patient.With the doctor killing the patient, doctors are given power that may be abused. For example, when it would benefit the doctor, the doctor could fake consent, among other things. Assisted suicide achieves the same upsides, without the ethical downsides of euthanasia.", "title": "Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America", "pid": "bdcebe60-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.32379150390625}, {"text": "I shall debate you on the topic of assisted suicide. I believe not only that Assisted is not moral right but if allowed, doctors would have the power to take human life away when someone very ill could not be the right state of clarity or mind. Just because a pactient is ill now, doesn't mean that all hope of finding what the illness that person has is impossible and so that doesn't mean a doctor should have the power away life just because hope is small or even lost. In all, assisted suicide is wrong not just morally, but it can allow a doctors or nurses to undermine the right to life just because at that moment the ill person in that moment what's to die.", "title": "Assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "4487af89-2019-04-18T17:22:01Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.3131103515625}, {"text": "Debate starts next round", "title": "should California legalize physician assisted suicide", "pid": "2f93939-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.29270935058594}, {"text": "It is vital that a doctor's role not be confused", "title": "assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "64e91157-2019-04-15T20:22:54Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.2786407470703}, {"text": "First off I just want to clarify what assisted suicide means for my opponent. \"Assisted suicide occurs when a physician provides a patient with the means of ending his or her life—usually a prescription for a fatal dose of drugs. The patient takes the drugs independently of the doctor. This procedure differs from euthanasia, in which the doctor administers the fatal dose or performs some other act, such as a lethal injection, that ends the patient's life.\" (1) That being said it is also illegal in every state within the U.S. besides Oregon and Washington. (2) I propose a change to this and make it legal in every state. Who are we to say a patient must suffer until his final breath is taken? We can condemn a man to a death sentence but we will not let him chose his own? If in fact the principals this country was founded on are still upheld today (which, in some perspectives it doesn't seem to be so) then we should have the free will to chose when enough is enough. Don't get me wrong I believe there should be some requirements put on it however I will go into farther detail once my opponent has a chance to make his argument. I wish good luck to us both. (1) http://socialissues.wiseto.com... (2) http://www.lifesitenews.com...", "title": "Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized.", "pid": "668509e3-2019-04-18T19:24:49Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.27737426757812}, {"text": "one of the ten commandments says: thou shalt not murder. Assisted suicide is murder. assisted suicide assisted pedophilia assisted bank robbery whats the difference? they are all causing another person to commit a crime. that sounds like a really sneaky way to bring someone else down with you. and then what, after the doctor goes on living or familiy on or the lovers or the friends and children and parents go on in life after realizing they just killed someone, who is going to help them? can you imagine the guilt and issues they will face and the regret? or are you cold and stupid? if someone is on the verge of death then let em go..they will die. if someone is on life support. i dont think taking someone off life support counts as murder being that it is a machine doing all the living for the patient and its apparent they arent waking up and that they are clinically brain dead..it l depends though. but some selfish ungreatful prick asking u to kill him so he can be free while he leaves u with all the guilt and confusion and consequences and pain can just suffer and wait like the rest of us who are struggling in life. i dont think so...if they want to commit suicide...let them do it them selves. thats the whole point. other wise...its just murder. so is abortion by the way.", "title": "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized for the Terminally Ill", "pid": "241794a9-2019-04-18T15:43:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.242919921875}, {"text": "Just a quick note to the readers and voters that this debate is for the DDO Olympics hosted by bsh1. Full ResolutionResolved: That physician assisted suicide should be legalized. Good luck and may the best arguments win.", "title": "Assisted Suicide", "pid": "8ec49310-2019-04-18T12:55:26Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.23211669921875}, {"text": "Have you committed suicide already assisted by a doctor?:D", "title": "should euthanasia be legalized", "pid": "6d0a91e4-2019-04-18T17:06:16Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.21047973632812}, {"text": "In your argument you are suggesting assisted suicide. By your opening sentence \" Euthanasia should be legal for anyone who no longer desires to live...\" According to afsp.org 494,169 people visit the hospital a year for self harm and suicide attempts. By allowing people to have the option to euthanize themselves you are giving them an easy way out. When people are rendered incapable of taking care of themselves they are given a proxy, a family member or friend, that is able to chose what happens to them.", "title": "Should euthanasia be legal", "pid": "114892b1-2019-04-18T11:52:47Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.1965789794922}, {"text": "i so like Dr.Kevorkian who help to kill over 100 people", "title": "this house believes that assisted suicide for the terminally ill should be made legal", "pid": "646edc73-2019-04-18T17:46:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.173583984375}, {"text": "Human Euthanasia is currently only legal in three states; Oregon, Montana, and Washington. It should be legal in every state. It is a morally sound practice that should be legal in every state. When pain and suffering makes it so that life is no longer worth living, it should be a choice that has been taken into careful consideration but ultimately available to all. Regulated as any medical procedure it, the ability to choose a peaceful death with the love and care of your family around you should be available to all. It says in our constitution that the government will secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves. It is our liberty to choose whether we may end our lives on a note of horrible pain, drug induced-comatose status, or one surrounded by family and able to say goodbye to those we love. Therefore Euthanasia for the Human man or woman is legally and morally sound.", "title": "Human euthanasia should be legal because it is morally and constitutionally sound.", "pid": "d695a71e-2019-04-18T18:29:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.13259887695312}, {"text": "Where euthanasia is currently illegal, it is a lonely, desperate act, carried out in secrecy and often as a cry for help. The impact on the family who remain can be catastrophic. By legalizing assisted suicide, the process can be brought out into the open. In some cases, families might have been unaware of the true feelings of their loved one; being forced to confront the issue of their illness may do great good, perhaps even allowing them to persuade the patient not to end their life. In other cases, it makes them part of the process: they can understand the reasons behind their decision without feelings of guilt and recrimination, and the terminally ill patient can speak openly to them about their feelings before their death.", "title": "Legalizing euthanasia would allow more open family dialogue on the choice.", "pid": "89c45bda-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00115-000", "bm25_score": 218.128173828125}, {"text": "Good luck to you as well. Assisted suicide is an extremely delicate issue. On one side, there is the argument that my opponent has put forward, saying that a person should be allowed to choose when they die, in other words, that it is an issue of freedom. However, I propose that it is instead an issue of curing those who suffer, rather than simply allowing them to kill themselves. This belief is based on three concepts. First is the concept that one of the rules a physician should follow is \"Primum non nocere\" (First, not to harm). (http://en.wikipedia.org...). A doctor is morally and ethically obligated to do his best to help his patient, even if it goes against the patient's wishes. By intentionally giving a person (patient is not really the correct term when the doctor is helping them kill themselves) drugs for the sole purpose of ending that person's life is a violation of the doctor's integrity. Second, suicide is a symptom of mental illness. Over 90% of those who commit suicide have a psychiatric diagnosis at the time of death (World Psychiatric Association http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...). The desire to commit suicide could actually be considered a mental disorder in and of itself, as it displays a violation of the survival instinct. These people need help to fight their problems, not help to kill themselves. If it was legal for a physician to help people commit suicide, people who were contemplating it would be more likely to follow through, since the drugs would be quick and painless, as opposed to other methods a person might use. Finally, suicide has many inherent ethical issues. Augustine pointed out in The City of God (I believe, I can't find my copy of it, so it may be in Confessions) that when someone kills themselves, they are committing murder. Specifically, he refers to a woman idolized in Roman tradition who had been raped, then committed suicide because she couldn't live with the shame. Everyone referred to her as innocent. However, Augustine raised the point that she had therefore killed an innocent woman. Intentionally killing an innocent person is, by definition, murder. Therefore, suicide is not a freedom, but rather a crime or a symptom of illness. As such, it is a doctor's duty to prevent suicide, rather than assisting it. If anything, we should strengthen the penalties for physician assisted suicide, rather than removing them.", "title": "Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized.", "pid": "668509e3-2019-04-18T19:24:49Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.12696838378906}, {"text": "You make a valid point, but the right to life means the right to their life. They can do whatever they choose to with their life. By denying them the opportunity for a way out, you are being cruel. Assisted suicide and euthanasia should be legal.", "title": "Euthanasia Should Be Legal In America", "pid": "bdcebe60-2019-04-18T13:07:00Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.12310791015625}, {"text": "In conclusion, because everyone has a right to their own body, everyone has the right to suicide, regardless of the approval of anyone else. It shouldn't be contingent upon illness, for doctors do not have the authority to decide whether someone should live his life.", "title": "Euthanasia should be legalized but with requirements", "pid": "6dbd1f79-2019-04-18T16:49:50Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.1012420654297}, {"text": "\"I do not see how my argument is not relevant to the debate. \" If someone chooses to die, it is their choice. The physician has no right to try to stop them. The person does not need saving. The person just wants to die. \"And people who have a mental illness causing them to commit suicide are crazy, you'd have to be crazy to want to kill yourself. \" Not necessarily. Their life could be in extenuating circumstances. They could be severely depressed. Neither of these cases can be called crazy. \"Second I was talking about physician assisted suicide, I was just using the term \"pulling the plug\" lightly. \" That's all right with me. My opponent's contention is still definitionally irrelevant, though. That's the main problem. *** Two of my contentions stand unrefuted, and my opponent has done an inadequate job of attacking my other contention. My opponent's contention is definitionally irrelevant. By offering virtually no rebuttals in round 3, my opponent has essentially conceded.", "title": "physician assisted suicide should be legalized", "pid": "25dc8ac6-2019-04-18T19:24:09Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.09547424316406}, {"text": "Point: Those in the late stages of a terminal illness have a horrific future ahead of them. The gradual decline of their body, the failure of their organs and the need for artificial support. In some cases, the illness will slowly destroy their minds, the essence of themselves; even if this is not the case, the huge amounts of medication required to \"control\" their pain will often leave them in a delirious and incapable state. At least five percent of terminal pain cannot be controlled, even with the best care. Faced with this, it is surely more humane that those people be allowed to choose the manner of their own end, and have the assistance of a doctor to die with dignity. One particular account was of Sue Rodriguez who died slowly of Lou Gehrig's disease. She lived for several years with the knowledge that her muscles would, one by one, waste away until the day came when, fully conscious, she would choke to death. She begged the courts to reassure her that a doctor would be allowed to assist her in choosing the moment of death. They refused. Rodriguez did not accept the verdict and with the help of an anonymous physician committed suicide in February 1994.[1] [1]Chris Docker, Cases in history, euthanasia.cc, 2000 http://www.euthanasia.cc... (accessed 6/6/2011)", "title": "Physician assisted suicide (Euthanasia)", "pid": "affb1a60-2019-04-18T15:03:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.0925750732422}, {"text": "Ok so I believe that assisted suicide should be legal. I am open to debate.", "title": "Assisted Suicide.", "pid": "49cd40b7-2019-04-18T11:56:34Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.08184814453125}, {"text": "Now, when talking about the idea of Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS), there are some points I’d like to make in regards to PAS. Duty of the Physician A physician’s duty to his/her patients is simple: to relieve (as much as possible) his/her patient’s suffering, as well as preserve the dignity of said patient [1]. If a person with a terminal and painful illness is barely mobile, cannot feed his/herself, but can request to be assisted in suicide by a physician, and the physician refuses due to it being unlawful, then his/her duty isn’t being met. The patient is clearly suffering to some capacity (even with pain medication, psychological anguish is present), as well as being robbed of his/her dignity, having to lie in a bed, as others must do things for him/her. Rights of the Patient Any person, whether a medical patient or not, owns his/her body, as well as life. Therefore, he/she also has the right to do with his/her body and life as he/she fits. This is why people have the right to be taken off life support when in a vegetative state. And, when one requests a PAS, they are requesting something very similar. After all, what else is he/she doing besides making a firm decision having to do with his/her own life. Therefore, if his/her decision does not impact or violate the rights of another person, then he/she should be able to legally have that right. Let’s go back to the analogy I used previously. This patient, (provided that his/her decision hasn’t been influenced by anything other than his/her own personal judgment), when requesting a PAS, should, naturally, be allowed to have his/her request be able to be accepted, without fear of legal consequences, because his/her own decision is not harming anyone else’s rights. Cost of Dying Whatever way one looks at it, dying costs money. In fact, a person in Miami will be spending around $23,000 on medical bills in the last six months of his/her life [2]. This cost is for dying without the use of PAS. However, a person, using PAS, would only spend approximately $10,000 (in 1995 dollars) on medical bills [3]. I’d like you to think about that. If a person chooses to have a PAS, this would mean that his/her surviving relatives would have about $13,000 that they didn’t before to put toward a funeral (a traditional funeral ranges from $7,000 to over $10,000 [4]), or other debts that may need to be paid. Once more, I’d like to go back to my hypothetical. Let’s say that this patient who wishes to have a PAS, may have un-wealthy relatives, or he/she may be un-wealthy. Not only is he/she suffering, but he/she is also paying quite a bit of medical bills to be kept alive, especially when he/she doesn’t wish to be in the first place. So, given the opportunity to choose, not only would he/he be relieving his/herself of suffering, but also saving money for his/her relatives or beneficiaries as well. Summary So, to summarize my opening argument, here’s a simple wrap-up: (P1) A physician’s duty is to relieve suffering and preserve dignity. (P2) A patient has the right to do with his/her life and body as he/she sees fit. (P3) The costs of a PAS are about half the costs of conventional treatment. ( C ) A patient should be allowed to legally request, and eventually have, a PAS. References [1] . http://endoflife.northwestern.edu... [2] . http://www.usatoday.com... [3] . http://www.nejm.org... [4] . http://www.funeralswithlove.com... Thank you, and I look forward to Con’s opening argument/rebuttal.", "title": "Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS) should be Legalized", "pid": "7d751371-2019-04-18T18:44:43Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.07424926757812}, {"text": "In reply to the arguments that you made against my original argument, it is perfectly acceptable to use my beliefs as an argument. I will now explain why for multiple reasons: 1) in order for this to be legalized it would have to be voted on by the government (state or federal) or the people of each state. Therefore the personal beliefs of all individuals voting would come into account. 2) in the hypothetical situation that doctor assisted suicide is legalized on a country wide scale, the beliefs of the doctor who prescribes the medication to legally commit suicide would come into play because ultimately it is there decision. They are the one who signs the prescription. They can turn down a request for medication to commit suicide. The argument on the Hippocratic Oath was not a belief In a new argument I would like to bring into account that most physicians find it unacceptable as well. 75% of doctors polled in 2012 found PAS unacceptable **Same resource as before**", "title": "Doctor Assisted Suicide", "pid": "4602aa65-2019-04-18T16:47:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.05453491210938}, {"text": "At the core of a legalized physician assisted suicide (PAS) system is the principal that medical ethics should be governed and regulated by the professionals instead of lawmakers. A PAS system puts the expertise of the doctor and the experience of the patient at the forefront of the issue and views both perspectives rightly as the most credible in a given situation. The law cannot adapt to the specificity and multitude of ethical problems that arise on a situational basis. The law can only take into account circumstances that it foresees and can elaborate on. The highly personal and situational nature of this issue deems it insufficient for legislation, which exists outside the realm of the personal. The foundation of medical ethics relies upon the understanding of the consent (when applicable) of the patient to the procedure and the discretion, judgment, and experience of the medical profession to whom the patient has entrusted their care. The basis of good and ethical health and health systems relies upon the integrity of this. [[http://www.ur.umich.edu/9697/May20_97/artcl10.htm]]", "title": "The relationship between Law and Medical Ethics", "pid": "c54d13cd-2019-04-19T12:44:35Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 218.032470703125}, {"text": "For those who do not know, Euthanasia is also recognised as assisted suicide or medical suicide. It is the act of ending a life, If the person requests it, To relieve pain and suffering. I am for euthanasia. I believe that people should have the right to decide when their own life should end. It should only be done by medical professionals in a hospital setting, It goes without saying. Why should people have to live in pain? That is no life. Whose family wants to watch them suffer? You should be allowed peace. As long as you are mentally assessed and proven to be mentally stable and capable, You should be allowed to make this decision.", "title": "Euthanasia", "pid": "9386f9ee-2019-04-18T11:08:36Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.93408203125}]}
{"idx": 23, "qid": "24", "q_text": "Does lowering the federal corporate income tax rate create jobs?", "qrels": {"824ee5c0-2019-04-18T11:53:55Z-00001-000": 0, "70ffe88-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00123-000": 0, "7181e3b5-2019-04-18T16:46:41Z-00009-000": 0, "72004c03-2019-04-18T15:20:56Z-00005-000": 1, "8b2eaf6e-2019-04-15T20:22:54Z-00020-000": 0, "9b6c2fbb-2019-04-18T14:01:14Z-00001-000": 0, "a44baae-2019-04-18T17:58:49Z-00002-000": 2, "ba23bc61-2019-04-18T16:33:13Z-00001-000": 0, "bf86583-2019-04-18T18:37:59Z-00006-000": 2, "cc6ed0dd-2019-04-18T19:57:54Z-00001-000": 0, "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00003-000": 1, "cce037b4-2019-04-18T18:37:37Z-00002-000": 2, "d7afda0e-2019-04-18T19:46:01Z-00000-000": 0, "da3b006-2019-04-18T15:10:30Z-00003-000": 0, "da3b006-2019-04-18T15:10:30Z-00002-000": 0, "e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00028-000": 0, "e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00017-000": 0, "f1166b20-2019-04-18T18:31:47Z-00001-000": 2, "f1166b5e-2019-04-18T18:31:24Z-00004-000": 2, "f1166b5e-2019-04-18T18:31:24Z-00003-000": 2, "fbe0f0fc-2019-04-18T14:37:21Z-00005-000": 2, "d7aa69c4-2019-04-18T16:31:03Z-00003-000": 1, "5b858825-2019-04-19T12:48:05Z-00012-000": 0, "61de83bd-2019-04-18T17:57:38Z-00000-000": 0, "5993a6ac-2019-04-18T16:46:48Z-00007-000": 2, "a01e51a9-2019-04-18T16:36:28Z-00000-000": 1, "1d684498-2019-04-18T17:05:49Z-00001-000": 0, "1e1c8b2a-2019-04-15T20:22:32Z-00002-000": 0, "1e1c8b2a-2019-04-15T20:22:32Z-00001-000": 0, "1e1c8b2a-2019-04-15T20:22:32Z-00004-000": 0, "2131c836-2019-04-18T12:42:05Z-00002-000": 1, "2131c836-2019-04-18T12:42:05Z-00003-000": 1, "2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00007-000": 0, "2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00004-000": 1, "5ad9ec0c-2019-04-18T17:16:35Z-00003-000": 0, "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00035-000": 0, "2de2f8b-2019-04-18T19:24:00Z-00004-000": 1, "3b46eaaf-2019-04-18T16:12:59Z-00005-000": 0, "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00057-000": 0, "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00032-000": 0, "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00051-000": 0, "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00140-000": 0, "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00028-000": 0, "4531b787-2019-04-18T18:37:54Z-00004-000": 0, "4688fcc6-2019-04-18T14:43:50Z-00005-000": 1, "3a4e4366-2019-04-19T12:44:06Z-00004-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Corporate tax rates are too high and are causing business uncertainty. Taxes on the 1 percent are at all time highs. They pay about half of their income. I believe in the american people, not the american government. Government doesnt not create jobs because taxing takes money from investors that otherwise would have been invested.", "title": "Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0%", "pid": "2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.42115783691406}, {"text": "This is my first debate, so please be gentle with me...:) Initially, you may say, \"Wait, you mean 'lower' rates, right?\". No, it's my argument that corporations view periods with historically low tax rates as opportune times to take their profits, as opposed to reinvesting them. One of the main goals of a CEO is to pay as little corporate tax as possible. Therefore, when corporate tax rates are historically high, the CEO is much more motivated (encouraged) to reinvest in their company, rather than pay all of that \"high\" income tax on any profits.", "title": "Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment.", "pid": "825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.6337890625}, {"text": "Your main argument encompasses the negatives of a lower Corporate Tax paired with the ability to create loopholes in taxation and end up paying very little either way. In this debate, I never stated that we should keep these loopholes. This is strictly based upon the assertion that corporate tax is entirely too high, and that we should lower it. Evidently, lowering corporate tax, making a much simpler tax code, and then creating a conjunction in which no company under any circumstances can skip taxation, would create a much better system. In the end, a nation that focuses on free trade would slash the corporate tax rate completely, and keep it at a stable 0. If government also cuts their own spending, this would be easily affordable for the United States. On a competitive level, however, we do have the highest corporate tax rate among other industrialized nations. Whether many of our own companies pay this amount is up for another debate, but the stable fact is that we have the highest corporate tax. We definitely should focus on closing up loopholes, but paired with a lower tax rate, as these loopholes are the only reasons why the remaining corporations have stayed in our nation. There are many benefits to a lowered corporate tax rate: 1. Cutting the corporate tax rate will promote higher long-term economic growth. 2. Cutting the corporate tax rate will improve U.S. competitiveness. 3. Cutting the corporate tax rate will lead to higher wages and living standards. 4. Cutting the corporate tax rate will boost entrepreneurship, investment, and productivity. 5. Cutting the corporate rate lowers the tax burden on low-income taxpayers and seniors. 6. Cutting the corporate rate will lower the overall dividend tax rate and taxes on capital. 7. Cutting the corporate tax rate can attract foreign direct investment (FDI). 8. Cutting the corporate rate would lead to lower corporate debt and reduce the incentives for income shifting. 9. Cutting the corporate tax rate can reduce compliance costs. 10. Cutting the federal corporate rate can help the states compete globally.[1] You have also stated that corporations benefit from publicly funded organizations, such as roads, education systems, police officers, etc. Evidently, this is true. The argument here is that corporations could do the same in other nations, but people could not. In order to have safety, the government must devote funds to public organizations, which pairs with corporate likeability. Making an argument centered around the complete obliteration of the corporate tax without the complete deletion of tax loopholes will ultimately fail. For one to make an argument such as this, that person will ultimately need to understand the reason as to why there are lobbyists and tax loopholes. Our high tax rates ultimately effect corporations, and cause them to ship both jobs and capital overseas, into nations such as China or India that have much lower tax rates and much easier loopholes. Instead of basing our ideas on the general morality of corporations, which does not exist, we would create a comprehensive tax system that eliminates deception and incentivizes corporate investment. Being a Libertarian, I oppose all taxation plans, but I see most as realistically needed for the government to properly function. In the case of business, there should be little to no taxes, including both income and corporate tax. Business is based upon profit, and the desire for more profit, which people associate with the term greed. A government created legislation that undermines this desire for profit will be met by a dissociation of that profit base and relocation to a less restrictive nation, such as China and India. The three largest expenses of a corporation are wages, taxes, and supplies. As supplies and wages are necessary for the continuation of the company as well as employees desire to work in said company, removing those would be unrealistic. On the other hand, a relocation of taxes, whether based upon net revenue or net profit, would drastically impact interest of corporations as well as ability to function on a larger scale. You have previously stated that many corporations do not require a higher level education, which is wrong. According to the following source [2] (Link will be stated below), our job sector’s need for education has increased dramatically throughout the next 40 years. In accordance with this information, your argument creates the illogical fallacies that state funded education is required for these corporations to function. This may be true if you take in account the entire world, as there will be nowhere else for the corporations to go, but in the matters of the United States, which is our debate’s primary focus, state funded education will benefit the people more than the corporation. While you may believe that tax cuts will benefit the corporation more than the people, it is still clearly evident that lower taxes always equates to more incentive. We would effectively eliminate all need for tax lobbyists and special interest if we created a comprehensive tax system, or got rid of corporate tax all together. A small fraction of our government spending is created by corporate tax, which only alienates corporations and creates a disparity between economic centers in their need for unlegislated competition. In accordance with your previous statement, most of these retail jobs are held by the least educated in our society, and whether they are uneducated due to the governments failures or due to their own laziness and lack of willpower is up for discussion. Sources: [1] http://taxfoundation.org... [2]https://cew.georgetown.edu...", "title": "Corporate Tax Should be Lowered", "pid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.51898193359375}, {"text": "Really? You can't read the rules of the debate? (sigh)Well, here's my case.Laffer CurveDuring the late 1970s, economist Arthur Laffer gave his name to the Laffer curve. The concept has existed before. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon came up with the the hypothesis of scientific taxation that lower rates generates higher revenues for the federal government. When the rate is higher, economic expansion and production is discouraged. In this case we are talking about the wealth of businesses who will grow less with a higher rate because they have to move more capital to taxation. When the tax rate is small, more capital is used on the business itself. The business grows and there is more corporate profits. More profits means more revenue for the corporation and that means more revenue for the federal government through a lower tax rate. Companies Move OverseasPfizer, the largest drug maker in the US, recently announced that it is moving its legal address to the UK because of the lower corporate tax rate. It is likely other businesses will the follow. The UK corporate tax rate is set to approach 20% by 2015. The current US corporate tax rate is 35% and that is a 15% difference for their profits. The US needs to lower its corporate tax rate in order to keep more businesses and gain more for the United States. As simple 10% cut from 35% to 25% puts on level with other nations. This will increase the competition of the American economy. At the same time, eliminating loopholes allows us to get more revenue from them.Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. \"The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future.\" The Heritage Foundation.2. Giobanetti, Tom. \"As Capital Flees, England is Texas, and the U.S. is California.\" RealClearMarkets.", "title": "The US should reform its Corporate Tax", "pid": "3b46eaaf-2019-04-18T16:12:59Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.25294494628906}, {"text": "Here's a better idea: Corporate tax rate: 0%, that way buisnesses will have more money to invest in creating more jobs. Instead tax those who receive checks from that corporation, derived from those profits.", "title": "Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth.", "pid": "2131c836-2019-04-18T12:42:05Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.13401794433594}, {"text": "I'm talking state, local, and federal taxes. They're rates are higher than they've been in ages. They are the job creators and you cannot prove that their rates are low. You mentioned earlier that they bribe politicians. This is another reason to abolish the corporate tax rate! Without the corporate tax rate, they can't lobby for special breaks. Problem solved, democracy back.", "title": "Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0%", "pid": "2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.02081298828125}, {"text": "\"America’s producers can compete successfully in the international arena – as long as they have a level playing field. Today’s tax code is tilted against them, with one of the highest corporate tax rates of all developed countries. That not only hurts American investors, managers, and the U.S. balance of trade; it also sends American jobs overseas. We support a major reduction in the corporate tax rate so that American companies stay competitive with their foreign counterparts and American jobs can remain in this country.\"", "title": "Higher taxes discourage hard work.", "pid": "70ffe88-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00119-000", "bm25_score": 215.90292358398438}, {"text": "My opponent has repeated his argument with an example completely ignoring the flaw I pointed out. So I will point out the flaw once more.Scenario #1: Tax Rate: 35%, Pre tax profit 1,000,000Scenario #2: Tax Rate: 50%, Pre tax profit 1,000,000The scenarios are wrong!In scenario #2, the pre-tax profit will be much lower. The reasons for this I have explained in the first round. As my opponent has not contested them, they stand.As my opponents arguments are based on unrealistic scenarios and assumptions, they are invalid. My opponent has quoted from a book (and a report based on the book) authored by Jim Stanford[1], who works for 'Canadian Auto Workers union, Canada’s largest private sector trade union'. Let me suggest that there is a conflict of interest.Let me present a work of Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna[2] who are economists at Harvard University [3][4]. Based on a study from period of 1970 to 2007 for several OECD countries, they conclude:'Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases.'I look forward to closing remarks from my opponent.[1] http://www.economicsforeveryone.ca...[2]http://www.economics.harvard.edu...[3] http://www.economics.harvard.edu...[4] http://www.economics.harvard.edu...", "title": "Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment.", "pid": "825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.88473510742188}, {"text": "\"This is actually a problem for the economy, it's not a good factor that can lead to better economic growth like you say it does.\"Lowering taxation period leads to higher GDP ceteris paribus\"Globalization itself isn't a problem at all, but if jobs or capital were to be shipped overseas then it would be devastating for OUR economy while only one economy benefits.\"You are ignoring the law of comparative advantage. Your statement is blatantly incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org...\"Corporations do this (ship jobs overseas) to avoid corporate taxes\"This is incorrect. Corporations shift profits overseas to avoid taxes. They shift manufacturing jobs overseas because the lower cost of living allows the goods to be manufactured at cheaper wages than by unionized wages. \"if taxes were lowered the government would actually be making more profit\"No. We are not that high on the Laffer Curve as evidenced by the historic corporate tax lows.http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Corporate taxes should be lowered", "pid": "4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.74159240722656}, {"text": "Thanks to tcow2970 for initiating the debate.Opening statement will be short, as the nature of the debate demands that pro must uphold the proposition that Taxes were indeed *excessively high* prior to tax reform. Government SpendingOver several decades, overall spending as a percent of GDP has followed a positive trend, as noted by reference [1]. That being said, to supplement such increased levels in spending, we either (a) raise taxes, or (b) accept higher levels of national debt. Option b) is undesirable because long-term debt does play into the devaluation of US treasury bonds, which would eventually reduce the ability to defecit-spend your way out of a recession. Thus, we are left with option a). Suggestions could be made to decrease spending, but such discussion is outside of the scope of this debate.Effectiveness of Reducing Corporate TaxesAs I am not intending to prove that lowering the tax is effective, but rather that the taxes prior to the tax cut are not excessive, I am not required to advocate for any specific position. Instead, I intend to question the impact a reduced tax rate will have on the general economy. Commonly it is said that lower taxes often produce a 'trickle-down effect' - that is, essentially when corporate taxes are lowered, they are better able to finance the cost of a larger number of workers at higher salaries. However, such logic has never actually been verified in practice. It is also important to note that corporate income taxes aren't fixed at the 35% number often thrown around by Republicans. The corporate income taxes rates also follow brackets. [2].References[1] https://blogs-images.forbes.com...[2] https://www.thebalance.com...", "title": "American Corporate Tax Rates Were Too High Before Tax Reform", "pid": "d681ff4e-2019-04-18T11:51:12Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.642333984375}, {"text": "High cost of labor sends jobs overseas. Employers don't pay income taxes. Sales taxes are in fact regressive (1) whether or not you exempt products like food. Low spending does result in low GDP. That's just basic economics. GDP= NX+consumer spending+g+i. You can't just say correlation=/=causation and wave that away. Low spending=low gdp. That is a fact. What calculations do you have to prove that that particular tax rate yields the same revenue as our current system? None.", "title": "the federal income tax should be abolished", "pid": "a01e51a9-2019-04-18T16:36:28Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.6389617919922}, {"text": "Your entire debate is based around a moral premise. It is factually undebatable that a lower corporate tax would equate to more jobs being created. Both theoretically and realistically, more money in the hands of the corporation would equate to more incentive for growth. The biggest argument that you lack to argue against is growth. Growth is the ultimate factor when looking at a corporation as well as any business entity, including a nation itself. All is subjected to growth or to stagnation. If you close these loopholes, then all corporations have to pay 35% tax rate, which is preposterous. Democratic Socialist nations have a lower tax rate than that. On the other hand, if loopholes are closed, but you evidently lower tax rate with it, then growth will occur. Unless we can compete with the laws of other nations, that many companies invest in, such as China or India, or even Switzerland, (low taxes in Switzerland) then we can attract more. This nation has safety as well as protection, and risk for investment is not high. In the end, we have 2 trillion in liquid assets overseas that we could bring back by lowering this tax rate. The point of government is not to take profits from people. I am also looking at this from a political sense, since I do believe that taxes lack constitutionality, and that the government's job is not to be authoritative and levy high taxes upon people, as it does not require this money, since it should not spend much in any sense.", "title": "Corporate Tax Should be Lowered", "pid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.57533264160156}, {"text": "So I took a decent amount of time to try and create a plan to incentivise companies to hire more people. I call it golden key economics. Please tell me if this would work, or if not, how could it be improved? National corporate tax rate: 30% Tax rate decreased by 1% for every 50k people employed. 1% taxes taken returned for every 50k people employed. 20% minimum tax floor. (Most companies hire less than 500k people anyway.) Small business recognised by sba 50% of taxes taken returned. This is to not treat small business unfairly by taxing them 30% instead, by returning 50% of the taxed income, it's effectively 15% taxes for the small business. This is essentially a form of trickle down economics but to get the tax cuts you must first help the middle class by hiring more. This should drastically cut unemployment and not drop the taxes too low as to not have a federal budget.", "title": "Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth.", "pid": "2131c836-2019-04-18T12:42:05Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.5298614501953}, {"text": "Although tax rebates, increased unemployment benefits and other short-term payments may feel good and appear superficially attractive, they do very little to actually boost the economy and improve Americans' well-being. Rather, cutting tax rates, not mailing tax rebates, is what stimulates prosperity. This is a critical distinction. The primary reason why tax rebates don't work is that they merely redistribute existing wealth, as opposed to creating new economic growth or encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship. They do nothing to encourage risk-taking, investment or enlargement of the wealth pie, but instead re-slice the existing pie in a zero-sum manner.", "title": "Tax Rate Cuts, Not Tax Rebates, Stimulate the Economy", "pid": "46e96378-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00039-000", "bm25_score": 215.43116760253906}, {"text": "Rules: I will write an essay and my opponent will rebut on Round One, along with his or her acceptance. By Round Three, there will be no new points, only conclusions. Good luck to both sides! Cutting taxes would increase the purchasing power of the people. This means businesses will profit more from consumers and with more money, we can experience increased overall wages, increased earnings for everyone, and this will be beneficial to the country's overall prosperity. This will also lead to increased employment. Businesses, with tax cuts, will be able to spend their tax cuts on expanding. And what do you need when you expand? You need people, which means more people get hired, in other words, more jobs. This will obviously decrease poverty levels, homelessness, and America's overall prosperity. The government can also benefit from this with increased revenue. With tax cuts, I mentioned that more people will have jobs, which means more people will be paying their taxes. This will be a winning game to both the people, their economy, and to the government. In conclusion, tax cuts will increase jobs, encourage or increase economic growth, increase government revenue and benefit us all in the long run.", "title": "Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy", "pid": "a1064dfa-2019-04-18T15:49:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.39535522460938}, {"text": "Deroy Murdock. \"Halt reckless spending and extend Bush tax cuts.\" Dessert News. July 26, 2010: \"Americans in the top bracket run companies, start new businesses, launch innovative products and hire other Americans to perform these positive functions. While Democrats routinely denounce \"the rich\" as if they were un-American, the sad truth is that very few poor people create jobs.\"", "title": "Over-taxing wealthy impairs trickle-down effect and job-creation", "pid": "63cad73d-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00055-000", "bm25_score": 215.37057495117188}, {"text": "\"The American People are not under taxed, the government in Washington is overfed.\" It is because Ronald Reagan pinpointed the issues with the overtaxing in America I believe that the corporate tax rates (before the tax cuts) were too high. To hopefully convince everyone viewing this debate I provide some points. First, we had some of the highest tax rates in the world NPR News in 2017 found the claim that the United States had the highest corporate tax rates in the world to be \"generally true\". There are even some instances in which corporations pay upwards of 50-60% of their profits. If that doesn't scream borderline socialism / government abuse, I don't know what will. Second, the super high tax rates cause international outsourcing The Balance in 2013 found that United States companies have 14 million employees overseas in jobs that could be employing Americans. Why? Because of my first point that corporate taxes are the highest in the world. Congressional Democrats from the ways and means committees reported that at least 47 major corporations have moved overseas in the past decade alone. Those are millions if not billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of jobs. How do we bring them back? Lowering the corporate tax rate. Finally, outsourcing jobs causes unemployment which leads to more crime This is a pretty self explanatory point, but the example I will be using is the rust belt. The place that used to be the manufacturing hub of America but is now a crime ridden ghost-town. Places like Chicago, Detroit and Pittsburgh all used to be flourishing economies in America that were known for being vibrant and industrial revolution havens. Now, due to the outsourcing of jobs, their unemployment has skyrocketed and their crime rates have skyrocketed. Thanks for reading! Format for debate 1. Opening Cases 2. Responses to opening cases 3. Final addresses", "title": "American Corporate Tax Rates Were Too High Before Tax Reform", "pid": "d681ff4e-2019-04-18T11:51:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.34921264648438}, {"text": "The myth of tax cuts (removing the capital gains tax would be a huge tax cut to the wealthy) for the wealthy is good for the economy because they are the \"job creators\" has been thoroughly debunked by the last 3 years since we sailed over the supposed fiscal cliff in January 2013. As a quick refresher, the fiscal cliff was the term used to describe the expiration of the Bush tax cuts that Obama had extended upon taking office, which included restoring the capital gains rate back to 20% (from 15%) for those earning over $400k, and increasing the peak marginal rate on the highest income earners from 35% to 39.6%. Conservatives warned that this looming fiscal cliff would handcuff our nations \"job creators\" and force us back into a double-dip recession. While the chart linked below (released with the jobs report last week) admittedly demonstrates only one large data point from the curret business cycle, and so I would acknowledge it doesn't prove that increasing the capital gains rate ALWAYS has no impact on job creation. But it does at least confirm that converse is also not true. Based on the continued strength in the job market post-fiscal cliff, we can at least be confident that raising the capital gains tax is not always a bad thing. In the case of the last 3 years, it has appeared to be pretty non-consequential. https://www.whitehouse.gov...;", "title": "Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income.", "pid": "e0e36c38-2019-04-18T13:31:30Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.34552001953125}, {"text": "Unfortunately, pro did not post. Therefore, I have nothing to rebut.", "title": "Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0%", "pid": "2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.3136749267578}, {"text": "when you tax something, you discourage it. you discourage productivity, savings and innovation and ship jobs overseas. we pay taxes on everything we do and the government has an exclusive privilege to our property. we want to encourage production, so we should not tax it. rather, we should tax consumption through a 23% national sales tax. we'd have more jobs and more opportunities with this. businesses right now are already suffering because of obamacare and excessive regulations.", "title": "the federal income tax should be abolished", "pid": "a01e51a9-2019-04-18T16:36:28Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.3021697998047}, {"text": "What you state is easily dismissible. Instead of arguing the economic benefits, you argue political drawbacks. As of 2013, the United States has lead the world in Corporate Tax percentage, which is set at 39%. Our tax rate has not changed in a matter of 2 years, with regard to corporate tax. [1] On a ratio with our GDP, Corporate Taxes amount to 2% of our 18 trillion GDP, which amounts to $360 billion. While we pronounce ourselves to be the most Capitalist nation, we impose heavy taxation on both our businesses and general income. Incorporation in Canada, which is famous for it's high taxes and government spending in relation to population, is easier and cheaper than incorporation in the United States. Our corporate tax is not only a burden but it is also a deterrent to future companies. I myself am working for a company made by American citizens but incorporated in Canada, due to their lower tax rate and fees. The main debate on Capitalism is that we get to keep our profits, if accumulated legally. The profits of companies are accumulated legally, and they deserve to keep those profits, regardless of moral implication. The main argument that many opponents of a lowered Corporate Tax create is that we cannot afford to lower it, which we most certainly can. Instead of professing about an increase in tax or a stability, we should decrease spending on par with a decrease in taxes. An overall incentive to incorporate in the United States will not only create an excess of jobs, but it will bring in an incredible amount of money. It is much more beneficial to tax 15% to 100 people, rather than taxing 39% to 50 people, as eventually, that number will decrease. Our current ideology is that instead of lowering taxes and fees, we will raise them as to create further burdens on the corporations that remain. Rand Paul, a ideologically Libertarian Republican presidential candidate stated that we have an excess of $2 trillion overseas, that we could bring into the United States if we lowered the Corporate Tax. \"My objection, then, is that it is not even clear that the public has any interest in incentivizing investment into the private sector.\" The public has no say as to whom may or may not invest into the private sector. It is not up to the collective decision of a public entity to dictate how and who invests into which specific private market. Most companies, such as Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, have public stocks, which enable all willing parties to hold stocks in that specific company. The private sector rarely benefits from public education. Most private sector jobs require a higher level education, which is in most cases provided by a private university or college. You seem to believe that taxes are collected and then distributed randomly. Each tax pays of each part of the government or public platform. This debate does not center over the complete abolishment of Corporate Tax, but instead centers around lowering this specific tax. Due to safety in investing in the United States, paired with a significantly lower Corporate Tax, we could bring in a great amount of companies as well as private sector jobs, and eventually make even more money in taxes than before. Sources: [1]http://taxfoundation.org...", "title": "Corporate Tax Should be Lowered", "pid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.1630401611328}, {"text": "My opponents argument simply doesn't make sense. He argues that income taxes discourage the earning of income. Would you really think to yourself There's no point to working because I'm only getting paid 40k annually, instead of 45k anually!No!Pro proposes a very high sales tax. This is completely asanine. For starters, the sales tax is the only form of regressive tax. Furthermore, high sales tax does discourage spending. Low spending=low GDP=shite economy. Also, taxes pay for roads and such.", "title": "the federal income tax should be abolished", "pid": "a01e51a9-2019-04-18T16:36:28Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.11622619628906}, {"text": "Jeff Madrick. \"How big government helps the economy take off.\" Boston Globe. September 7, 2008: \"Reagan swept into office on the promise of tax cuts and reducing government, and what followed were the boom years of the 1980s. To conservatives of the time, it seemed strong proof that the arguments of Friedman and his followers were correct. [...] But there is also a strong case that they were wrong. In 1992, President Bill Clinton succeeded in passing legislation to raise the income tax rate on higher income Americans. Harvard's Feldstein, who had served as Reagan's chief economic adviser, claimed that the tax increase would reduce the incentives to work and therefore the incomes of the wealthy. It turned out to do nothing of the kind: the top tier of Americans, in fact, made more money.\" [see argument page for extended quote].", "title": "Higher taxes don't actually weaken growth", "pid": "cac3c973-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00079-000", "bm25_score": 215.1024169921875}, {"text": "C1) We should reduce the corporate tax rate Having a competitive tax system is increasingly important in a globalized economy. Globalization means firms wishing to invest capital in a region can be easily encouraged—or deterred—if taxes increase or decrease. High corporate taxes discourage investment and reduce economic growth. America has the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the developed world at 39.1%.[1] This is 14.3% higher than the OECD average of 24.8%. The harmful effects of high corporate taxes are visible in our economic system. Johansson et al. has a paper published by the OECD investigating the impacts of different types of taxes and economic growth. The paper found that corporate taxes, followed by income taxes, are the most detrimental to economic growth. The study found that a 1% shift of tax revenues from income and corporate taxes to consumption and property taxes would increase GDP per capita by 0.25 – 1% in the long run.[2] Johansson also found that statutory corporate tax rates of 30 to 35%, which the US now surpasses, reduces investment by 1.9%. To quote Johansson, lowering the statutory corporate tax rate would “lead to particularly large productivity gains in firms that are dynamic and profitable, i.e. those that can make the largest contribution to GDP growth.” The reason for this is because many of the firms that are productive also rely on retained earnings to pay for their expansion. Tax cuts would increase the amount of retained earnings and increase prospects for future firm expansion. Another OECD paper by Jens Arnold confirms the findings of Johansson and concluded that corporate taxes “have the most negative effect on GDP per capita.”[3] Economists Young Lee and Roger Gordon, using a dataset with 70 countries and a timespan of 27 years, have found that a ten percent cut in the corporate tax rate would increase economic growth by one to two percent.[4] The biggest problem with having the highest corporate tax rate in the world is that it reduces our international competitiveness. Incentives matter, and taxing labor and capital simply means that the incentives to make more of it decrease. If a country has a significantly lower corporate tax rate than we do, it is our companies and workers that suffer. The current corporate tax rate caused companies to shift $50 billion away from the United States to countries with lower corporate taxes.[5] Despite our high corporate tax rate rayr, we do not have much to show in the way of revenue. Economists Alex Brill and Kevin Hasset have found that the revenue maximizing corporate tax rate is 26%.[6] Any corporate tax rate above 26% would decrease revenue. This is not surprising as the average OECD corporate tax rate is 24.8%. As international businesses can relocate to a location where taxation is lower (which means more profits), having a tax rate far above the OECD average would deter potential businesses from entering the country. This means a smaller tax base. Brill’s and Hasset’s study is supported by basic cross sectional data. In the US, corporate income tax revenue makes up 2.2% of our GDP; for the OECD, that number is 3.4%.[7] Despite having the highest corporate tax rate in the world, the percent of our corporate tax rate revenue to our GDP is over one percent lower than the OECD average. This confirms the Brill and Hasset analysis that current corporate tax rates are on the far side of the Laffur Curve. Studies claiming that corporate tax cuts do not cause growth have no solid foundation. Owen Zidar, who opposes tax cuts for the rich, finds that tax cuts for the middle class cause economic growth.[8] It is well accepted that tax cuts for the middle class would increase consumption and cause growth. Luckily, corporate tax rates do cut taxes for the middle class. According to another study by Zidar, workers receive 35% of the benefit from corporate tax cuts.[9] The literature says tax cuts for the middle class cause growth, and corporate taxes benefit the middle class; it seems illogical to claim corporate tax rates would not help the economy. The Zidar estimates are a bit on the conservative side. The CBO has found that “domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.”[10] Economists from the National Bureau of Economic Research have found that workers of unionized industries carry 56% of the tax burden from corporate taxes.[11] A tax cut would bring a huge benefit to middle and lower class workers. C2) Reduced income taxes cause growth Lower income taxes cause growth; yes, even for the rich. It is well accepted that tax cuts for the middle class cause growth, so I assume the majority of this debate will revolve around tax cuts for the wealthy. Taxes for the wealthy make up for the majority of our revenue, and it is only the top quintile of incomes that actually pay significantly more to the government than what they cost (e.g. they pay more taxes but use fewer social services).[12] Using tax revenues as a proxy for tax rates would work out pretty well. The following graph, using local tax revenues as a proxy for local tax rates, compares tax revenues to growth rates. Here is the data: There is a clear and strong correlation between lower tax revenue and faster GSP growth. According to the data, 40% of the variance in growth rates at a local level are determined by the tax burden.[13] This data does not include severance taxes or growth related to oil and gas. This is because merely having an abundance of resources could interfere with the results. While defending tax cuts we must look at the 1980s. I will defend Reaganomics responsibly. You think tax cuts in the 80s were the cause of the rapid growth during that decade? They weren’t. Federal Reserve policies must be credited for that. But that does not mean the Reagan tax cuts were a failure—they were a great success. The benefits from the tax cuts were long term; they increased innovation and heavily contributed to the growth in the 1990s a decade later. According to the American Enterprise Institute, “Reagan’s economic legacy is inextricably interwoven with the Information Revolution that the IBM PC helped kick off. His message of competitive markets, entrepreneurial vigor, and minimal regulation found a willing audience in an era of rapid technological change, where innovation was opening new opportunities seemingly every day. … [T]he changes Reagan championed in the tax system fostered innovation and entrepreneurialism even as they encouraged the development of venture capital and investment in human capital.”[14] His policies allowed businesses, which may not have been created due to high risks from a terrible tax code, to come to fruition. Tax cuts do not benefit us in between each business cycle; tax cuts take years for the benefits of increased investment to show up. Reagan’s tax cuts didn’t cause mega growth in the 80s, but it caused growth well past his term and beyond. The example of Reaganomics—that tax cuts take time to kick in—is confirmed by peer-reviewed literature. A study by economist Robert Reed argued that “tax policies take time to work,” and that when the effects kick in, “a negative relationship between taxes and income growth emerges.”[15] When we increase taxes, it takes time before the negative effects fully take hold—the reverse holds true. More progressive tax systems lower economic growth. A progressive tax system means the wealthy pay more than the poor; the larger the gap between the amount the rich pay and the poor, the more progressive a tax system is. When a tax system increases in progressivity, meaning the rich pay more taxes, there is less growth. A Philadelphia Federal Reserve study observed that “a decrease in tax progressivity did lead to higher growth … differences in tax code across countries could explain up to a two and half percent variation in economic growth.”[16] The negative effects of high taxes, even on the wealthy, has been confirmed by studies by the Mercatus center as well as the American Economic Association.[17-18] Reducing tax rates on the wealthy would promote more economic growth. C3) Revenue As I showed in the case of corporate taxes, we could reduce the corporate tax rate by over 10% and increase revenue.Income taxes are a different story. Depending on how a tax cut is crafted, tax cuts may or may not pay for themselves. If the marginal rate was extremely high, reducing it to a moderate level would reduce deficits. There are always Laffur curve effects, so the changes in revenue could be exaggerated by a static analysis. This is not to say that all tax cuts pay for themselves. Despite revenue losses, tax cuts would still increase GDP growth. If we reversed the 2012 4% hike in taxes, revenues would only fall by $14 billion, but GDP would grow by 0.43%.[19] In fact, revenue maximizing policies would be detrimental to our economy as a whole.[21] Instead, we should focus on reducing spending alongside tax reductions. Sweden, for example, reduced the top marginal rate by 20% in the last recession, but they also prevented going into debt by reducing welfare spending. Countries that successfully reduce their debt-to-GDP ratios find that spending cuts rather than tax increases are a better way to fix the problem without reducing economic growth.[20] Spending cuts can increase growth. According to a research paper by the Mercatus Center, “fiscal adjustments on average reduced debt-to-GDP ratio by 0.19 percentage points of GDP in a given year. GDP grew by 3.47 percentage points in total, which is 0.58 percentage points higher than the average growth of G7 countries.”[20] I am in favor of reducing spending alongside tax reductions. Reducing the corporate tax rate would increase revenue—abolishing the corporate tax rate would have little effect on our budgets.[22] http://bit.ly...;", "title": "Resolved: The USFG should adopt across-the-board tax cuts for individual and corporate tax brackets", "pid": "4688fcc6-2019-04-18T14:43:50Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.0972900390625}, {"text": "All of the following arguments are made supposing thet the US in question is the United States of America The United States of America should absolutely not reform its corporate tax rate beacause the current tax rate provides 9% of all of the total USA gouvernment revenue. The proposed tax reform would obviously lower that, for lowering it would not alter the ammount of companies that have reside in the USA or have their assets there or very little so, for the USA coprorate taxes could not rival those of other countries and dependencies such as the British Virgin Islands or Panama beacause lowering the corporate tax to that level would cripple the economy given that the American economy is much larger than that of those places. Lowering the corporate tax to lower rates would not work for these countries would still have the advantage and very few more companies would put their seats there and at the very most this would maintain USA corporate tax revenue the same as it is now. Regarding loopholes, the law should not be corrected beacause that would require changing the whole US tax code. These reforms would take years to pass beacause said text is a very extensive one and it would cause massive political problems in the USA for this would be subject to much disagreement for the two parties and by that time companies will have found loopholes in the new texts and they would have to start over.", "title": "The US should reform its Corporate Tax", "pid": "3b46eaaf-2019-04-18T16:12:59Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.0949249267578}, {"text": "So, the economy is still in bad shape. By that, I mean that there is still less buying and selling because corporations have to pay so much to stay in business. After sales, consumption, income, property, and corporate taxes businesses would barely have enough for salary or profit (if any). The result would be a decrease in spending which can be a precursor for recession. The recession is based on the health of the economy by how much people buy or sell, and the law of demand states that even the slightest price increase can lead to significant results. Another result would be high unemployment, because different companies have to pay their workers on top of these taxes which they sometimes find hard to do. Some people might think that the people already working there would just be paid more, well it depends. Most trustworthy and intelligent managers would hire more labor instead of investing more in what they already have. Given these facts, I think that taxes should be lowered overall for businesses so that they can hire more labor, get more resources, and supply better qualities of the product. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://taxfoundation.org...", "title": "Corporate taxes should be lowered", "pid": "4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.05418395996094}, {"text": "Additionally, my opponent asserts that the rich create jobs and hire people, yet he provides no evidence for this (or his other claims). Multimillionaire Henry Bloch stated \"rich people don't create jobs. Companies create jobs\" But it's the rich that make those companies that hire people. For example Elon Musk is a billionaire and the founder of several companies; space x alone hires 30,000. Those companies costed a lot to start; if he had been taxed so much more he wouldn't have been able to create as many companies and thus thousands more people would be unemployed.", "title": "A Progressive Tax System Should Be Used Over a Flat Tax System", "pid": "a1c467cc-2019-04-18T16:44:58Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.96585083007812}, {"text": "Progressive taxes help increase employment rate", "title": "Progressive tax vs. flat tax", "pid": "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00028-000", "bm25_score": 214.9608612060547}, {"text": "Thank you very much for your rebuttal and taking the time to debate this subject. Let me begin by addressing your contention that my scenario's are incorrect. You stated in your rebuttal that \"In scenario #2, the pre-tax profit will be much lower\". And that, \"the reasons for the less money include\": 1. More money has to be paid to government 2. Economies with less tax regime will be more economical thus out-competing the countries with more tax. 3. Companies will be tempted to invest in economies with lower taxes, thus slowing down the whole economy To address these points: 1. EBIT = \"Earnings before Interest and Taxes\". This is a term well-known to CEO's and CFO's the world over. It's basically a companies \"Operating Earnings\". You state that 'more money has to be paid to the government' so my scenario is inaccurate. I disagree. The $1,000,000 in earnings would be the same in both scenarios because they are PRE-TAX earnings. No money has been paid to the government in either Scenario. 2. While, theoretically, this point is true. I believe it to be irrelevant to this debate. This more of point in discussing international trade agreements & tariffs. 3. Companies cannot \"write-off\" as expenses, investments in other companies or economies, so there isn't a \"tax incentive\" for them to do so. A CEO's motivation is to lower the companies tax burden while simultaneously growing their own company. In short, the scenario's I've illustrated are correct, and valid. They are indicative of the way 'Real World' CEO's view taxes and their effect on business decisions. I know this from first-hand experiences. In your rebuttal, you referenced the study, 'Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases'. While this study may be accurate and insightful, it doesn't address the topic of this debate. It addresses tax cuts vs. increased government spending. Hence, I find it irrelevant. However, I did find an article which illustrates my point very well in an even more extreme example. The link is below. To Summarize, higher corporate tax rates DO encourage business investment. The higher the tax rate, the more motivated a CEO is to avoid paying the taxes. The best way for them to do this is to spend the money on growing their business (invest) instead of giving a large amount to the government as taxes on their NET profit. The Mind of a CEO: Tax rates high = Cheap to reinvest in company Tax rates low = Cheap to declare profits Thank you for the opportunity to debate this subject - I look forward to many more discussions! http://www.alternet.org...", "title": "Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment.", "pid": "825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.95916748046875}, {"text": "1. Yes Trump is not as professional as some other Canadents but that's what we need right now! And clearly since Donald Trump is the Republican Nomination that's what the American people want! 2. Trump has already created jobs at Trump Shuttle that had about 1,000 employees. And has also hired at least 34,000 jobs and he isn't even president yet and by listening to his interviews he truly wants to help create jobs. 3. Mr. Trump\"s plan would cut taxes by $11.98 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up reducing tax revenues by $10.14 trillion over the next decade when accounting for economic growth from increases in the supply of labor and capital. https://www.donaldjtrump.com... https://www.quora.com...", "title": "TRUMP (PRO) vs KASICH (CON)", "pid": "99eb3279-2019-04-18T12:56:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.9313201904297}, {"text": "My opponent seems to blame the recession on corporate taxes. His argument has no substance at all and only includes baseless conjectures which somehow add up to why corporate taxes should be lowered. Corporations pay significantly less in taxes today than they did 50 years ago due to increased globalization and offshore subsidiaries which allow them to essentially avoid corporate taxes. http://www.cbpp.org... As my opponent is attempting to say that corporate taxes should be lowered because it would benefit the economy, yet he has offered nothing to support this resolution. I await his logically structured arguments, and compelling evidence for why corporate taxes should be lowered. I agree that lowering taxes in general is always going to increase GDP if government spending remains unchanged, however this will ratchet up the national debt via larger deficits ultimately leading to higher borrowing costs and more painful taxes later. Quantitative easing will likely end this fall. This will (and already partially has based on bernakes recent comments) ratchet up interest rates and quickly make debt payments extremely costly You can see based on yield curve history rates are already rising and will dramatically rise when the program ends. http://www.treasury.gov... Bernake has already said that debt will be a huge long term drag on the economy. http://www.youtube.com... In the short term lowering taxes on anyone/anything will benefit GDP. However I believe my opponent will agree that long term health of the economy is of far greater import.", "title": "Corporate taxes should be lowered", "pid": "4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.9175567626953}, {"text": "It seems then that we are in agreement about the untenability of altering the tax code without addressing the tax loopholes. My point is that when it comes time to actually fix a rate, we will be only grasping in the dark so long as those loopholes are closed. We are also in agreement about the amorality, or moral neutrality of corporations. As you mentioned, the main costs of a corporation are wages, supplies, or means of production however broadly construed, and taxes. Lowering the tax rate and closing loopholes will actually result in an effective tax raise for many corporations. So why would they return their operations to the U.S. if the reform measures you are seeking only address taxation? My point about the welfare measures the corporation receives on behalf of the taxpayer, e.g. in the form of slave wages, indicates that lowering the tax rate alone is not sufficient. It is here instructive to take a brief glance at the historical development of the corporation. (Hegel discusses it in an interesting way in The Philosophy of Right, but that is maybe too far afield.) It is a historical fiction to think that corporations emerged in a free market and then only later came under the burden of government regulation and taxation. From the inception, the interests of the corporation were facilitated by government policies. There are countless examples of this, but the most pronounced is perhaps the railroad barons at the end of the nineteenth century. So it is too simple a dichotomy to present the government on one side and the corporation on the other. This is why, for instance, Roosevelt warned against the military-industrial complex, and it is still vividly relevant today in the Middle East. In light of this, your alleged benefits to a lowered corporate tax rate can be seen as wishful thinking of fallacious supply-side economic theory. Yes, a lower tax rate might raise wages, might boost incentive, attract foreign investment, eradicate poverty, end war, save the polar ice caps from melting, help us colonize the moon, make us beautiful, rid us of all evil, and so forth. I'm not trying to be sarcastic--it's just that these are the perennial and familiar promises of the proponents of free-market economy that have not materialized, even as the system has increasingly favored corporations since the sixties. The most clear indication that a lowered tax rate is not advisable or desirable is that the rate has in fact incrementally lowered for over the period of the past forty years. Wages have stagnated, while CEO pay has skyrocketed, completely independent of CEO performance. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... There is a lot of mystical beliefs about the invisible hands that will guide wealth into the nation and keep business in the U.S. but there are no reasonable historical tendencies to justify this thinking. There are two principal reasons for this: 1. The intimate interactions of corporate interests and governmental policy have created a situation of pronounced inequality, and have effectively redistributed wealth to the top one percent. 2. The corporation, by its very nature, tends toward either implosion or monopoly. The public was compelled to intrude upon the free activity of the corporation because that activity threatened its collective good. I appreciate your Libertarian views--even though I usually find myself in general disagreement, the Libertarian wing of the Republic party is, in my modest estimation, the only one that is self-consistent and philosophically and economically astute. But let me for a moment broaden the perspective. I don't judge negatively people who desire profits, and I agree with your implication that to associate the desire for profits with greed is not all that useful. But not all values are moral values. We can still admit that the corporation is essentially amoral and still talk about its ethos, its system of values. I mentioned above that one of these is the fundamental translation of various kinds of activity into exchange value. In the same sense, not all work is labor. The corporate system reinterprets growth, time, work, nature, and even political engagement financially. Corporate taxation is the imperfect result of this necessary translation. I only have about ten minutes left, so let me just give one easy example of what I mean here. A mining corporation--e.g. the Pebble Mine Company up in Alaska--goes into a place, digs the minerals out of the earth, then moves on when those resources have been exhausted. From the corporations point of view, the land is nothing more than the ultimate dollar amounts that will be made on the market. But land is something different than that--it gets left behind, and has been altered irrevocably. The toxic tailings ponds that every mine leaves behind last forever. (Cf. the spill in Durango right now.) No matter if the tax rate were twice what it is, there is no way to recover that land. The same goes with fracking--the toxins that are pumped into the ground will last millennia. So it is not as simple as just saying that corporations benefit from infrastructure and public safety--it is that they translate the world, both the human world of activity, work, time, and the natural world as monetary values. Taxation is therefore the only way for the corporation to legitimately participate in the system. It might seem as though I'm changing my fundamental objection--but these latest remarks are bound up with what I've been saying from the start. Either way, I'm learning a lot from this discussion and look forward to your response.", "title": "Corporate Tax Should be Lowered", "pid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.9119110107422}, {"text": "With tax cuts, business owners would either expand their businesses or lower the prices. An overwhelming majority of businesses will take advantage of tax cuts for the sake of profit, either it be expanding themselves or lowering the prices. If they expand, it requires more jobs, which reduces the unemployment rate, as I stated previously. If they lower the prices, more consumers will be happy to take advantage of it and go out and buy their products or services, which increases the purchasing power in the country. As it seems that my opponent doubts the effectiveness of tax cuts, I would like to give him and the voters of this debate an example of working tax cuts. My example is going to be the state of Michigan, which before the 1990's experienced having the second highest unemployment rate in the United States and an appalling economy. In 1991, when John Engler was elected to become the Governor of Michigan, he slashed taxes in the state to a cumulative tax savings of about $20 billion. The result led to Michigan having ten years of unprecedented prosperity. It even became the top third state in job growth.[1] I'd also like to mention about the part in your statement where you mentioned that some people would be left out of the tax cuts. I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I assume you may be referring to the low income, the poor. First of all, the poor will be enjoying their tax cuts. They will feel the tax cuts on their part and they will have more money to save up, if not spend them. Sources: 1.) http://www.cato.org...", "title": "Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy", "pid": "a1064dfa-2019-04-18T15:49:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.858642578125}, {"text": "Dismissing something easily says more about the one dismissing than about what's being dismissed. It seems that you didn't even read the objection but instead had a prefabricated response ready. I'm here to learn about the arguments surrounding these important policy issues. From your response to the objection, it seems that you're here to do something else. And that's okay of course, but let's actually try to start the debate. First, there is the empirical aspect of it, which requires calculations and some guesswork about what corporations might or might not do given a change in the tax code. Second, it necessarily involves interrogating the meaning of a corporation, since we are referring them to discrete revenue and expenditure categories that are different from private citizens and non-profit organizations. You are wrong to say that I am arguing \"political drawbacks\" instead of economic benefits. We are debating political economy--that point at which they intersect, to put it into academic terminology. It is useful at times to distinguish economic calculations from policy, but to fail to see how they inform one another distorts the bases on which these kinds of decisions must be made. First, I will address the empirical aspect of the argument. Then I will respond specifically to each of your points. As I indicated in my objection, the question of raising or lowering the tax rate for corporations cannot really be approached without consideration of the fact that many of the richest corporations do not pay anywhere near the going rate. According to the Government Accountability Office, the average corporate tax rate is only 12.6%. http://money.cnn.com... A report from the Citizens for Tax Justice found that 30 of the biggest 280 corporations had no federal tax liability whatsoever. http://www.nytimes.com... The argument that lower tax rates will keep business in the U.S. ignores these disparities. The assertion becomes more ridiculous if we ask just what the tax rate should be. Those thirty companies that completely dodged the tax system through offshore maneuvers have no incentive to bring business back into the U.S. no matter how low the rate is. If we still entertain illusions that the global market will somehow correct this, we can refer to this study: http://www.cfr.org... and this http://www.wsj.com... Nor are corporations to blame for the fact that they dodge taxes. Which indicates the significance of my second point. It is misguided to try to blame corporations for being greedy, and the recent attempts to publish CEO pay as a way of shaming these great disparities in wealth are rather pointless, because as I said above, all considerations for a corporation are subordinated to those of the bottom line. The issue, as you said, is not whether to abolish the corporate tax altogether. The rate reflects the societal costs of protecting the public from the inherent abuses of corporate activity. Now, that is a difficult calculation to make because many of those costs are integrated into a whole web of public and private institutions. In an obvious way, this means that the corporate tax rate needs to contribute paying for the SEC, FDA, EPA and all the hosts of other agencies out there whose job is to protect the public good from the undesirable results that occur when a corporation does precisely what it's supposed to do, that is make money at all other expenses. The argument that lowering the rate will incentivize business investment ignores the complexity of these costs. That is what I was getting at in the first part of my argument, which your rejoinder ignored. Corporations rely on able-bodied Americans to buy their goods and to supply them with labor. It is this complexity that maybe gave you the mistaken notion that I thought tax revenues were distributed randomly. My understanding of it is that there are three metrics on which the rate is decided: 1) equity, which evaluates how the tax rate is distributed across individuals taxes 2) efficiency, which tries to address potential distortions in the decision-making process due to tax burdens 3) competitiveness, which is, admittedly the most vague of the three--but it has to do with maintaining rates that are comparable to those of other nations with similar GDP. It is the third that seems to be your best shot for arguing the tax rate should be lowered. Yes, it is vague, but it is a problem only because we do not tax pure profits, as explained here (p. 16-17 specifically) http://www.fas.org... You said that while \"we pronounce ourselves to be the most capitalist nation, we impose heavy taxation.\" Well, people pronounce a lot of things all the time--but if we mean by \"most capitalist nation\" that we are or should be engaged in some kind of free market laissez-faire system, completely free of public oversight, then you are mistaken. The so-called free market has already demonstrated that, left to its own devices, it is patently destructive and fatal to human interests. We have known that for more than a hundred years. In any case, that is a historical point which we can take up if you'd like. Nor do the present facts justify characterizing taxation on business as heavy, when compared with other industrialized nations. According to the findings of the CRS report mentioned above, the U.S. statutory rate is the highest, but the effective rate is the same as other OECD nations. In fact, the U.S. \"collects less in corporate tax revenue relative to Gross Domestic Production (GDP) (2.3% in 2011) than the average of other OECD countries (3.0% in 2011). \" As for your remark that the public has no say about investment in the private sector, yes, of course. But you missed the point. The issue is not dictating investment--it's that we have good reason to question simplistic narratives about growth, narratives that come from the financial industry and corporations that consecrate growth and try to convince us that it is an undeniable good. Lastly, you said that \"[t]he private sector rarely benefits from public education. Most private sector jobs require a higher level education, which is in most cases provided by a private university or college.\" That preposterous statement is not the sort that will become any less preposterous by looking at the numbers, no matter how you spin them. For one, it's way too sweeping. Also, there is a huge part of the private sector that requires no level of higher education--nearly all the workforce of restaurant and retail industry, including the folks that make your burger or ring you up at the Walmart, nor their managers, known as middle-management, and a whole host of other working people on whom the private sector relies for the delivery of its goods and services. But more importantly, it is a gross distortion to separate the actual functioning of the private sector from the interests of the public good. Yes, there are specific occasions when such a distinction is required--for instance in legal contexts--but if decisions are to be made about political economy, we must find a perspective that understands how they interact.", "title": "Corporate Tax Should be Lowered", "pid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.8577423095703}, {"text": "I will try to keep my argument as simple as possible – so let me start with an illustration (example): Scenario #1: Corporation ABC is budgeted a \"pre-tax\" annual profit of $1,000,000. The tax rate is effectively 35% (which is, basically, what it is now). So, the tax is $350,000 and, \"after-tax\" net profits of $650,000. Scenario #2: Like Scenario #1 Corporation ABC is budgeted \"pre-tax\" annual profit of $1,000,000. However, the tax rate NOW is effectively 50% (which is, roughly what it was from the 1950's – 1980's). So, NOW the tax is $500,000 and, \"after-tax\" net profits of $500,000. My simple argument is that the CEO of ABC corporation is more motivated to invest the \"pre-tax\" profits of $1,000,000 in expanding the company (hiring people, research, leases, etc. ) when it will only cost $500k in net profit (50% tax rate), as opposed to the $650k it would cost in net profit with a tax rate of 35%. Think about it… would you like to get something worth a million dollars and have to pay $650k for it, or only $500k? Pretty easy answer…. huh? When taxes are high, CEO's are even MORE motivated to avoid them. The easiest, and most productive means to avoid them is through business expansion. In a study title, \"Having their cake and eating it too\", which was published just two weeks ago by the \"Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives\", the researchers claimed that: \"This study examines historical data on business investment and cash flow from 1961 through 2010, and, using econometric techniques, finds no evidence in the historical data that lower taxes have directly stimulated more investment. \" They go on further to find that, \"As a means of stimulating growth, employment, and even private business spending, the historical evidence suggests that business tax cuts are both economically ineffective and distributionally regressive. \" Another way of looking at it is ‘the higher the corporate tax rate is, the more the government is enticing CEO's to reinvest in their companies to avoid paying that tax'. As far as the rest of your argument goes, concerning international economies and comparable tax rates, I believe that those are irrelevant matters concerning my contention, and the basis for this debate. . http://www.policyalternatives.ca... . http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... . http://www.calgaryherald.com...", "title": "Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment.", "pid": "825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.85452270507812}, {"text": "So you'really suggesting to raisee taxes on the people and have 0% for corporations? What if companies don't pay people more? What's their incentive to do so? What if they just keep the profits?", "title": "Corporate tax plan ideas for job growth.", "pid": "2131c836-2019-04-18T12:42:05Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.8492431640625}, {"text": "My argument is plain and simple. Business owners create jobs. When we raise capital gains taxes on business owners, they have less incentive to continue investing their time & effort into creating jobs, and are more likely to just sit back and retire. Therefore, if we want to maximize the incentive for business owners to continue working, innovating, and hiring, then we should not raise taxes on them, and if anything should remove the capital gains tax entirely. As a reminder, all capital investments have already been taxed once when the income was earned as personal income, and so capital gains remain a double-tax. Double taxataion that reduces incentives for growth and hiring are bad for the overall economy, and so I urge a no vote on this resolution.", "title": "Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income.", "pid": "e0e36c38-2019-04-18T13:31:30Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.81361389160156}, {"text": "The DebateIn this debate, I will argue that the American corporate tax rate should be reformed and lowered in order to benefit the economy and the government.RulesRound 1: Acceptance onlyRound 2: Present argumentsRound 3: Refute opponent's argumentsRound 4: Make final cases/refutations and conclusion", "title": "The US should reform its Corporate Tax", "pid": "3b46eaaf-2019-04-18T16:12:59Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.79544067382812}, {"text": "I will be arguing that Corporate Tax should in fact be lowered as to accommodate for growth as well as incentivize investment into our private sector. Rules are as follows: Round 1: Acceptance/Informal short summary of primary argument. Round 2: Statement of Opening Arguments. Round 3: Continuation of Argument and Rebuttal. Round 4: Final Rebuttal and Conclusion. Please, do not troll.", "title": "Corporate Tax Should be Lowered", "pid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.77381896972656}, {"text": "I would like to welcome my opponent to debate.org and thank him for instigating this debate! My opponent has provided a single flawed (as I will show) argument to support the contention. Moreover he has not bothered to back his argument with any data what so ever. The contention is that the corporation has a certain amount of money left over after transaction of all business. They can either choose to book profit or reinvest. A higher tax rate will give them the incentive to reinvest. However a higher tax rate will mean there is less money available after the business is conducted! My opponent has assumed that this money will remain same whether the tax rate is increased or decreased. Less available money will mean that in general both profit as well as reinvestment will decrease! The reasons for the less money include. 1. More money has to be paid to government 2. Economies with less tax regime will be more economical thus out-competing the countries with more tax. 3. Companies will be tempted to invest in economies with lower taxes, thus slowing down the whole economy. If we compare effective tax rates [1][2] and GDP growth rate [3] for various countries, we see that in general countries with lower tax rates have performed surprisingly well. For example - Singapore is having a 11.5% tax is having a GDP growth of 14.5 % which is 3rd highest in the world! On other hand most of the highly taxed economies (US, Canada, Russia, France, Germany ) with 30% + taxes are stuck at 2 to 3% growth rate. However let me warn that GDP growth depends on many factors so exceptions are possible. However as we go through the data, the general trend is quite obvious. I look forward to the next round! [1] http://www.suite101.com... [2] http://www.cdhowe.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment.", "pid": "825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.76646423339844}, {"text": "This article from the Atlantic says that in 2012 the top 1 percent will pay their highest total tax rate since 1979 (http://www.theatlantic.com...). In the 1980s, Reagan cut taxes and we had prosperity. Jack Kennedy cut taxes and we had prosperity. Obama raised taxes and the economy stagnated. The unemployment rate under Bush averaged 5.2% and deficits were much smaller, not to mention he had to pay for two wars. Obama raised taxes and shrunk revenue because the government policies kill jobs as do burdensome regulations such as ObamaCare.", "title": "Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0%", "pid": "2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.75494384765625}, {"text": "Fact Sheet for the American Jobs Act. White House: \"1. Tax Cuts to Help America’s Small Businesses Hire and Grow. Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold. A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases). Extending 100% expensing into 2012: This continues an effective incentive for new investment. Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.\"", "title": "AJA reduces taxes, allowing small businesses to grow/hire.", "pid": "e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00032-000", "bm25_score": 214.71298217773438}, {"text": "Most of the final round has been devoted by my opponent to address my argument that pre-tax money (EBIT) will be less in a high tax regime. By doing this he has tacitly conceded that if my objections are valid, they represent a flaw in his argument.Let us go through each of his rebuttals one by one...Contention #1: More money has to be paid to governmentMy opponent argued that the tax has to be paid after this money is calculated. So this money should be same. What he has failed to understand is that more money has to be paid by everyone, including the suppliers of the company. As a result the suppliers will increase there price leading to higher cost. Similarly employees too have to pay a larger tax. This may force the company to increase compensation. All these taxes will be reflected in the final sales price of the output. Higher sales price will decrease consumption leading to depressed economy and lower pre-tax profit. What we need to understand is that tax is not decided after everyone has made the money. The tax rates are known from start.Contention #2: Economies with less tax regime will be more economical thus out-competing the countries with more tax.My opponent has declined to consider this point arguing that this concerns international trade so it is irrelevant. I would like to state that those who believe international trade to be irrelevant are headed for extinction. Suppose a company loses out its costumers since its foreign rivals (who enjoy less tax) out compete it. Let me suggest that the company will have less EBIT because of less revenue.Contention #3: Companies will be tempted to invest in economies with lower taxes, thus slowing down the whole economyThe rebuttal was that there is no tax incentive to do so. However it is possible that the CEO may choose to forgo some tax incentive to invest in an economy which has a low tax rate and more growth as that will be more beneficial in long term.We can conclude:Low tax rate: Lots of money. Some is reinvested. Some is taken as profitHigh tax rate: No money! No reinvestment! No profit!My opponent has raised an interesting objection. I had posted a link to a research paper which he has acknowledged to be 'accurate and insightful'. However as per him the paper is all about 'tax cuts vs. increased government spending' and not about 'low tax vs high tax'. When government charges higher taxes, it typically increases its spending also. 'Increasing government spending' is usually synonymous with 'high tax regime'. Thus this paper is highly relevant.In the last round, my opponent has provided a link to a book authored by a trade union economist. In this round he has decided to refer to an article written by a fiction writer![1]In this debate the voters have to decide whether they support a theory being argued by fiction writers and trade union economists but being contradicted by studies carried out by respectable and independent researchers.They have to vote for or against a flawed theory which even defies common sense.Vote Con.I would like to thank my opponent and wish him best of luck for future debates![1] http://www.larrybeinhart.com...", "title": "Higher corporate tax rates encourage business investment.", "pid": "825c062c-2019-04-18T18:50:04Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.70565795898438}, {"text": "You provide no sources to prove that small businesses would be hindered by bigger businesses. Probably because it is not economically probable as entrepreneurs are always rising up to the occasion and becoming successful people. If anything, the expansion of large businesses means more competition between themselves, more expansion which means more jobs, and more production which means higher profits for them which in turn leads to higher corporate tax revenue as illustrated by the Laffer curve. Big business never goes unrivaled. There is always competition in a vast and large marketplace. Subsidies are not good because that is crony capitalism. Also, remember that WE want businesses here for our own county and for our own economy. We want to eliminate deductions and put in a lower rate because businesses want higher profits, not lower ones. By creating business friendly environment in the USA we fix that problem. I have already sourced how it would be good for the government and the economy, so I have the facts out there. You still need to prove your points or else your case risks falling apart.", "title": "The US should reform its Corporate Tax", "pid": "3b46eaaf-2019-04-18T16:12:59Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.68849182128906}, {"text": "Round 1: Pro posts rules and structure, Con posts opening argument Round 2: Pro posts opening argument, Con posts rebuttal Round 3: Pro and Con engage in rebuttals Round 4: Pro and Con engage in rebuttals Round 5: Pro finishes final rebuttal, while Con will not post a round out of fairness This gives each debater the same amount of argument time.", "title": "Cut the Corporate Tax Rate to 0%", "pid": "2c183942-2019-04-18T16:35:26Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.67591857910156}, {"text": "There is an important distinction to make between the tax rate for publicly traded companies and the actual percentage amount they pay. The disparity is due to tax loopholes such as off-shore banking and a host of other maneuvers performed by corporate lawyers. Even if these loopholes were closed through legislation, I disagree that the corporate tax rate should be lowered. There are two fundamental lines of reasoning behind my objection. The first is based on empirical observations, the second with philosophical issues about growth. Both of course are interrelated. Like private citizens, the private sector benefits from public goods such as public education, publicly owned and operated infastructure, general law and order maintained by police, and various federal agencies, especially in maritime contexts. The integrity and efficiency of these public goods would suffer if corporate tax rates were lowered, and this in turn would cause business costs to rise. If corporations tried to shoulder these costs themselves, for instance through privatized security, their ability to remain solvent would diminish. In general, the costs of doing business would increase, and those costs would be passed onto the consumer. Corporations also benefit from social welfare funds in ways that are not always obvious. Many retailers and restaurant corporations do not pay their workers a living wage. As a result those workers are forced to seek assistance from the government through such aid programs as food stamps. The taxpayer is effectively subsidizing the costs of maintaining a workforce for many corporations. Some of the societal benefits stand in direct conflict with the interests of the corporation. For instance, federally funded advocates of environmental defense and consumers rights must maintain freedom from the machinations of the corporation in order to do their job. The second aspect of my objection is theoretical, that is it has to do with the determinations of concepts. (I don't want to sound condescending, it's just that in mainstream discourse there is usually some confusion about the distinction between the practical and theoretical spheres.) Corporations are not free agents; that is, they cannot, by definition, self-legislate. I mean this in the descriptive, not normative, sense. The concept of a corporation demands that it profit; it must answer to shareholders, and all other considerations--whether ethical, aesthetic or even legal--are subordinate to this demand. That means that the costs of growth are always ultimately translated into dollar amounts. Likewise, the benefits of growth, strictly speaking, can only be reflected in dollar amounts. Of course, they can be translated once again into societal benefits of all sorts, but that is a matter of interpretation that lies beyond the calculus of corporations. This is partly why, for instance, from a legal point of view, a corporation's liability is limited to its investment. My objection, then, is that it is not even clear that the public has any interest in incentivizing investment into the private sector. I only say this because it seems to me useful to also bring into question some of the grounds on which the claim is being made. Thank you, and I look forward to your response.", "title": "Corporate Tax Should be Lowered", "pid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.66334533691406}, {"text": "I want to especially single out Obama's plan to raise the corporate tax from, which by the way, he hasnt said by how much....go figure. Right now the corporate tax rate in the United States is 35%, the second largest in the world (Japan is #1). Obama wants to raise this corporate tax rate. Do you know why we have unemployment? ITS BECAUSE COMPANIES GO TO MEXICO, CANADA, EUROPE, AND ASIA TO DO BUSINESS. Why would a corporation stay in the United States and get taxed to death when they can go to, for instance, Ireland whose corporate tax rate is 11%. Of course we're going to have more unemployment when corporations keep leaving the United States. But why wouldnt they? It makes so much sense. Obama's plan to raise the corporate tax is only going to create an even bigger problem. This isnt even about politics anymore. This is about common sense. How can you libs not see this? I forgot, you're a bunch if ideologues.", "title": "Obama's tax plan is idiotic.", "pid": "bf178f17-2019-04-18T19:41:46Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.65887451171875}, {"text": "Finally! Thank you for accepting! In this debate I will show how increasing the wealthy's tax rates will hurt the U.S economy. First argument: Taxing the super rich ($250,000+) reduces job creation and company expansion. It is the wealthy, who primarily create jobs and provide capital for business expansion. There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking, the wealthy account for the majority. Obama classifies the \"super rich\" as having a $250,000+ salary. These are the people who are trying to expand their business. By increasing their tax rates, we reduce the necessary cash flow needed for expansion. Second argument: There is no way we can tax those in excess of \"super rich\" without discouraging all other Americans from investing. There are two types of income, earned and unearned. The warren buffets of the country (who far exceed Obama's \"super rich\" classification) do not have much earned income. They have unearned income, which is systematically withdrawn to receive special taxation, called capital gains. The only way to tax those who far exceed \"super rich\" is to increase capital gains rates, which discourages the rest of America from investing.", "title": "Taxing the rich will benefit our economy", "pid": "5ec4ecb3-2019-04-18T18:41:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.6582794189453}, {"text": "Thank you for the definition. You can be more specific about what plan for a negative income tax you support in your argument, so I will use this round to argue against the tax in general.Contention #1: A negative income tax decreases incentive to work.Experiments in Seatle and Denver tested the effectiveness of a negative income tax. The Stanford Research Institute analyzed the results and found a 9-18% reduction in productivity, and that 50-60% of those recieving the tax used it to replace wages they would have otherwise earned themselves. [1]The same study also found that the tax decreased family stability because families no longer relied on wage-earners.Contention #2: A negative income tax would be expensive to implement.Even proponents of the tax estimate a cost of $38 billion a year, and that is underestimated:\"And if once the main principle of either proposal were accepted, the minimum subsidy or guarantee demanded would be bound constantly to increase. Anyone who doubts this need merely consult the history of unemployment insurance and Social Security benefits since those plans were initiated in the 1930s.\"Implementing this system would be very expensive, possibly reaching trillions of dollars.ConclusionA negative income tax would be ineffective because it decreases incentive to work and causes family instability, and it would also be costly.I will not have access to my computer this weekend, so I would appreciate it if you could take your time to respond.[1] http://www.econlib.org...[2] https://mises.org...", "title": "The United States should adopt a negative income tax.", "pid": "6d652fc7-2019-04-18T12:48:27Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.65374755859375}, {"text": "My argument is not based on any moral grounds. We have both agreed that, from the point of view of the law, the corporation is fundamentally an amoral entity. My objection is based on the following observations: The first is historical. The corporate tax rate has in fact been lowered over the past forty years. During that time, wages have stagnated and wealth has been redistributed from the middle class to a small handful of wealthy individuals. The causes for this redistribution are several, but it is clear that governmental policy favoring the rich has played a major role. For instance, deregulation of the financial sector and international trade agreements (NAFTA and TPP) figure most heavily into these changes. My objection is, secondly, based on my skepticism regarding the mystical faith in free markets to keep their operations in the U.S. Taxation, as we both have agreed, is only one part of the calculus that determines how a corporation will run itself. To simply lower the rate without closing tax loopholes would constitute a rise in the real amounts corporations pay to the federal government. What reason do we have that they would bring their business back to the U.S. if such a raise in the rate is imminent? That said, there are a number of more informed ways of going about fixing the corporate tax rate. One is to base it on the disparity between CEO pay and the average worker's wage. (A bill like this is being considered in the California state legislature.) That of course won't fix many of the problems, but it is a step in the right direction. The broader point is that the taxes a corporation pays is the only way for the public to maintain its interests against those of the corporation. Occasionally, those two interests coincide, but history teaches us that often they do not. You may believe that you are looking at this issue from a strictly political point of view, but observe the sorts of categories you are deploying when you say that if the government did not spend so much money, it would not have to levy taxes on people. The government represents the public good independent of the drive for profits that sits at the heart of the corporation. Both government and corporations are comprised of people--but from a legal point of view, they are essentially different. The corporation is bound to profit for its survival, against the interests of the collective. As we both agree, that has nothing to do with any moral judgment. The government, on the other hand, depends on other activities for its legitimacy. On a whole, it spends as much as it needs to spend to maintain the interests of the diverse population it represents.", "title": "Corporate Tax Should be Lowered", "pid": "5c336b56-2019-04-18T14:30:50Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.64895629882812}, {"text": "A 2010 Congressional Budge Report Found: \"Increasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create much incentive for [small businesses ] to hire more workers in order to produce more, because production depends principally on their ability to sell their products.\" In other words, if you're worried about the fragile state of the economy and you want to do something to make sure recovery is not set back, there are any number of more effective ways to spend that money. Continuing to help states pay their Medicaid bills would be one.[6]", "title": "Small businesses depend on product demand, not tax breaks for wealthy", "pid": "63cad73d-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00051-000", "bm25_score": 214.6308135986328}, {"text": "Only certain types of businesses can TAKE advantage of this tax. That being said, Not all businesses can take advantage of this beneficial 20% rate. C corporations, for example, are not able to leverage capital gains , unlike an S corporation or LLC, the income does not flow through to the shareholders or members on an individual level. Instead, the capital gains tax is taxed on the business level at the ordinary (higher) corporate tax rate. Before you sell an asset which you anticipate earning a profit on, it is always worth speaking with your accountant or financial advisor to understand your options and the implications that the sale will have on both your business and your personal income tax rates.", "title": "The United States should abolish the capital gains tax.", "pid": "e9ac5295-2019-04-18T11:49:48Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.61709594726562}, {"text": "The government should cut taxes for everyone including the wealthy so people will have more money, people will spend more, businesses will make more money and pay more tax dollars. A large percentage of businesses pay income tax at the individual tax rate not the corporate tax rate. If income taxes get cut then the businesses that pay the individual income tax rate will have more money and hire more employees. Corporate taxes should also get cut to 25 percent so that businesses will hire more employees. If businesses make more money and pay more tax dollars then the government revenue will increase. If businesses hire more employees then there will be more taxpayers which will also increase the government revenue. The wealthy should get a large tax cut because a lot of them own businesses. If they get a tax cut then they will spend more money, make more investments and hire more employees.", "title": "The government should cut taxes for everyone including the wealthy", "pid": "137919fb-2019-04-18T17:51:50Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.57913208007812}, {"text": "Because recession is such a general term, let me narrow to the part I'm trying to show you. You make an important point that taxes are lowered if they relocate overseas, especially to China or Japan. This is actually a problem for the economy, it's not a good factor that can lead to better economic growth like you say it does. Globalization itself isn't a problem at all, but if jobs or capital were to be shipped overseas then it would be devastating for OUR economy while only one economy benefits. Corporations do this to avoid corporate taxes, and take their business somewhere that doesn't normally have corporate taxes like we do. And if corporations have had lower taxes than they have 40-50 years ago (which is somewhat true), then why are they shipping jobs overseas? Because they're not low enough. And why is this such a big deal? Because the more money made, the higher the tax rate is and corporations make a lot of money. The IRS reports that since 1988, the tax rate per income began to fluctuate and people with lower incomes started to be taxed at a higher percentage than those making more (to this day). They got tired of this, and since then began to relocate to countries with cheap labor and low or no taxes. Since the late 1980s, this caused a whole range of economic problems which can be obvious when seen. It's no coincidence that the countries that we owe trade deficits with are the ones that corporations decided to relocate to. As for my sources, did you not see the entire article filled with 10 benefits of lower corporate taxes? And what \"program\" are you talking about? And yes I do agree with the long-term health of the economy, which means that we have the same goals. We have different theories on how to meet them however, and if taxes were lowered the government would actually be making more profit because more people would make demands. It's simple math. If the tax rate was 8% for a candy bar, only 1 person would want to buy it. But if the rate was 4% then 3 people would want to buy it, so the government would be making 4% more if the taxes were lower. . http://www.google.com... . http://www.americanprogress.org...", "title": "Corporate taxes should be lowered", "pid": "4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.5586395263672}, {"text": "An increase in jobs is a fundamental part of getting out of a recession. Consumer spending needs to be increased in order to see tangible growth in the economy and consumer spending can not be increased as long as consumers remain unemployed. The most efficient way to create jobs is to decrease corporate taxes that create incentives to create new jobs. For example, the state of Michigan enacted policy that substantially decreased corporate taxes on companies that created new jobs in high-growth sectors such as green and bio technology.[[www.michigan.gov/documents/gov/Econ_job_223200_7.pdf]] The purpose of business is to profit and through corporate tax cuts, business will have the ability to profit easier while creating jobs. Employed consumers spend the necessary money to stimulate and grow the economy. This is proven in the example of Ireland, which adopted a 12.5% corporate tax in 1988 while having the second-lowest per capita income in Europe and now has the second-highest income in Europe.[[http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/04/tax-cut-stimulus-opinions-contributors_0204_peter_ferrara.html]] Recently, the French government posted figures of 0.3% growth in GDP for the second quarter of 2009, an indicator it is coming out of the recession. Across the euro zone, only Germany matched this growth. This was unexpected by experts and while it does not mean the recession is over for France, it is encouraging. One of the key forces behind this was an increase in consumption. Consumption increased by 0.3% this quarter. This increase was the aim of the government when reducing VAT as part of its strategy to combat the recession. For companies such as restaurants and cafes, VAT was slashed from 19% to 5.5%, which industry bodies predicted successfully would lead to an increase in consumption. [[http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4446507,00.html]] [[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jXJawG8lN9DDRVZ8N5-VSsc4_-Dw]] Government spending can also create jobs but the question is are these jobs suitable for getting out of a recession? The answer is a resounding no. Let's examine one of the largest attempts by government to create jobs, Roosevelt's Public Works Administration which allocated $3.3 billion dollars for public jobs to stimulate employment[[http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/pwa.htm]]. The jobs created by it usually lasted only months allowing only short term employment and the unemployment rate remained above 9%[[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110011064 ]]. Many of the jobs consisted of building public structures and murals such as a mountain theater that were not done to grow the economy further but to grow political capital. After the expenditures stopped, so did the jobs. Only private industry can provide the long term stability and job creation through new and improved investments which are vital economic necessities to get out of a recession. By providing corporate tax cuts to incentive this, governments will not fall in a pit of spending that only provides sparks and stifling the private industry that could make blazing positive changes in the economy.", "title": "Job Creation/Stability", "pid": "6b8ee15-2019-04-19T12:45:29Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 214.53375244140625}, {"text": "People don't always spend more when taxes are cut. If there worried about the economy in the future they tend to save not spend more. Also just because business save more money doesn't always mean they will spend it to increase jobs. History epically recent shows that business use these benefits to benefit shareholders directly. Why in the mid 20th century, when corporate taxes and personal taxes where at its highest booming economics. Here's a philosophical question for you to.. That even if what you said was true don't you think that some people, some where would be left out? What your describing is trickle down economics, which doesn't work.", "title": "Cutting Taxes Would Stimulate The Economy", "pid": "a1064dfa-2019-04-18T15:49:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.53256225585938}, {"text": "There is no evidence that tax cuts create jobs. There is an extensive academic literature on this subject, and it all lends itself to the same conclusion: tax cuts are not conducive to growth, but is to income inequality and middle class stagnation. First, let’s discuss the reality of the current state of taxation in the United States. Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economy Policy Institute, in examining post WWII tax rates, noted this observation (1): Since the end of World War II, U.S. top individual income tax rates have declined markedly, as have effective tax rates on corporate income, capital income, and inheritances. Consequently, the federal tax code has become much less progressive (Piketty and Saez 2007). The top statutory marginal tax rate has fallen from just over 90 percent in the 1950s, to 70 percent in the 1970s, to 50 percent in the mid-1980s, to 35 percent for most of the past decade (TPC 2013a). The taxable income cutoff above which the top rate is applied for married joint filers has also fallen precipitously, from roughly $3 million in the early 1950s (adjusted to 2012 dollars), to roughly $1 million in the early 1970s, to just $388,350 for 2012 (TPC 2013b). The overall decline in progressivity is most striking within the top income percentile: The effective tax rate for the top hundredth of a percentile (i.e., 99.99–100 percent of filers by income) has fallen by more than half, from 71.4 percent in 1960 to 34.7 percent in 2004, versus a decline for the 99.5–99.9 percentiles from 41.4 percent in 1960 to 33.0 percent in 2004 (Piketty and Saez 2007). To elucidate this piece, here are his conclusions: 1. Tax rates, which ranged from 70 to 91% in the first three decades of the post-WWII era, have fallen substantially. 2. Effective rates on corporate income, capital gains, and estate taxes have fallen as well. 3. The tax code, with time, has become increasingly less progressive. We also have data telling us that the tax systems in most states are regressive – that is, a disproportionate portion of the burden is falling on lower-income people – as many states move away from progressive income taxes in favor of sales taxes (2). At the same time, corporations are getting giant breaks. Not only are they low by historic standards, as Thomas Hungerford points out (3); the nonpartisan Citizens for Tax Justice conduced an extensive study (4) of 288 Fortune 500 companies over a 5 year period, and came to the following conclusions: 1. 111 companies, including GE, Exxon, and Boeing paid negative tax rates. 2. One third paid no federal income tax less than 10 percent over the period. 3. The average tax rate was only 19.4%. 4. 55 of the 288 companies enjoyed several years of new taxes, with a total of 203 years of no taxes. So, now we have examined the evidence as to the current state of taxation. Let’s review: 1. Many states have regressive tax burdens. 2. The very affluent have seen their tax rates at near historic lows – in spite of significant growth in the post-WWII era with significantly higher tax rates – and are enjoying significant breaks on the backs of the U.S. taxpayer, who have been forced to shoulder the burden. 3. Corporations are receiving unheard of breaks. So, we know that the essence of trickle-down economics is already in play: taxes are already low. What are the results, however, of these breaks? Let’s go back to Andrew Fieldhouse, whose study concluded this: Analyses of top tax rate changes since World War II show that higher rates have no statistically significant impact on factors driving economic growth—private saving, investment levels, labor participation rates, and labor productivity—nor on overall economic growth rates. Interesting. But what about the Laffer Curve, conservatives may ask? Is there not a point beyond which the government simply cannot raise taxes lest it loses revenue? Of course there is. But what is that rate, and are we anywhere near it? Fieldhouse addresses this, as well: Recent research implies a revenue-maximizing top effective federal income tax rate of roughly 68.7 percent. This is nearly twice the top 35 percent effective marginal ordinary income tax rate that prevailed at the end of 2012, and 27.5 percentage points higher than the 41.2 percent rate in 2013.This would mean a top statutory income tax rate of 66.1 percent, 26.5 percentage points above the prevailing 39.6 percent top statutory rate…. Historically, decreases in top marginal tax rates have widened inequality of both pre- and post-tax income. Emmanuel Saez and Nobel Laureate Peter Diamond also weighed in as to what the effective tax rate ought to be, and concluded that the optimal tax rate on high-income Americans would be 70% (5). We also have data from a 65-year study from the Congressional Research Service (6). Here is their conclusion: Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. The share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. For more on income inequality, let’s go to Robert Reich (6): During periods when the very rich took home a larger proportion — as between 1918 and 1933, and in the Great Regression from 1981 to the present day — growth slowed, median wages stagnated and we suffered giant downturns. It’s no mere coincidence that over the last century the top earners’ share of the nation’s total income peaked in 1928 and 2007 — the two years just preceding the biggest downturns. And, for a bit more, let’s go to Nobel Laureate Joe Stiglitz, who cites World Bank economist Branko Milanovic (7): From 1988 to 2008, Mr. Milanovic found, people in the world’s top 1 percent saw their incomes increase by 60 percent, while those in the bottom 5 percent had no change in their income. And while median incomes have greatly improved in recent decades, there are still enormous imbalances: 8 percent of humanity takes home 50 percent of global income; the top 1 percent alone takes home 15 percent. Income gains have been greatest among the global elite — financial and corporate executives in rich countries — and the great “emerging middle classes” of China, India, Indonesia and Brazil. But how bad is income inequality? Let’s ask Stiglitz: Last year [2012] the top 1 percent of Americans took home 22 percent of the nation’s income; the top 0.1 percent, 11 percent. Ninety-five percent of all income gains since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent. Recently released census figures show that median income in America hasn’t budged in almost a quarter-century. The typical American man makes less than he did 45 years ago (after adjusting for inflation); men who graduated from high school but don’t have four-year college degrees make almost 40 percent less than they did four decades ago. So, there is certainly a moral argument at play: the middle-class has stagnated since the 1980s – the rise of Ronald Reagan, and the inception of the supply-side economics experiment we’ve been experiencing for about 34 years now. But what are the economic effects of income inequality? Should we be worried that income inequality is constraining the economy? Yes, says Stiglitz again. He makes the following four arguments: 1. Income inequality will lead to underconsumption, as the rich spend relatively smaller portions of their income than poor people due to the diminishing marginal returns of income. 2. Income inequality leads to a waste of human talent, as the non-affluent cannot access high-quality education as readily as rich people. 3. Income inequality gives way to financial crises. 4. Income inequality lowers tax receipts. And we also know that income inequality in the United States, coupled with social mobility, is significantly lower than it is in Europe. We know that countries in Europe – Finland, Germany, Norway, et al. – and even the U.S. in the three decades post-WWII had higher tax rates, more government investment, less income inequality, and more growth as a result. European countries also beat the U.S. on health, life expectancy, happiness, economic mobility, etc. Conclusion: The evidence is overwhelming, and there isn’t much time to waste. Supply-side economics is a fantasy. Sources: 1. http://www.epi.org... 2. http://www.itep.org... 3. http://www.epi.org... 4. http://www.ctj.org... 5. http://pubs.aeaweb.org... 6. http://robertreich.org... 7. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...", "title": "Taxes on the Rich should be Increased", "pid": "d7aa69c4-2019-04-18T16:31:03Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.5051727294922}, {"text": "Raising taxes for individuals with income over $250,000 will have a hugely detrimental outcome. This is because a huge number of small businesses are legally taxed as individuals. Raising taxes may be manageable for wealthy individuals, but small firms will be crushed by such huge tax increases proposed by Obama. The effects of this will be hard felt across the country, since small firms employ half of all private sector employees in the USA. [1] These small companies will see their investing and spending power vastly reduced and will lead to thousands of redundancies that will ensure the American economy remains stagnant! Low taxes are the key to economic growth, not high taxes and government spending. [1] US Small Business Administration, FAQs, http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24 , accessed 8/10/2012", "title": "A progressive tax policy and a cut in military spending are what America needs.", "pid": "41ae7225-2019-04-15T20:22:54Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.50021362304688}, {"text": "With a national unemployment rate of 8.1% as of September 2012 [1], the United States economy has not recovered from the global financial crisis of 2008 and the recession that followed it. Governor Mitt Romney’s plan to cut taxes would lessen the burden on American citizens, and spur businesses and entrepreneurs to create more jobs. Governor Romney advocates a Reagan-esque devotion to laissez-faire economics, arguing that with substantial tax cuts and limited regulation on private businesses, the economy will naturally grow. Mr Romney states on his website that he would reduce government spending from its current level, around $33,000 per household, to around $25,000, while maintaining individual tax rates but decreasing rates for private corporations. [2] Regarding government programs, Governor Romney opposes President Obama’s spending, vowing to repeal Mr Obama’s healthcare act, saving the country around $95 billion, according to his website. He also has advocated cutting spending on social programs by 5 % (without touching national security spending) and pulling funding from the National Endowment of the Arts and Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Legal Services Corporation. Furthermore, he plans to save up to $100 million by reducing foreign aid. The budget deficit will be reduced despite the proposed tax-cuts. This is because tax cuts will have a positive effect on growth, while the spending cuts and clamp down on loopholes and inefficiencies will also help cut the deficit. Overall, Mitt Romney’s economic policies boil down to taxing less and spending less, allowing the free market to work uninhibited. As with Obama, Romney’s position on this issue reflects his broader beliefs about the problems facing America. His plan to eliminate Title X Family Planning funding, for example, draws quite publicly from his opposition to abortion rights. While, also like Obama, his main concern is lowering the national deficit and paying back the national debt, the ways he would go about it are very different from those of his opponent, and realistically would benefit very different types of Americans. [1] Google Public Data, http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=us+unemployment , accessed 8/10/2012 [2] Mitt Romney Website, http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending , accessed 8/10/2012", "title": "Tax cuts and spending cuts are necessary for growth.", "pid": "41ae7225-2019-04-15T20:22:54Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 214.49578857421875}, {"text": "The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress ensured that real, after-tax income was up 15% by 2006. The Dow Jones hit record Highs during his time in office. These tax cuts were responsible for the creation of 6.6 million jobs, primarily in the private sector – real jobs producing real goods and providing real services not tax-payer funded sinecures to mask the reality of the economic situation.[i] [i] The White House, “Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues – More than 6.6 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003”, 6 October 2006, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061006-1.html", "title": "Republicans are the best at stimulating economic growth", "pid": "8b2eaf6e-2019-04-15T20:22:54Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 214.49264526367188}, {"text": "I accept", "title": "Corporate taxes should be lowered", "pid": "4cd87808-2019-04-18T17:29:44Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.48550415039062}, {"text": "Robert Creamer. \"Why Congress Must End Bush Tax Breaks for the Rich.\" Huffington Post. July 28th, 2010: \"The Republicans charge that eliminating these tax breaks on the rich -- and returning them to Clinton-era levels -- would be a 'job-killing tax hike in the midst of a recession.' Let's recall that while the Clinton-era tax rates applied to the rich in the 1990's, the economy created more than 22.5 million jobs in less than eight years -- the most jobs ever created under a single administration. Moreover, the Federal deficit had turned into a surplus for as long as the eye could see. The number of private sector jobs created during the Bush years: zero.\"", "title": "High taxes on rich has coincided with great economic growth", "pid": "63cad73d-2019-04-17T11:47:24Z-00044-000", "bm25_score": 214.47677612304688}, {"text": "i didn't say taxes would make people not work. i said they would go overseas and they have. that's where manufacturing jobs have gone. a sales tax is not regressive because there is a prebate that ensures that poor people are untaxed and many goods, like food, are exempted. spending does not mean bad economy. that is correlation not causation. to produce something it must be made. the tax is revenue-neutral so we can still pay for roads", "title": "the federal income tax should be abolished", "pid": "a01e51a9-2019-04-18T16:36:28Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.44448852539062}, {"text": "I don't have time to do this right now. I've been swamped at work. My arguments were going to be, in short -- 1. Lowering taxes on the rich increases income inequality. Income inequality is a serious problem. 2. Economic inequality has a huge set of social harms associated with it. Under almost any value criterion except \"GDP growth,\" I win the debate on this point alone (e.g. if you use a happiness index or something like that to measure policies). 3. It's not clear that the \"economic growth\" from lowering taxes outweighs the \"economic harm\" from inequality. There's tons of evidence showing inequality actually slows growth, and possibly slows it even more than lowering taxes increases it. Given the uncertainty there, I'd say it's a clear vote for Con in this debate. Unfortunately, I don't have time to make the arguments. I'm gonna leave it up to 16k whether he wants to tie the debate and do this another time, or whether he wants to accept a win. Up to him. I'm okay with either one -- not in this for the win stats.", "title": "Resolved: The USFG should adopt across-the-board tax cuts for individual and corporate tax brackets", "pid": "4688fcc6-2019-04-18T14:43:50Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.42715454101562}, {"text": "Erkki Koskelaa. \"Tax progression is good for employment in popular models of trade union behaviour\". Elsevier Science B.V. 1996 - Using three popular models of trade union behaviour — the monopoly union, the ‘right-to-manage’ and the efficient bargain model — as the framework for analysis, this paper provides the unambiguously negative answer that under plausible assumptions an increased tax progression lowers wages and is good for employment in all three popular models of trade union behaviour. This means that the effects of taxation appear to be very sensitive to the structure of labour markets.\"", "title": "Progressive taxes help increase employment rate", "pid": "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00134-000", "bm25_score": 214.38650512695312}, {"text": "A 2% tax on EVERY purchase, retail, stock, currency market, commodities, etc., in the United States would raise enough more than enough money to fund the federal government, pay down the debt, give Everyone a rebate on the tax up to the poverty line if not more, maintain anti-poverty programs, and eliminate the income tax, while keeping the tax burden heavily on Those with higher levels of wealth and increasing economic growth. US GDP is ~$17 trillion a year according to the U.S. Commerce Department. US stock sales are ~$21 trillion a year according to the World Bank. Currency purchases in the US are ~$205 trillion a year according to the Foreign Exchange Committee. With a 2% tax, approximately $4.5 trillion in taxes can be raised, all existing income/payroll taxes could be repealed. The economic benefits of removing the burdens of the income tax from Consumers and replacing it with a simple 2% sales tax could reasonably be expect to be significant.The new tax would also be progressive in nature. Anyone with an income up to the poverty line would pay 0 tax and Anyone with income below the poverty line would have a negative tax rate, as well as being eligible for the payments made under the current earned income tax credit. As One's income increases, the amount of money available beyond the poverty to spend/invest/trade increases, raising the amount to tax.", "title": "Taxing all sales can result in economic benefits", "pid": "846ff762-2019-04-18T16:23:22Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.3551025390625}, {"text": "As income levels rise, marginal propensity to consume tend to drop. Thus it is often argued that economic demand can be stimulated by reducing the tax burden on lower incomes while raising the burden on higher incomes.", "title": "Progressive tax rates stimulate higher consumer activity.", "pid": "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00127-000", "bm25_score": 214.34616088867188}, {"text": "I would like to mention my opponent has dropped his argument that there should be a 13% national tax rate, it has been forgotten for several rounds (Cameron Round One). This is especially amazing since the 13% tax rate was one of the core essentials of his primary argument. In counter to Pro R5, he claims that I 'neglect' why these loopholes exist. This is getting ridiculous, it is obvious why the loopholes exist and I am not trying to say they shouldn't have loopholes. The point of my argument was to acknowledge that an elimination of a corporate tax would have no effects on prices due to most corporations already evading taxes through loopholes. Instead of trying to attack me there, Pro should of stated that all the ma n pa businesses would benefit from the elimination of the corporate tax. And yes, shareholders must pay taxes for if they play the game right, they can reap in hundreds of times more of what they payed in taxes, this has nothing to do with the corporate tax, what Pro is inferring is a completely different tax. In Pros second argument R5, he uses the law of demand to justify how a rise of consumerism would commence. Again most major corporations already pay no taxes, there will be no fall in prices. Not only that, but prices aren't just determined if a corporation is being taxed lower, other factors such as, demand and supply take hold. And lets say we do implement a NST a decrease in taxes for the consumer would be nice for them, but this would cancel out with a increase of taxes elsewhere like products and services. Instigators 3rd argument is irrelevant, so I shall not take this into consideration. Responding to Cameron A4 R5, he concludes that he was not informed that I was talking about the wealth inequality that would sneak in with implementation of the NST. This is funny. Not only did I talk about how I was referring to wealth inequality in Rezamee R3, but I also state how income inequality is correct as well. Let me explain how these both can be witnessed in the plight of the NST. If you have a home worth 350k you can be considered a wealthy individual for owning that home, wealth inequality is when one class gets better and better life quality while another class is either stagnant or decreasing in quality of life. With a national sales tax the rich would create more CAPITOL, capitol is considered by the federal government to be a type of income, rendering my statement of income inequality true. By allowing the wealthy to create more capitol you can see real estate prices rise as well as auto-motives, which would hurt the middle and poor classes. How would these prices rise? Corporate in mentioned markets would see a rise of wealthy individuals, in race to make more cash, we could see many corporations biding for profit in raising prices in said markets (housing n cars). I highly doubt the source you got for Tennessee having a surplus is legitimate, either that or, you manipulated the source/search for your benefit. Due to Tennessee being known to take more money from the federal government than them giving back in TAXES. In summary, the National Sales Tax will only bring unbalance. . unbalance in our market, imbalance in our classes, and imbalance in our government. Not only this, but if implemented, we could see a rise of a aristocratic government which could prove fatal to democracy as we know it.", "title": "Replacing the Current Tax Code With A National Sales Tax Will Reboot the American Economy", "pid": "35c1b265-2019-04-18T14:23:30Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.34091186523438}, {"text": "I accept my rivals challenge My challenge as I understand it is to defend the tax cuts of those who invest in industry. Investor in industry in America use money to build up many type of businesses. Many of these businesses are small up and coming \"shops\" that exist only do to the investment of others. These investor contribute to forming many new businesses which in turn hire other people as employees. These people then use the money they earn to spend on items they need and want this helps the economy. I argue against my rival in the idea that tax cuts on both parties are needed to create jobs in the private sector. It would not be better to give tax breaks to one or the other as they are both needed for an economy to work. Maybe even more so on investors part.", "title": "better to give Tax breaks to job/business creators paid by tax increases on capital gains generally", "pid": "122c8a75-2019-04-18T18:16:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.33868408203125}, {"text": "the burden of proof is shared. i say the federal income tax serves no purpose and should be abolished.", "title": "the federal income tax should be abolished", "pid": "a01e51a9-2019-04-18T16:36:28Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.3303985595703}, {"text": "We affirm. Resolved, the United States should abolish the Capital Gains Tax. Framework: Economic benefits outweigh all others Our sole argument is small businesses Forbes Magazine in 2017 reports that small businesses are the backbone of the American economy, as they make up 99% of all firms and over half of the employment. Abolishing the capital gains tax would help small businesses in two ways. First, it encourages Venture Capitalism Specifically, Kai Ryssdal17 of Emory University explains that venture capitalists specialize in small business investment as they\"re willing to take risks by investing in young firms. As a result, Ryssdal finds that over 20% of US Small Businesses are funded by venture capitalists. Conversely, for high growth start-ups, Mohendra Gupta of Stanford University explains that venture capitalists are important because they ensure long-term investments and better opportunities for future funding. Unfortunately, Ernst Young in 2015 of the Alliance for Savings and Investment reports that the capital gains tax discourages venture capitalism funding due to the high costs for a small reward. Ultimately, abolishing the capital gains tax is key to increasing venture capitalism as Paul Gompers14 of Harvard University explains that a 1 percent decrease in the capital gains tax increases venture capitalism by 3.8 percent. Second is through reducing investment abroad Diana Roth15 of the Manhattan Institute explains that high capital gains tax rates encourage the flow of investment outside of the US and into foreign markets. Accordingly, Todd Mason14 of the American Enterprise Institute finds that the United States has a capital gains tax rate over 10% higher than the OECD average. In fact, James Jackson17 of the Congressional Research Service concludes that investment abroad increased 4.5 times more under the high taxes of Obama compared to the low taxes of Bush. Fortunately, Eric Toder12 of the Brookings Institute finds that by abolishing the capital gains tax, the United States would become a more desirable location for small businesses because it would give them a fair competitive stance in the market against the current big businesses. Supporting small businesses is important because it creates jobs. Phil Krepen95 of the Institute for Policy Innovation finds that historically, small business growth has surged during times of low capital gains taxation. Increasing the growth of small businesses is imperative for job growth as David Robinson17 of Duke University explains that previously missed attempts at funding small businesses could provide for 85,000 new jobs annually. Accordingly, Michael Mazerov16 of the Center for Budget for Policy and Priorities reports that small business jobs are critical as they\"re historically more sustainable and longer lasting. Karen Campbell of the Heritage foundation thus finds that repealing the capital gains tax will send a strong signal that the US is open for business. For all these reasons I am incredibly proud to affirm.", "title": "The United States should abolish the Capital Gains Tax.", "pid": "e9656a54-2019-04-18T11:36:11Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.32809448242188}, {"text": "Kudos to my opponent for providing a well thought out debate! Just to clarify to the voters, my opponents \"Introduction\" which states what he is arguing is suitable and will be the topic of judgment. First Argument: Taxing the rich ($250,000+) reduces job creation and company expansion.The problem with the U.S economy is that our government has their hand in the free market which is causing a kink in the natural course of capitalism. Our high unemployment rates and lack of investments are caused by uncertainty. When you have an inconsistent government trying to pass laws that directly affect the profitability of the private sector, investors become fearful and sell their stock. This eventually causes a bear market, and the combination of a bear market and an unstable government further depreciates the market and ultimately causes a recession. Companies rely on investors for productivity and profitability. When investors remove themselves from the market, it causes the companies debt/income ratio to increase. In order stay profitable, they remove expenses, most commonly in the form of employment. My point in the paragraph above, is that capitalism is a top to bottom method for economic and social well being. Capitalism only involves the private sector, so they are not included nor should they be included in our economy's success or failure. Therefore, it starts at the top after supply is created to fulfill demand. Those are the people who create jobs and have the power to stimulate our economy.Increasing the tax rates for those who receive $250,000+ will do absolutely nothing to enhance our economic situation. It is proposed that by increasing their tax rates, it will provide the government with 1.1 trillion in additional income. With the additional money, as my opponent stated, Obama is planning on building and fixing infrastructure, as well as provide money for public employees and allowing for middle class tax cuts. The problem with this, is that the demand created by the increased taxes have no long term affects in economic stimulation. Building infrastructure creates a temporary demand. It will provide temporary work to an outsourced, private sector company solely for the purpose of providing temporary jobs. However, because we have limited funds and limited infrastructure, it will inevitably end. People don't invest in something with limited value, so nothing but government spending and temporary work will become of it. With regards to public employees, the demand has always been there. They would simply alleviate some of the hiring freezes that were put in to place after layoffs. Regardless, public sector jobs don't provide for investment opportunities, so the market will continue on its current track. As my opponent stated, the low and middle class spend more than the upper class. This is true, however, the middle class only account for 10.6% of U.S taxes. The government can't afford to lower them to the degree where the increased saving and spending would even scratch the surface of improving our economy. As everything stated above suggests, taxing the rich provides our government with money, but does absolutely nothing to stimulate our economy. At best, it provides temporary work for infrastructure and places public workers back in to jobs they shouldn't have lost in the first place. Now let's talk about the individual. Small business owners make up about half of U.S employees. There are a little under 6 million small businesses who employ roughly 160 million people. The average U.S salary is about $27,000. Roughly 1 million of those small businesses make $500,000 to $1 million. For simplicities sake, we'll use $500,000 as an average small business owners income. 39% of 500,000 is nearly 200,000. Let's say we reduce the tax rate to 30%. Now we're at $150,000. By reducing the tax rate we are saving a small business owner $50,000, which is potentially two salaries and two less unemployed. If we did that for every small business owner we would have 12 million new jobs created. Let's say the business was at full staff and couldn't hire anyone else. The average person who makes that kind of money already has an established emergency fund. An emergency fund is typically 3 to 6 months of savings for emergency events that arise. All additional money either gets spent or is invested. $50,000 x 6 million business owners is 300 billion dollars that is put back in to our economy. Even if they save, a savings account is technically an extremely liquid loan to the bank, who takes the money you just deposted, and invests it. So regardless of whether the additional money is in a savings account, or a brokerage account, it is still circulating the market.Bottom line, taxing the rich will not stimulate our economy. It will provide $1.1 trillion to be spent on temporary jobs and jobs that should have never been lost in the first place. It will not be put back in to the market nor will it provide an environment to entice people to invest in the market. Keeping taxes the same or even reducing them, however, will allow capitalism to run its natural course. It will provide for billions of dollars to be put back in to the market that everyone of us depend on. New investors allow companies to expand in every aspect of their business. Stimulated businesses create jobs. Jobs reduce unemployment and allow for investing. Investing drives interest rates up, and our government reaps the benefits from all angles. More taxes are paid because there are more employees. They make more money off of corporate taxes because of expansion. And, it allows the federal reserve to charge higher interests because more money is flowing through the market.Sources:http://www.csmonitor.com...http://www.census.gov...http://www.sba.gov...", "title": "Taxing the rich will benefit our economy", "pid": "5ec4ecb3-2019-04-18T18:41:04Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.31983947753906}, {"text": "Hello, superkamal26, Nope my argument still stands. My point was never a pure calling for higher taxes but to show that an optimum point exists that it may be higher than the current level. It appears that you reused your stating premise, thus allow me to deconstruct it and rebut point by point. 3.0 “higher taxes … people will spend less money and save more” 3. 1 Assuming that we are talking about income tax, higher taxes do not encourage people to save. Instead, people would still spend according to the elasticity of the goods. In fact the reverse is true. Having less capital to spend, people would not be able to afford to save if they wish to maintain their current standard of living. 4.0 “When businesses make a lot of money … better it is for the economy.” 4.1 It is debatable that businesses would choose to reinvest back to the economy especially if there is an on-going financial crisis. Instead, businesses might want to build a hedge fund or worst, funnel their resources overseas. 4.2 You also assess that businesses create jobs. This might be true in the States. However, in some countries, the government is the main employer of jobs. This means in the short term, these workers would suffer a decrease in wages, this would lead to less consumer spending and, in the long term, lesser revenue for businesses.", "title": "Tax cuts for everyone", "pid": "3350cfd3-2019-04-18T18:26:49Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.3163299560547}, {"text": "Pro 1. Reduced reward means less productivityThe assumptions of the individual utility model are ridicliously unrealistic and demonstrably untrue. People actually do care about the education system, for instance, even if they do not directly benefit from it. If other people do well, we do well too - and we know it. This is why the individual utility model needs to be supplemented with the collective utility model. But if what he says is true, surely countries with lower tax revenues (as a % of GDP) should have lower outputs per working hour, as well as lower competitiveness. In fact, the opposite relationship is true, as has been confirmed by numerous studies [1]. He mentions the free rider problem. The first problem is that many government services aren't technically public goods. Electricity, water, wastewater and so on are not non-excludible. The second problem is that even truely public goods, such as free-to-air television or roads, are not harmed by free riders. There is no (significant) marginal cost associated with a free rider and therefore there is no problem. Increasing the number of roads has never been shown in any study to increase unemployment - indeed, it creates employment as people build the road, and entrepreneurs use their road to expand their operations. My claim of debt funding the growth bubble in the United States is not unsupported, as I gave a source. If you believe CIA figures, the US is well behind France in terms of debt as a percentage of GDP - if you believe the IMF, the conclusion is the opposite [2]. The same is generally true of all Europe when compared to the United States. The difference is that the CIA is sponsored by the American government, who have an interest in fostering positive outlooks for their economy, as this encourages spending which leads to growth. The IMF is sponsored by nobody, and has numerous checks and balances to ensure this [3]. Therefore the IMF figures are more reliable. Now we turn to some academia. First, the Reinhart and Rogoff study, which is not influential but infamous. It made no allowance for an impact over time, was based on a tiny dataset (during which time tax rates were also high), did not prove or even provide evidence for causality, and worked on gross debt rather than public debt [4]. Second, Raj Chetty's top-down study. What this proved is that with fewer tax brackets (which produce \"kinks\"), people look more actively for jobs that puts them closer to the top end of a tax bracket, incurring switching costs and affecting the elasticity of labour supply. It does not have anything to do with increasing taxes if you read it properly, unless those fewer tax brackets put a worker in a higher tax bracket. This would therefore be an argument for making taxes more progressive, not less. Third, I couldn't open the link to your third study. It appears to be broken. Please provide a working link. My opponent claims that the studies look at how the economies performs when taxes are high or low, and therefore account for how the spending happens. This is a non sequiter. Spending on a potentially productive sector may not have a performance impact now, but it may ensure long-term prosperity (by which time taxes may have decreased and the whole thing is ascribed to lower taxes). Spending on producing more hamburgers now may boost performance, but it may ensure long-term costs (such as healthcare expenses - by which time taxes may have increased and the costs are ascribed to higher taxes). None of my opponent's studies take this into account. Pro 2. Incentive for tax evasionLooks like my opponent has dropped this point. Pro 3. EmigrationMy opponent now claims that taxes are very important. Can I assume this means he will be packing his bags for the Bahamas or Afghanistan? Seriously voters, how relevant is the tax rate when making your decision to move somewhere? Wouldn't you rather look to the crime rate, the quality of the healthcare and education systems, the level of pollution, whether you have a job there, and so on? Wouldn't firms rather look to the market size, cost of infrastructure, local cultural factors, local household income, and so on? It's about the profitability, as I say. Taxes are only a small consideration when assessing the profit potential of a market. Con 1. Govt makes better decisionsApparently the government does not respond to people's demands. Corporations certainly don't because profit can come without concensus (which is the measure of the demand of the people as a whole). Government cannot form without consensus, therefore they need to respond to what people want - or else people will vote in somebody who does give them what they want. In this way government does meet public demands. Con 2. EquityAverage income is a poor measure of standard of living and absolutely does not account for the middle class. In a country where one person earns a million dollars and ten people earn ten cents, the average income is about $91,000. In a country where 11 people have the some money divided equally between them, the average income is the same. However, in the former scenario there is a much higher standard of living than in the latter. Median income is also bad because it ignores everyone but the middle man - in a country of 5 people, it doesn't matter how poor persons 1 and 2 are so long as person 3 is reasonably well-off. Social injustice and poverty resulting from this inequality increases the crime rate, litters the streets with homeless and reduces standard of living. Getting them off the street and away from crime increases it. Con 3. Govt more efficientGovernments do have competition - other people who want political power capitalise on present government's mistakes. Politicians and corporations alike fall from grace. Con 4. Govt investments more likely to bolster external sources of standard of livingMy opponent tells you this is predicated on Con 1. This is false, but it doesn't matter because I won that point. Good luck for the final round! Sources1 - . http://cupe.ca...2 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...3 - . http://www.imf.org...4 - . http://www.epi.org...", "title": "High Tax Rates Hurt the Economy", "pid": "f536e531-2019-04-18T18:43:52Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.28677368164062}, {"text": "Opposition believes that job creation is essential in developing a country’s economy. When more people are employed, the economy is more likely to boost the economy. Through government support, more of the population will be able to be entrepreneurs to create new businesses. Job creation is the redeeming quality of companies. The role of companies in the economy is to decrease the rate of unemployment and to see money being circulated in the economy, since people will have stable employment. Govts in general are obligated to regulate the economy as it is focused toward the people and to be free of any corruption or unethical practices. The role of taxes as well as government is to generate sufficient revenue to finance public sector activities toward the citizens, and employees. A government should prioritize its concerns about corps to better their citizens. Taxes also fulfill the need and desire for increased public services, and the capacity to levy taxes effectively. “No one likes taxes. People do not like to pay them. Govts do not like to impose them…While necessary, taxes impose real costs on society. Good tax policy seeks to minimize those costs.” Especially in situation with less regulation and tax cuts are going to be actuated, more corps seek chances to exploit their workers, manipulate their investments, and go against human rights. The investment and financial resources, which would be in the hands of big corps, does not fall to the hands of workers or citizens. Regulations and taxations are a means for governments to scrutinize companies and make sure that they have standards on employment and practices. Govts are not only involved in economics but also mandated to reflect many other social factors too including concerns about fairness and feasibility in dealing with their people. While individual corps is interested soley on profits, govt should examine the big picture and try to impact the economy holistically. 1-http://goo.gl/sohdy", "title": "Governments and Corporations should focus their economies towards individuals.", "pid": "413eb840-2019-04-19T12:45:04Z-00035-000", "bm25_score": 214.27279663085938}, {"text": "The American Jobs Act helps small businesses and is also set to significantly increase the number of jobs available to people. Small enterprise is particularly important in the creation of jobs because these businesses tend to be start-up businesses. Many start-ups are entrepreneurial in character, and succeed or fail on their ability to identify and exploit new markets. Increasing investment in new and emergency markets spurs the creation of additional jobs within those markets. Thanks to the cuts in payroll tax contained in the Jobs Act, many small businesses will stand to benefit by gaining some of the money paid to the government back. The President’s plan will also eliminate payroll taxes entirely if firms add new workers or increase the wages of their current workers. As such, there will be significant incentives for small businesses to hire more workers.­1 Cuts to payroll taxes, combined with the other changes planned by the bill, are estimated to create 100,000 jobs a month for the next year, accompanied by a projected 1.25% increase in GDP. Moody’s Analytics is even more optimistic about the likely benefits to the American economy should the act pass, predicting growth rates at 2% and claiming that 1.9 million jobs will be created as a result.5", "title": "The American Jobs Act Helps Small Business and Creates Jobs", "pid": "cc95487f-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 214.2270050048828}, {"text": "I would like to note that the title displays \"Replacing the Current Tax Code With A National Sales Tax Will Reboot the American Economy\". In your third paragraph (round 2) you tried to clear up my \"stray\" off topic, it isn't off topic, your question clearly states that the tax code will affect the economy; therefore, my claims on how the tax code will affect budget, and prices are justifiable due to chain events. Throwing that aside, I wish you luck again! Definitions Economy: An economy or economic system consists of the production, distribution or trade, and consumption of limited goods and services by different agents in a given geographical location. The economic agents can be individuals, businesses, organizations, or governments. (hence distribution and consumption) National Sales Tax: The idea is to tear up the federal income tax system, scrap it for good, and replace it with a national sales tax. Here's how it would work, and why every citizen ought to give it serious thought. The individual and corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, and the estate and gift taxes would all be eliminated. (Hence government revenue would be hindered due to elimination of certain taxes) C1: You state that the government can't affect income inequality, this is completely absurd. It's quite simple, with the current tax code, rich people create less capitol than with the NST (National Sales Tax), while a person on the bottom of the chain could save around 400 dollars if an 13% NST took place. It's quite obvious to see the income inequality, rich people would save thousands upon thousands while your average minimum wage worker would save 400 dollars. In summary, the gap would be even larger and tax revenues would shrink. C2: (counter to Cameron P3, R2) I hope you know that a National Sales Tax has never been used among any nation-state on the planet and it's for good reason. One the income inequality would be immense with any rate, if it's too low the rich are heavily favored and can save upwards of 50,000 dollars, too high and minimum wage workers are living under the poverty line, a reasonable person wouldn't want either. Two, the government would be in a budget crisis, in turn, they might take more loans.. not good and your idea of reducing government( Cameron, Third Paragraph Round 2) spending even further is effectively ludicrous, our government needs the money it gets and cutting the budget would just make our state on the planet worse (less military spending, less space exploration, less federal workers). Just to remind you, this does correlate to the tax code, a NST would be detrimental to government stature and will cause the unemployment of federal workers which can be linked to families/students. C3: (counter to Cameron P2, R2) Unless you do not fully understand what a NST is I provided a definition of it higher up on my argument. You state \"The title of the debate begins with \"Replacing the Current Tax Code\"\", meaning that there won\"t be another federal tax levied besides the national sales tax. There would be no other taxes that the federal government could raise. The single tax would create a simple, stable tax policy that would enable consumers to boost the economy through increased sales activity.\" This is completely untrue a National Sales Tax will bring changes to other taxing methods. For one, if the federal government wants to make up the lost tax revenue they would, due to it being the most logical, raise the taxes on consumer goods, this is a widely accepted fact about the NST theory. Another thing you mentioned \"Use the following example: A person who spends $100,000 per year will pay $13,000 in total sales tax while a person who spends $20,000 per year will pay $2600 in total sales tax. They are paying the same percentage of taxes but the rich person is paying $10,400 more in taxes than the poor person is.\" This is undoubtedly true; however, it only proves that the income of wealthy folks would be significantly higher due to them originally (with the income tax) paying 50 k plus! Thus proving my point that the income gap between rich and poor would be even higher. Some points I would like to add, a 13% tax is preposterous and no member of congress would ever vote to pass a bill containing such a rate, the 23% tax rate has seen light in a bill and would more likely pass in congress. Also you fail to realize that a National Sales Tax wont apply to all transactions making it more of a burden than an omnipotent solution. For example, a NST will only be applied to business to household purchases, there wont be taxes on business to business purchases. I would like to mention that a sales tax will create capitol for the average consumer, but this comes with a cost. One companies can dodge out of this, two it will create vast income inequality with the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer, three the government is too big for it to take any budget hits now; especially with the rise of China and other powers we need our government to do the best it can.", "title": "Replacing the Current Tax Code With A National Sales Tax Will Reboot the American Economy", "pid": "35c1b265-2019-04-18T14:23:30Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.2197723388672}, {"text": "Since there are over 100 taxes, I will pick 7 that we will debate. The 7 are: The Income Tax. The National Retail Sales Tax. The Payroll Tax. Property Taxes. Excise Taxes (on things like Cigarettes, Tobacco, Alcohol, Firearms, etc...). Corporate Taxes. Gasoline and Carbon Taxes. Now for the opening debates: Tax 1 (The Income Tax): I will split this into two parts. First Point: Raising the Income Tax right now will kill the economy. This is simple economics. Right now, the more consumer money spent, the less we will be in an economic slump. Consumer buying increases aggregate demand, which in turn increases supply, thus raising GDP. Raising the income tax would take money away from consumers that they would otherwise spend. \"Since the economy is already growing so slowly, why in the world would we want to implement a 3.8 trillion dollar tax hike by letting the Bush tax cuts expire? That would be like planting a steel-toe boot to the skull of the economy when it���‚��„�s already on the ground, bleeding.\": http://rightwingnews.com.... Second Point: The Income Tax is too Progressive. The disprarity between the rich's tax rate and the poor's tax rate is astounding. The top 1% pay a 45% income tax, while the bottom 47% pay no income taxes. Not to mention, raising taxes on the rich would prevent money that would have previously gone into creating new businesses or investing in new ones, thus creating jobs, would be gone. \"The rich in America obviously have lots of money, but there are simply not enough of them to fund the president�‚��s preferred level of spending.\"\"They find that tax increases tend to reduce economic growth, stating that ���‚��\"tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output,���‚��� as ���‚��\"an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost three percent.���‚���: http://american.com.... \"Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90% of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.: http://www.devvy.com.... Decrease taxes, help the economy. Tax 2 (The National Retail Sales Tax): Again, I will split this up into two points. First Point: Raising the National Retail Sales Tax right now will kill economic growth. This has a more profound effect during a recession than raising the income tax does. This charges people extra to help the economy! How silly is that? If we raise the sales tax, the Government would be in essence encouraging people not to buy, and therefore, not to help the economy! \"This tax increase would take over one billion dollars out of the hands of North Carolina working families and put it back into government coffers.\"\"They seem to forget that the sales tax affects everyone, and has a greater impact on working people and senior citizens on fixed incomes. Everyone loses more money if we raise the sales tax, including those who are unemployed.\": http://www.beaufortobserver.net.... Second Point: The sales tax is exteremely unnecessary expect in extreme inflation periods. The sales tax is unneccesary even in a normal economy because you are still penalizing the consumer for shopping. Why would you do that? That is what keeps the economy afloat. Decrease taxes, help the economy. Tax 3 (The Payroll Tax): I will split this into two points. First Point: The Payroll Tax is extremely unneccesary. Most of the revenue drawn from the payroll tax goes back to them in later years through social security, but in small amounts. Social Security should be to the choice of the worker. If the worker does not want social security in later life, than the Federal Government should not forceibly take his money to fund a project that he or she does not even want. It is not the Government's Obligation, Job, or Duty to make people save. That is the individual's decision, and they have the right to choose for themselves. Second Point: A cut of the payroll tax is good for small businesses. \"You have to spend money to take advantage of that tax credit, but if a small business is thinking about expanding, it provides more certainty for them to schedule an expansion or upgrade.\": http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com.... Small business has taken the brunt of the recession's fury, and an increase in the payroll taxes would make the financial and economic situation even worse. In fact, cutting them would help the economy in many ways. Tax 4 (Property Taxes): I will not go in to much detail on these taxes, but they are even more unnecessary than the top three. Why would you tax someone on the amount of land they own or the inheritance they receive? Especially the inheritance taxes. I mean the poor receive inheriatances too. It' is not just the rich. \"It (property taxes) doesn't work so well when it is used to redistribute wealth on a grand scale. \": http://www.tax.com.... \"The tax (the estate and inheritance taxes) also is very expensive to comply with. A 1992 National Tax Journal study found the compliance cost was $1 for every $1 raised. Combining these costs with the reduction in output it causes, it is clear the estate tax is a burden on the U.S. economy.\"\"The estate tax makes it difficult to make economic decisions and results in unintended consequences, the burden of which falls primarily on the lower and middle classes. Rather than giving in to the politics of envy, we should have a tax structure that encourages innovation and saving. That is how the poor will become wealthy.\": http://www.mrc.org.... The main reason for these taxes is to tax the rich even more. Which one, I have proven will worsen the economy, and two, these taxes don't just effect the targeted rich. Tax 5 (Excise Taxes): At first, they seem like a good idea to deter alcohol, smoking, and other bad habits. But when looked at closer, the same effect is going to happen as the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. People are going to start selling \"tax-exmept\" alcohol and cigarettes underground, which will just one, increase crime, and two, have no effect on the usage of alcohol and cigarettes whatsoever. Also, why is it the Government's job to discourage bad behavior? (I mena stuff that is not illegal). Why is it the Government's job to stop people from drinking or smoking? If the people are dumb enough to do those things, than they should suffer the consequences. Is kind of a tax is unconstitutional because the Government is stepping over it's bounds. Tax 6 (Corporate Taxes): These taxes have the same effect as taxing the rich. They kill the economy. If an economy is trying to recover from a recession, than a decrease in income and sales taxes coupled with a decrease in corporate taxes will not only allow consumers to buy more, but it will allow producers and distributors to sell more to keep up with the increasing demand. Taxing profit is bad enough. Taxing the entire business is terrible. Why would you tax a business that is making a loss? And taxing profit is preventing the business from re-investing the profit back into the business to increase wages, fix equipment, and produce more. \"Corporations should NOT be taxed. This is beneficial to the corporation, consumer, economy, and government tax revenue.\"\"If taxes go down, product prices go down (Think Wal-Mart). Corporate taxes are where the consumer gets reamed. Every purchase you make, you are paying corporate taxes.\": http://visiontoamerica.org... benefits of no corporate taxes are simple. No taxes mean cheaper COGS, which mean cheaper goods and services for the consumer. Cheaper goods and services for the consumer mean your money goes further and you can purchase more. The more you purchase, the more products need to be made, which eventually requires corporate investments and employee hiring. Eventually, you have more business generated for corporations which eventually lowers prices to stay competitive, higher employment which means more spending in the economy, and lastly a higher tax revenue from the larger economy and increased employment.: http://godfatherpolitics.com.... Tax 7 (The Gasoline and Carbon Taxes): Raising, or even having, a Gasoline Tax makes the price of Gasoline already higher than it should be. Gasoline could be a lot lower if the tax was gone. Now of course, the goal of these taxes is like the excise taxes, so that people will use less gasoline. But one, we do not need them right now, and two, they don't work. \"Raising the gas tax would heap yet another burden on New Jersey residents and employers already struggling to afford to live and do business here.\": http://www.politickernj.com.... Now the Carbon Tax will fail. It will not discourage people from using Carbon. But the real big one is the taxes on business using carbon and coal in production. This will yet again hurt the economy due to lower production. And this system of Carbon taxes does not even work. \"Fear of dangerous Global Warming from man-made CO2 is dissipating with more recent scientific evidence and exposure of much bias, exaggeration of dangers and neglect of benefits of warming in existing scientific consensus. Any warming from CO2 is likely to be a harmless < 1 Deg Celsius by 2100. Higher predictions are only computer model speculations, arguably due to the modeller's confessed ignorance of natural climate cycles.\" \"Even if CO2 were dangerous and we reduced it successfully in Australia or even globally, there is no physical evidence that it would have a significantly beneficial effect on climate.\": http://www.nocarbontax.com.au.../. Taxes in General: I have shown on several occasions that most taxes are either unnecessary, worthless, or harmful to the economy. They need to be cut to help the economy and to help business.", "title": "Taxes should be Significantly Cut", "pid": "ed146d2b-2019-04-18T18:30:30Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.195068359375}, {"text": "I argue that high tax rates do hurt the economy. I will employ both theoretical and empirical support for this assertion. Why High Taxes Hurt The Economy? Higher tax rates hurt the economy because they discourage productive behavior. If labor taxes were to be higher, then labor would be less desirable relative to leisure. This is because the higher taxes on labor would reduce the reward for labor. This would reduce the incentive for people to choose work over leisure. The same is true of capital taxation. If the government were to tax capital higher, the potential reward for successful investment would be reduced. This would then reduce the level of investment. Reduced investment leads to less capital reinvestment, less new jobs, less new equipment, and lower productivity. These higher tax rates would also reduce the potential reward from entrepuenership. This would mean that higher taxes would lead to less new businesses and less entrepeunerial ventures in the economy. Furthermore, taxes also deeply distort economic behavior. When tax rates are higher, the value of tax deductions are much higher. When the tax rate is 80%, there is more reason to try to avoid taxes through deductions than at a tax rate of 40%. This leads to many misused economic resources. Right now, our tax code has a full deduction for employer provided Health Plans. Due to this, 59% of Americans are on Employer Provided Health Plans. This has led to extreme distortions in our Health Care System, as it kept patients from buying individualized Health Care Plans. High tax rates also encourage tax dodging. Billions of dollars go to tax lawyers to help people avoid taxes. These are wasted resources that could go to more productive uses. If tax rates were lower, there would be less incentive to use resources to avoid taxes, meaning that more resources would go towards more productive ventures. Finally, high tax rates in one country, particularly high progressive tax rates, typically lead to a many companies and high skill workers emigrating to lower tax countries. This leads to job loss in high tax countries (as some corporations move to lower tax countries, brining jobs with them) and productivity loss, as some of the most productive and innovative members emigrate to lower tax countries. Empirical Evidence on High Tax Rates and Economic GrowthEmpirical Evidence generally supports the notion that higher tax rates reduce labor supply, and, therefore, economic output. Nobel Prize Winning Economist Edward Prescott looked at the difference in labor supply between the G-7 Countries and found that different tax rates are responsible for almost allof the difference in labor supply between countries: \"Americans now work 50 percent more than do the Germans, French, and Italians. ' This was not the case in the early 1970s, when the Western Europeans worked more than Americans. This article examines the role of taxes in accounting for the differences in labor supply across time and across countries; in particular, the effective marginal tax rate on labor income. The population of countries considered is the G-7 countries, which are major advanced industrial countries. The surprising finding is that this marginal tax rate accounts for the predominance of differences at points in time and the large change in relative labor supply over time. \" These results go a long way in showing that high tax rates do, in fact, reduce labor supply over time. Another common result in empirical studies is that the Corporate Tax is particularly harmful to growth. This is a common result found in numerous studies from the OECD, World Bank, Joint Comittee on Taxation, Oxford, and a number of reputable independant economists. These studies typically find that high corporate tax rates reduce investment and entrepeunership. On top of this, high corporate taxes typically send corporations to lower tax nations. High tax rates also tend to correlated with lower growth rates. One empirical study on this was published in the Cato Journal, which, after controlling for numerous factors, found that high marginal tax rates have significant negative impact on growth in US states: \"This article explores the impact of tax policy on economic growth in the states within the framework of an endogenous growth model. Regression analysis is used to estimate the impact of taxes on economic growth in the states from 1964 to 2004. The analysis reveals a significant negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on economic growth. The analysis underscores the importance of controlling for regressivity, convergence, and regional influences in isolating the effect of taxes on economic growth in the states. \"This study is not an exception to the rule. There are numerous studies finding that taxes have a negative impact on economic growth (look at links to see numerous other studies). Conclusion Based on both these theoretical and empirical facts, I conclude that taxes have strong negative effect on the economy. Sources. http://en.wikipedia.org...(for Prescott study on Taxation and Labor Supply) . http://www.minneapolisfed.org... (for CATO study on Income Taxes and Growth) . http://www.cato.org...(for numerous other studies that show high taxes hurting growth) . http://pirate.shu.edu...", "title": "High Tax Rates Hurt the Economy", "pid": "f536e531-2019-04-18T18:43:52Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.1876678466797}, {"text": "Job creation is much more than a business expanding and in need of more workers. Investor are the reason for new companies to exist. Investment banking that are to the use of sales of bonds and stock and commerical banking that give out loans to small business these are to different types of investment along with the private investor, jobs do get created. These are in the form of small business. It is a fact that the average small business owner had to get a loan (a form of investment) from a bank. This is of course do to the average savings per household is 6000 USD http://www.score.org... The number of small businesses in the United States has increased 49% since 1982. http://www.sba.gov... This shows the work of investments.", "title": "better to give Tax breaks to job/business creators paid by tax increases on capital gains generally", "pid": "122c8a75-2019-04-18T18:16:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.18075561523438}, {"text": "First taking a look at the Con BOPs: 1) Pro has not put forth a weighing mechanism. He cites reduction of poverty, boost to the economy, etc as positive effects, while a higher income tax as a negative. So what's the net benefit? You can't add poverty+economy-taxes, because none of them are in the same units. He needs to present and defend a utility function. 2) See Con Arguments Section 3) Pro specifies the USFG as his agent of action. He doesn't explain why this is a good choice. The Con position is that the USFG would be unlikely to implement his policy faithfully because it is inconsistent with their interests. Pro is offering politicians an opportunity to help poor black people. AT&T is offering them $45,000,000 [1]. Depending on how heavily Pro contests this point, I can dig up more complete evidence showing the ulterior motives of the vast majority of politicians. Pro himself states that there is already a law for lowest unemployment, but that \"this law is completely meaningless and is never enforced.\". If another law to increase employment goes completely ignored, why would his be any different? Why do we need a new one? === Pro Arguments === 1) Reduction/Elimination of Poverty Pro thinks that if everyone can get paid at least the minimum wage, it will alleviate poverty. However, the minimum wage is only nominal, so even though he's putting more money in the hands of consumers, he's decreasing companies' net revenue. There's no way companies can expand production. Its like taking water out of the deep end of the pool and putting it into the shallow. Similarly, if you taxed poor people and gave it to the rich, nothing would change. Sure, the poor would have less money to buy stuff with, but the rich could lower their prices to achieve the same volume. Their profits would be the same because instead of getting money up front, they're just getting a portion of it automatically. This is why we see no coalition of rich dudes, but rather individual industries lobbying for individual benefits. The only redistributionist policies that can benefit their recipients are asymmetric. i.e. if the money went from all the poor to just a few of the rich. The few rich would also have to lower their prices, but they are getting a proportionately more cash from the redistribution. It is other rich people who would be hurt by this policy, because they must move to lower price levels without compensation. My point is that wealth redistribution is more complicated than moving around green bits of paper. You have to look at underlying production structures. At best, this achieves a more equal distribution of a fixed basket of goods among consumers. It is unclear if this equality of poverty is preferable to the status quo. 2) Boost to the Economy The increase in consumer spending is offset by the increase in taxes. So one would expect the net economic effect to be, at best, zero. 3) Creation of Competition and Employers for Workers Since the new government jobs already pay minimum wage, and there is an infinite supply of government jobs, all minimum wage jobs in the private sector would disappear overnight. The only people working in the private sector would be those who can earn higher than minimum wage. As a result, the private sector would become crippled, and its real productivity would fall. Even if it doesn't destroy all minimum wage private sector jobs, the artificial increase in working conditions would also raise production costs for employers, increasing the price of goods and services. Higher prices for food and clothing is bad for other poor people. There's no point in paying higher wages if you're just going to get proportionately higher prices. 4) Increase In Standard of Living If Pro is right about any of 1, 2, or 3, then yeah. But lets have a look at some numbers. 9% of the US workforce is unemployed [2] and there are 154.5 mn Americans in the workforce [3]. According to the BLS' retarded excel spreadsheets [4], you gotta be rockin' around $25k/yr to be above poverty as a 4 person household. .09*154.5e6*25e3= $350bn/year. Now Pro is trying to make his case on humanitarian grounds. According to the Red Cross, it cost less than $1 to save a life through vaccinations [5]. It is unlikely that this will scale, considering that there are not 350 billion people, but there are a myriad of deadly problems that would be very cheap to fix like Vitamin deficiency [6]. Considering that 25,000 people die every day from malnourishment [7], a full employment program for Americans [8] is not anywhere close to the most humanitarian use of money. 5) So what's the catch? Higher tackses on rich people mostly. If they don't break even on Pro's tax scheme, they will have less money with which to invest. But capital development is entirely dependent upon investment and benefits the whole country by producing greater quantity and quality of goods. For example, if Exxon has to pay more in taxes, it will have less money to produce oil. This will lower the supply of oil, and increase prices for everyone. Additionally, the higher tax rate reduces the incentive to invest and take risks at all because the payoffs are now lower. So there will be less capital development, like factories and machines. It may also encourage companies to move operations offshore, further harming the US economy. === Con Arguments === 1) Public sector jobs Are unspecified by Pro. What would people be doing? States cannot engage in economic calculation, because they do not have prices. Because they can never know what enterprises are profitable, they will fail to allocate resources as efficiently as the private sector. They are essentially blind. AFAICS, this will create a new class of state dependents, with no private experience, and therefore highly diminished marketability. It may even discourage the pursuit of higher education, unpayed internships or apprentice positions, because Pro is providing a permanent easy-mode for everyone. 2) Depending on how Pro answers above, maybe more. I also don't want to turn this into a character-constrained debate. So I'll end here! I don't doubt for a second that Pro isn't well meaning, but poverty is a complex issue. My opposition to his policy isn't out of some fetish for Kapitalists or Ayn Rand. I don't like feel-good politics, I like results. I'm not saying \"screw poor people\", I'm saying this won't work and we need to try something else. [1] http://www.opensecrets.org... [2] http://www.google.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.census.gov... [5] http://redcrosschat.org... [6] http://www.oohoi.com... [7] http://www.newsweek.com... [8] http://images2.memegenerator.net...", "title": "A Full Employment Program Would Be Beneficial for the United States", "pid": "d9900875-2019-04-18T18:59:16Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.1766815185547}, {"text": "In order to decide whether or not policy makers should have high or low tax policies, we should look to the empirical evidence regarding taxation and its relationship to economic growth and income growth. It turns out, the majority of empirical research has found increasing taxation leads to negative impacts on economic growth, which can be measured as Gross Domestic Product (GDP). These negative impacts are not just coincidence, even when researchers control for other factors such as government spending, business cycle conditions, and monetary policy, they still reach the same results. In a study titled, \"The robust relationship between taxes and U.S state income growth\", published in the National Tax Journal, the author, Robert Reed, concluded that: \"My analysis suggests that tax policies take time to work its full effects on the economy. When the specification is sufficiently general to pick up these effects, a negative relationship between taxes and income growth emerges.\" (1) Additionally, a study of 15 developed countries by the International Monetary Fund found that \"a 1 percent spending cut has no significant effect on growth, whereas a 1 percent tax increase reduces GDP by 1.3 percent after two years.\" (1) In contrast, a study published in the American Economic Review found that \"A 1 percentage point cut in the average personal income tax rate raises real GDP per capita by 1.4 percent in the first quarter and by up to 1.8 percent after three quarters.\" (1) These are just some peer-reviewed study which show negative impacts of taxation on economic growth. Even more can be found at the first link cited. So why do higher taxes result in decreased economic growth? Perhaps it is because a dollar in the hands of the private sector is spent more efficiently than in the hands of the government. Perhaps it's because taxation reduces the incentive for people to work and invest. Theoretically, taxing someone for hiring a worker, or investing in capital goods, etc basically makes it more expensive to do those things, and thus, less of it will be done. This explanation makes sense and is loosely confirmed by the results of empirical research. (1) http://taxfoundation.org...", "title": "Taxes and the U.S. Government", "pid": "1d684498-2019-04-18T17:05:49Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.1735382080078}, {"text": "\"My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of time and money. I disagree, helping people getting back to work is a good thing, it might not solve the entire economic crisis, but I think its a step in the right direction. \" My opponent neglects the fact that although this might create, jobs for the united states, it would require constant regulation by the U. S government, which in turn would require money to allow for regulation. \"Estimates of the costs imposed on the national economy by federal regulation reach $500 billion a year. In Indianapolis, that means more than $1 billion a year is sapped from our local economy just to comply with federal regulations. \" (. http://www.cato.org...) As of right now, the government cannot spend money on an idea that simply resolves a small sector of the United States economic crisis, rather, it needs to focus on the bigger picture (a way to repair huge amounts of the economic crisis. ) \"This idea can actually save the government money because they are receiving money from the corporations for supplying these workers. \" Like i mentioned earlier, the enforcement and regulation of new taxes will cost the United states huge amount of money thus increasing other taxes placed upon the United States citizens. my opponent failed to provide us with evidence as to how much this resolution could save the government or even how much to charge these companies. For this reason, passing this resolution would be a huge risk, as we are unaware as to how effective it could be. In addition, to spending money on enforcing and regulating this tax, the United States government would have to develop a means to punish whatever company fails to pay the money as well as spend more money enforcing these consequences. In conclusion, my opponent has provided no specific information on how effective this resolution might be and how to properly regulate the tax with minimum cost.", "title": "Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work", "pid": "3af97b-2019-04-18T18:41:17Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.17225646972656}, {"text": "IntroductionIt's my pleasure to debate this subject with you. I will be arguing that although cutting taxes itself on the Wealthiest Americans would worsen the economy, the usage of those funds by the government would have a more positive effect on the economy than letting the rich keep their taxes. Here are some assumptions before going forward.Assumptions-The \"super rich\" are the people making over $250,000 a year, who are currently (under the Bush tax cuts ) taxed at 35%, which Obama has proposed to raise to 39% [1] [2]. - Economic stagnation is partially caused by business uncertainty over federal deficit [3].First ArgumentThe primary problem with the current economic situation is the high unemployment figures and lack of investment. Tax cuts for the rich do not encourage them to invest in their businesses. When a business person decides whether to hire a new employee, it is a simple calculation as to whether that new employee will produce more wealth through productivity than the employee costs in wages. So if the economy is bad, a business person is not going to invest in a new employee with their higher tax return, they are going to save it- which does nothing for hiring unemployed workers and therefore nothing for the economy. Economic growth and hiring is facilitated by demand. Say a business man runs a restaurant. With a bad economy and nobody in the community wealthy enough to eat out, he is not going to hire a new employee regardless of his tax rates because it will be a net loss for him. He'll take his 3% tax cut and keep it in the bank, where it does not see the economy. But, if economic conditions improve and more individuals have disposable income, more people will eat out at the restaurant, increasing the businessman's revenues, and thus hiring a new employee would be a net gain for his company. Therefore, the rich do not create jobs through increased supply, but the middle-class consumer enables the business man to hire through demand. Moreover, the lower and middle classes in America spend over 100% (accumulating debt) of their yearly income, whereas more wealthy Americans tend to save more, and thus spend less income into the economy [4]. So, if the US government raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans by 3 or 4%, and exclusively spent that revenue on public works, infrastructure, middle class tax cuts and public employees, the recipients of that revenue would be more likely to spend that money back into the economy (since lower and middle classes spend more than upper classes), thus creating demand, and thus inventivizing the wealthy in America to invest in new employees, which benefits the rich, poor, and everyone in between. I'll expand on this next roundSecond ArgumentThis one is pretty simple. Polls and studies overwhelmingly show that the US debt and deficit are preventing businessmen and the wealthy from investing (see assumption 2 and source 3). The present tax cuts on the rich have, since their signings in 2001 and 2003, prevented 3.9 trillion dollars to be collected by the treasury, which added considerably to the deficit and debt, and every year the tax cuts are in place adds 200-300 million to the deficit [5]. The GOP talking point that the growth caused by the tax cuts actually increases revenues has never occurred once in US history. And with the Bush tax cuts being the single greatest contributor to the deficit since 2001, it is reasonable to assume that the lowering of tax rates on the rich have weakened the economy over despair over the deficit, and by raising taxes and thus decreasing the deficit, the economy of the US would actually see growth through certainty. I'll expand more, and good luck! [1] http://www.taxfoundation.org... [2] http://money.cnn.com... [3] http://www.oregonlive.com... [4] http://tutor2u.net...[5] http://www.csmonitor.com...", "title": "Taxing the rich will benefit our economy", "pid": "5ec4ecb3-2019-04-18T18:41:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.14854431152344}, {"text": "Income tax creates a situation in which everyone is effectively enslaved to the government for a percentage of their total work time during the year. For example, if someone is required to pay 16% of their earnings in income tax, they have been paid for 84% of the work they have done while the government has been paid for the other 16%. Abolishing income tax means that people are able to work for themselves 100% of the time and therefore this increases individual incentive to work.", "title": "Abolishing income tax increases individual incentive to work.", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00037-000", "bm25_score": 214.113525390625}, {"text": "\"It would not be better to give tax breaks to one or the other as they are both needed for an economy to work\" this seems to be the essense of con's argument. he earlier says that investors in general \"spend on items they need and want and this helps the economy\". i don't dispute this. all i'm arguing is that it's better to give tax breaks to those we specifically are creating jobs and new businesses, as that is in society's better interest than investments in general. other investments would obviously be made, given people will always want profit... even if they are not made as much. what we will have on balance is more jobs and new businesses (more stimulant for the economy) per dollar the taxpayer spends. con has not shown why it's better to spread a set money around to everyone, as opposed to focusing it on job business creators more specifically. he just asserts some benefit that would be caused if we did, not giving an over all picture.", "title": "better to give Tax breaks to job/business creators paid by tax increases on capital gains generally", "pid": "122c8a75-2019-04-18T18:16:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.102783203125}, {"text": "Thanks con , I must reiterate however how close I have brought Con to agree with me on this topic.I will make my points breif and to the point Agian Con's entire case falls on one statement he supposes that a 10% flat tax rate would not be a feasible way to fund our goverment.Con himself says that our lowest income bracket is 10% so under my proposed flat tax rate indeed the entire middle class would be saveing money and paying less tax.From statistics...americans currently spend $300 billion a year in tax preparation costs, to navigate a tax code that is thousands of pages long.Thats right $300 Billion.From the further economic growth that would result from a flat tax it would surely be a better if not equal way of funding our goverments needs and lower the unemployment rate as a result adding jobs would not only cover the tax given by the wealthy but it would give a surplus and spurr economic growth.America could and would be doing much better with a flat tax rate,that is if we want to create jobs , reduce our debt and grow as a nation.Thanks.Sources 1)Logic2)Cons own arguements3)http://www.usnews.com...; Americans currently spend $300 billion a year in tax preparation costs, to navigate a tax code that is thousands of pages long.", "title": "Instituting A Flat Income Tax In America", "pid": "4c1d241f-2019-04-18T16:53:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.0868377685547}, {"text": "When taxes are lowered, the government has less income. When the government is poor, it cannot fulfill all its duties rightfully. When the people see that the government is poor, they become even more conservative and don't spend their money. If they do not spend their money, the econonmy cannot be stimulated and the status of it will become worse. Therefore, lowering taxes hurts our economy.", "title": "Lowering Taxes is not Beneficial to the Economy", "pid": "29a590aa-2019-04-18T19:27:23Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.08522033691406}, {"text": "Abolishing income tax increases individual incentive to work.", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.07749938964844}, {"text": "Whilst successful individuals may be confronted with an increased tax bill, the American Jobs Act also significantly reduces taxes on businesses. This is especially important with respect to innovative risk as it is businesses, not individuals, which bear the main brunt of risk following innovation. As such, it is reasonable to assume that the effect of higher tax on the rich will often be negated, with respect to innovation by the lower tax on businesses.1", "title": "The American Jobs Act Will Not Help Successful Businesses", "pid": "cc95487f-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 214.07290649414062}, {"text": "Motoko Rich. \"Employers Say Jobs Plan Won’t Lead to Hiring Spur.\" New York Times. September 9th, 2011: \"David Catalano, who helped found Modea, a digital advertising company in Blacksburg, Va., said that he was wary of the president’s pledge to ask the 'wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share.' His company was organized as an S Corporation, in which profits are passed through to shareholders, so it would face higher taxes under the president’s proposal, he said. He added: 'My partner and I have reinvested 100 percent of the profits that our agency has made over the last five years back into the company. If the government takes a bigger share of that from me, it directly impedes my ability to grow the agency.'\"", "title": "Increasing taxes on successful corps will do harm.", "pid": "e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00040-000", "bm25_score": 214.07093811035156}, {"text": "Capital gains should be taxed in full as they are earned, not when realized. Capital gains are income, not really different in substance from interest, rents, and royalties: other kinds of capital income that are taxed as ordinary income. Reducing/Abolishing Capital gains negatively affects the economy The difference in tax rates between capital gains and other income is a prime factor behind individual income tax shelters. Since ordinary income is taxed at rates up to 35 percent while long-term capital gains are taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent, there is a 20 percent reward for every dollar that can be transformed from high-tax compensation, say, to lowtax capital gains. The basic idea is to make an investment that generates deductions, such as for interest, lease Thus, the lower tax rate on long-term capital gains produces several distortions: (1) It encourages investments purely for tax purposes that would not make any sense without the tax savings, draining capital away from other more productive investments. (2) Since tax shelters that can pass legal muster or escape detection tend to be extremely complex, brilliant financial planners, 5 lawyers, and accountants turn their talents to this lucrative, but socially unproductive line of work. (3) Similarly, the enormous tax savings available likely lure too many highly productive people into the private equity business, drawing them away from other potentially more socially valuable enterprises. Lower capital gain rates enables the oversize financial sector to wield enormous influence on the U.S. economy. It encourages corporate executives to take stock-based compensation, because it\"s taxed more lightly than the same amount of salary income would be. This practice encourages executives to obsess over short-term stock-market performance at the expense of the long-term success of the corporation. Increasing rates will decrease inequality In 2016, for example, nearly 76 percent of all capital gains went to households earning more than $1,000,000, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center. And 96.2 percent of the households in the top 1 percent of the income distribution are white. Preferential treatment for capital gains meant that the federal government forewent $109.5 billion in taxes in 2016, a giveaway second only to the tax exclusion for employers\" contributions to employees\" health plans. If capital gain tax rates were raised, then the rich will be taxed their fair share. More money will be given to the government, which will allow more social programs to be implemented that will aid the poor in supporting their family and improving the American economy in general since more money also translates into more importing, exporting, production,etc.", "title": "The United States Should Abolish The Capital Gains Tax", "pid": "cc898157-2019-04-18T11:47:45Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.0545196533203}, {"text": "Any system which attempts to promote equality by giving low income people money will necessarily create a disincentive to work. The negative income tax reduces that disincentive because there is a reward to work on the margins. Suppose that the negative tax rate is 40%; for every dollar that a low income person earns within the negative tax bracket they will take home 60c (the remaining 40c is deducted from the supplementary income payment, as the 'No' argument correctly identifies). Under a system with an unemployment benefit however the incentives are far worse; as the benefit is removed or substantially reduced if any work is taken up. This means that in order for the incentive to take a job to exist the incomes have to be substantially higher than the unemployment benefit (i.e. you actually LOSE money if you take up a part time job); which is unlikely as the vast majority of people on the unemployment benefit lack the skills to earn high incomes.", "title": "It would encourage low income earners to work.", "pid": "217e4b71-2019-04-19T12:46:16Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 214.0215606689453}, {"text": "My opponent states that my idea does not solve the general economic crisis, I never claimed it would. I am simply trying to solve ONE of our problem within our current economic crisis. My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of time and money. I disagree, helping people getting back to work is a good thing, it might not solve the entire economic crisis, but I think its a step in the right direction. My opponent states that by NOT solving ALL factors of the economic crisis is a waste of money. This idea can actually save the government money because they are receiving money from the corporations for supplying these workers.", "title": "Job Creation in the US - Tax outsourcing, Put unemployment beneficiaries to work", "pid": "3af97b-2019-04-18T18:41:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.0117645263672}, {"text": "\"Flat Tax: What Would It Do For Ireland?\". Business and Finance Magazine. 5 May 2005 - \"A recent study of a revenue-neutral flat tax proposal for the US (Ventura, 1999) shows that, due to the positive effects on individual incentives to invest in productivity enhancing learning and greater hours of labour supply, a flat tax system yields up to a 9% increase in the aggregate efficiency adjusted labour force.[...] In the Irish case, this is equivalent to adding over 180,000 workers with an average productivity without incurring additional social and welfare costs of actually increasing Ireland's population. The more productive the segment of population, the higher are the increases.\"", "title": "Progressive taxes disincentivize hard work and productivity", "pid": "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00125-000", "bm25_score": 213.98455810546875}, {"text": "Point 1: The Rich make a significant contribution to GDP through buying. They buy big ticket items such as mansions, yachts, expensive cars, etc... All of the purchases get factored in to GDP. The more a country spends, the higher it's GDP is. Lowering taxes for the rich would allow them to buy more of these big ticket items, which would thus increase GDP. \"The top 5%, those making about $150,000 or more, account for 37% percent of all consumer spending, about as much as the bottom 80% put together.\"[3] Point 2: The Rich create businesses. Most of the big and medium sized corporations are owned by rich people. If you decrease taxes, that is more the rich can spend on businesses. The more they spend on businesses, the more products that are available at a lower price (which intices consumers to buy, especially in a recession), which in turn increases GDP. Also, the rich can give raises to their employees, spend money to fix working equipment, and make the employee feel more comfortable and safe. Also, they will expand or create new businesses, which increases GDP and decreases unemployment. \"The study was published in 2010, and Sinai says he still stands by it. The results are dramatic. Right now, economists say the economy needs to create about 2.4 million jobs a year. Sinai found that eliminating the capital-gains tax alone, with no other policy change, would create 1.3 million per annum, or more than half the total sought. Real gross domestic product would increase by 0.23 percentage point a year. The jobless rate would drop by as much as 0.7 percentage point in a year. And productivity gains would increase by 0.5 percentage point a year.\"[1] This means that the more money businesses have, the more they will expand, thus creating jobs. If the rich had more money, the same principal would apply. \"Lower taxes on the rich will allow them to invest more money into the the US marketplace (obviously if they are smart enough to accumulate and hold onto the money they are smart enough to invest). By investing this money they produce jobs, they produce capital goods which create cheaper goods for the population to enjoy. THe taxes are still too high even with the bush \"tax-cuts\". Does it make sense that taking money away from the producers of the nation that all of the sudden jobs will be created? Of course not.\"[2] \"The issue boils down to simple economics. Paraphrasing the columnist Daniel Henninger: we can't create new jobs and eat them too. If the United States wants the jobs that small businesses create, then the government cannot confiscate an even greater share of the incomes that generate those jobs.\"[3] Point 3: The Rich pay a 45% tax rate, and the bottom 50% pay no taxes. \"The top 3% earn 30% of all income and pay 52% of all income taxes.\"[3] \"Meanwhile, the 53% of Americans who are paying income taxes are relentlessly slandered as \"greedy\" and \"selfish\" for not being willing to hand over EVEN MORE of the money that they worked for in order to pay for benefits for other people. In other words, we have a lot of people in America who want more services from the government, but they are demanding that other people pay for it.\"[4] Point 4: The Rich give a lot to charity \"Those making over $200,000 account for 36% of all charitable contributions.\"[3] [1]:http://www.bloomberg.com... [2]:http://answers.yahoo.com... [3]:http://www.demint.senate.gov... [4]:http://rightwingnews.com...", "title": "Taxes should be decreased for the Rich", "pid": "bf4f19d7-2019-04-18T18:29:38Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.961181640625}, {"text": "Clemens Fuest1 and Bernd Huber. \"Is tax progression really good for employment?\". Science Daily. 12 Jan. 2000 - \"We show that the positive employment effect of tax progression can be generalized to a model with a positive labour supply elasticity of individual workers. However, the wage-moderating effect of tax progression does not unambiguously carry over to a world where the union may fix both wages and individual hours of work. In this framework, the union reacts to tax progression by cutting individual working time.\"", "title": "Progressive taxation is not necessarily good for employment", "pid": "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00136-000", "bm25_score": 213.94496154785156}, {"text": "If the USA corporate taxes were reformed not only would competition be hindered but severely hurt as the bigger companies would be more empowered and would have more money to invest and that would hinder small companies who would be crushed by this new weight that would be the lowered tax rates of the bigger companies and thus smaller companies would be hindered by these new huge assets. The bigger companies would have much more investment power and the smaller companies would have a little bit more, but these rates would be unrivaled by those of the bigger companies. Moreover it would be quite unlikely for foreign companies to go to the US, for still a 20% corporate tax rate, although slightly lower than the EU average (21.34) would not be very attractive since that would require that the companies from the EU, whom I guess might be some potential targets of the movement move their legal residences to the US and that would exclude them from the EU subsidies. It would be very unlikely for target companies to be from the third world since the tax rates there are already pretty low or at the very least the tax codes are full of loopholes.", "title": "The US should reform its Corporate Tax", "pid": "3b46eaaf-2019-04-18T16:12:59Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.93270874023438}, {"text": "Abolishing Income Tax will grow the economy", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 213.93138122558594}, {"text": "Our team has demonstrated throughout the debate that a negative income tax would be less effective than any alternatives such as a welfare system. A negative income tax decreases incentive to work. The study discussed in round two found productivity loss and wage replacement as a result of the system being using used in the experiment. This is also supported by the fact that the tax supplies money instead of providing for individual needs. A normal welfare system uses programs such as food stamps to make sure recipients have only what they need, which prevents productivity loss. It is necessary for the welfare system to be more complex than a negative income tax. In order to make sure welfare is used only for what recipients need, it is necessary to have a relatively complex system. A negative income tax is simple, but it isn't an effective system because it gives money to those who don't need it, which decreases incentive to work. ConclusionOur opponent's argument rests on the assumption that a negative income tax would encourage workers to be productive, but the opposite is true. It has been proven to lead to productivity loss and wage replacement, so it is necessary to have a complex welfare system that provides for what people really need. Thanks to our opponents for a good debate, and thanks to Bsh1 for hosting the tournament.", "title": "The United States should adopt a negative income tax.", "pid": "6d652fc7-2019-04-18T12:48:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.92074584960938}]}
{"idx": 24, "qid": "26", "q_text": "Do standardized tests improve education?", "qrels": {"f25712d3-2019-04-19T12:46:01Z-00011-000": 0, "d2ea26fa-2019-04-18T16:26:47Z-00004-000": 0, "fb47a749-2019-04-18T19:03:58Z-00005-000": 1, "fd3c1a15-2019-04-18T14:07:33Z-00001-000": 2, "d2ea26fa-2019-04-18T16:26:47Z-00003-000": 0, "e4d12b1a-2019-04-18T13:55:40Z-00002-000": 2, "dc4d2564-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00004-000": 2, "b9d69b32-2019-04-18T14:57:02Z-00003-000": 1, "b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00000-000": 2, "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00001-000": 2, "a66887-2019-04-18T19:34:39Z-00000-000": 0, "ea60501e-2019-04-19T12:44:44Z-00013-000": 0, "d2ea26fa-2019-04-18T16:26:47Z-00002-000": 0, "e4d12b1a-2019-04-18T13:55:40Z-00001-000": 0, "9168d27e-2019-04-18T15:43:14Z-00007-000": 0, "9d663199-2019-04-18T13:56:58Z-00001-000": 2, "76e04c32-2019-04-18T12:17:54Z-00001-000": 1, "7182eb4d-2019-04-18T19:07:15Z-00002-000": 2, "5d788b11-2019-04-18T19:17:17Z-00002-000": 1, "4ec50082-2019-04-18T19:15:30Z-00002-000": 2, "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00080-000": 0, "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00061-000": 2, "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00043-000": 0, "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00058-000": 0, "9f5e92de-2019-04-18T17:00:41Z-00004-000": 0, "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00048-000": 0, "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00060-000": 0, "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00064-000": 0, "40696eea-2019-04-18T17:32:07Z-00003-000": 0, "35932d4f-2019-04-18T19:15:11Z-00004-000": 2, "213f86d5-2019-04-18T19:18:32Z-00007-000": 2, "168a23bf-2019-04-18T19:18:32Z-00000-000": 2, "168a23bf-2019-04-18T19:18:32Z-00002-000": 2, "141fe658-2019-04-18T17:56:03Z-00007-000": 0, "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00040-000": 2, "828c21ed-2019-04-18T14:35:36Z-00002-000": 2, "824cedb2-2019-04-18T12:23:03Z-00005-000": 1, "828c21ed-2019-04-18T14:35:36Z-00004-000": 2, "9d3f621-2019-04-18T17:05:53Z-00000-000": 2, "9d3f621-2019-04-18T17:05:53Z-00001-000": 0, "961ba92b-2019-04-18T15:54:26Z-00001-000": 0, "828c220c-2019-04-18T14:36:05Z-00001-000": 2, "922569a4-2019-04-18T16:45:23Z-00000-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Standardized testing, if anything, has not improved student achievement. In 2002, the US slipped from the 18th spot in the world for math scores, to the 31st slot in 2009. This drop was due to standardized tests and the stress they put on the students (1). The failing attempt to improve the test scores have gotten worse as the tests get harder, which also only test a small portion of the curriculum in schools. Math and reading courses have been told to teach different information in order to cover the tests questions, resulting in a lack of regular curricular (2). (1) http://standardizedtests.procon.org... (2) http://www.education.com...", "title": "Education: Testing", "pid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 218.66363525390625}, {"text": "I believe that Standardized Testing is not beneficial for students K-12 in America. Standardized testing is not beneficial to students. All it does is take away from class time and cause unnecessary stress. Standardized testing does not affect student's grades grades. All it does is provide the state with how much students at different schools are learning. I think that this is an ineffective way of calculating a school's efficiency. The state should look at students' overall grades instead of forcing them to take a long test where their focus is usually lost within the first half hour. Students don't especially care about how well they do on the test, because it won't affect their overall grade. Therefore, a solution would be to (as I said before) use the students' overall grades to calculate data, or make the standardized tests part of their overall grade. Also, it usually takes around a week to take the tests. This time could be spent learning.", "title": "Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America", "pid": "ffd7fc64-2019-04-18T13:35:20Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.200927734375}, {"text": "Resolved: on balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States.", "title": "Resolved on balance", "pid": "9d663199-2019-04-18T13:56:58Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.05184936523438}, {"text": "Alright, wrap up. Standardized testing fails at assessing every one's knowledge to full extend due to the lack of open answer questions, which has been proven to be the ideal way to asses knowledge.Standardized testing favors and rewards proficient students (scholarships when you get a perfect SAT score) and discriminates and punishes students under proficiency (getting put into special ed programs, not getting into colleges that they wish to attend).Standardized testing is riducously expensive (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...), and that money could go towards much better programs that actually improve the education provided in schools. So my question to you is, if it is proven not to truly asses a students knowledge, if it barres lower scoring students from succeeding in life, and if it cost an absolute absurd amount of money every year, money that could be better spend on other projects, why do we still have standardized tests?(Good luck on your debate, good idea of doing this on here before you have the real debate, that way you can really see your opponents viewpoint and main arguments, and you can fine tune your own argument. I will see you around!)", "title": "Standardized testing should remain in our schools.", "pid": "8703c5ca-2019-04-18T16:10:43Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.90138244628906}, {"text": "There is some information in the world that is essential to know as a means of communicating effectively and analytically with other individuals in society, whether as a citizen or in the marketplace. Standardized tests help ensure that all students learn this important information. It is true that this information can be cut-and-dry and perhaps even boring, including history, literacy (reading comprehension), and math. Yet, it is, nevertheless, essential, so testing for it and ensuring students know the information is socially and educationally valuable. Yet, it is also true, that this essential information does not constitute all the information that a community may believe their children should know.", "title": "Standardized tests ensures students learn essential information.", "pid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00070-000", "bm25_score": 217.87303161621094}, {"text": "I believe that standardised testing is beneficial to students. Indeed, there will be an added amount of pressure and stress, but I believe that this helps them propel them forward toward striving for success. Stress is an important catalyst in one's motivation to work and if wisely wielded, can be a powerful tool in the advancement of education hence it is not necessarily a bad thing. Standardised testing is a means for a government to know where it stand in terms of further educational and holistic development and is also highly useful in education analysis. Without standardised testing, it will not be known if the students of a certain level are performing up to par, and without the proper Intel to make due changes and altercations to the education system, this can be dangerous for a country to be grooming substandard future population which would inevitably hinder society and have drastic implications on the work force. For example, in Singapore, there are standardised tests that occur twice each year on the average in primary, secondary schools and even junior college. These tests give the schools and government information on the amount of resources that should be diverted toward education sector, whether the Budget should increase or decrease, and also gives insight on the effectiveness ok current curriculum and providing incentive for change or improvement. Standardised testing has proved to be extremely beneficial to Singapore, and it is one of the most educationally advanced and successful countries in the education sector that many other countries tend to go on a pilgrimage for.", "title": "Standardized testing is hurting our school population and community", "pid": "97409bf1-2019-04-18T14:11:04Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.73394775390625}, {"text": "Test scores is a superior way to measure teachers\" effort and ability to do their job (1). The higher the test courses from students, the better the teacher is. Furthermore, standardized tests are a just measure of student achievement, along with ensuring teachers and schools are accountable to taxpayers (2). Standardized testing is approved by students and parents for being such an efficient system. (1) http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org... (2) http://standardizedtests.procon.org...", "title": "Education: Testing", "pid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 217.63140869140625}, {"text": "Thank you for the response. My opponent said that pressure actually helps children to learn and become more prepared for future work places, this may be true but is irrelevant. The resulution says: Standardized testing accuaretly represents a student's academic ability. So the fact that pressure produced by these tests can help prepare one for a future career is irrelevant becuase it does not prove that these tests appropriately represent a student's academic ability. My opponent also said that he agreed that debate was an academic pursuit and was not on the test. I agree that english,history, and writting skills can compliment one's debating. However, that does not mean that these things are equivellant to it. Once again I thank my opponent for allowing me to test this resolution. I don't know if I already said this but I will be debating this in a few months, so all feedback is appreciated! I strongly urge a CON ballot.", "title": "Standardized testing accuaretly represents a student's academic ability.", "pid": "372ca988-2019-04-18T19:00:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.60482788085938}, {"text": "Standardized testing is a efficient strategy that improves the work, effort, and dedication teachers put into their job. \"Education researchers gauge the quality of an individual teacher by looking at student test scores. If scores go up in a teacher's classroom, that's a sign the teacher is doing a good job\" (1). This is, and has always been, a just way to measure teachers' ability to build their students knowledge. In addition, most teachers and administrators approve, even, of these standardized tests, \"Minnesota teachers and administrators interviewed for a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA) approved of standardized tests 'by an overwhelming two-to-one margin,' saying they 'improved student attitudes, engagement, and effort.' An oft-cited Arizona State University study in EPAA's Mar. 28, 2002 edition, concluding that testing has little educational merit, has been discredited by educational researchers for poor methodology, and was criticized for wrongly blaming the tests themselves for stagnant test scores, rather than the shortcomings of teachers and schools\" (2). Not only does the government believe that standardized test are a quality way of judging teachers based off their students' work, but the majority of teachers do as well.", "title": "Education: Testing", "pid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.5447235107422}, {"text": "That's disappointing. When I accepted this, I thought I'd get a good debate on a topic with equal ground that I don't know anything about. I researched and did gain some information, and I was going to tell the judges to ignore the Con/Pro confusion if my opponent continued their argument. When I accepted, I didn't intend things like a \"noob snipe,\" because I didn't realize my opponent was new to the site. Anyhow, here's why you should vote Con: (1) Pro confuses the sides in arguing for a resolution. Pro argues *against* the resolution, which means every single argument of Pro's is turned against them. The turn means you vote Pro down since Pro doesn't fulfill their share of the burden. (2) Pro doesn't prove any of their points -- the \"overemphasis on vocational education\" point was a bare assertion and was insufficiently explained, in that there's no reason to think that's a net harm; Pro's source for their first contention and argument only concern primary school children, which is irrelevant to K-12 education. I've constructed a case with clear reasons to vote Con, even presuming I'm taking the \"for\" position. First, standardized testing has clear benefit to students, since it makes it more likely for them to show interest in studies, to complete their homework, and to interact with parents about school work, and the feedback given as a result is much more effective than personal feedback. Second, there's benefit to teachers, since it reduces their workload, benefit them via accountability systems, contribute to teacher evaluations, and tell teachers how to deal with different students in different ways (which also link turns my opponent's first contention).", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the U.S", "pid": "e4d12b1a-2019-04-18T13:55:40Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.53759765625}, {"text": "One thing you mentioned in your first argument is that any teacher can tell you that information about a child, but you are also forgetting the fact that teachers are human beings. A teacher will like one kid but have distaste for the other because of a paper he wrote about a topic. What I am basically saying is that people are not perfect, and asking the teacher what they think could place the student behind because of what they accidently said about the student. We also must remember that parents help out a lot these days. The \"Star\" student of the class may just be the star student because his mother helped him with that writing piece, or that math worksheet. Occasional standardized testing weeds out whether kids are stars because they are getting help from their parents, or because they are actually good students.", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States.", "pid": "dc4d2564-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.53515625}, {"text": "Standardized tests are not an effective method to determine a student's academic success. Standardized tests simplify the learning process to multiple choice answers and discourage students to think outside of the box. Students, especially those of a young age deal with a great amount of stress from test taking because they become nervous and overwhelmed with not only the testing process but the studying beforehand. Instead of enjoying school they are losing sight of the most important part of education: learning. Students are indeed learning which answers are \"correct\" or \"incorrect\" by multiple choice. Yet, isn't it most important that students are learning to understand why these answers are correct or incorrect? Don't we want our children to question and understand the information they are being taught as well as the world around them? Is that not the purpose of education in the first place? Consider the troubles these students are encountering when dealing with standardized tests and how this affects the learning process.", "title": "Standardized Tests", "pid": "b760075c-2019-04-18T17:06:45Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.5269775390625}, {"text": "Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America. Framework: Cost benefit analysis. This means the side with the most amount of benefits (aff) or harms (neg) of standardized testing should win this debate. Observation: The neg has the burden to provide alternative assessments that provide credible evidence. Rules: No negative comments!", "title": "Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America", "pid": "ffd7fc64-2019-04-18T13:35:20Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.47471618652344}, {"text": "I said that my arguments are still relevent because they are in other evidence that is from 2014 and 15. My evidence may be from 1999, 2011, and 2006 but It is also in recent evidence from this year. And I do know what you are talking about but you brought new evidence in that speech you gave a from round 2 and I re-read your round one evidence a whole bunch of times and saw nothing that involded WW1 and sending students to warzones. You didn't say any of that. And we are talking about Standarized test, NOT WW1 and warzones. You also didn't resond to my round 3 argument so I have nothing to argue with you except for the fact that the judge should vote Standarized testing good because Students need this is they want to get smarter and learn more stuff. You should vote this because i'm pretty sure that since my opponent didn't back up half their arguments in round 3. That they dropped a lot of there arguments. Yes I may have only dropped one. But when they didn't back up their argument in round 3 they dropped it. I have nothing to respond to in there round 3 argument.", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States", "pid": "ab3b5067-2019-04-18T14:00:59Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.46856689453125}, {"text": "A plethora of students show signs of intelligence and can get good grades, but they are just not good on tests. So that is basically telling them that can are intelligent enough to use notes and solve problems, but they can't pass high school because there memorization skills are not of good quality. This is my first debate....sorry if I'm not good or show enough details", "title": "should Standardized tests be eliminated? logical answers", "pid": "9168d27e-2019-04-18T15:43:14Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.45265197753906}, {"text": "Standardized testing often tests only a very limited range of skills rather than the broad range of skills we would hope our educational system is teaching. Standardized testing focuses largely on memorization, speed of recall, and critical thinking. Yet, a full education entails much more, including creativity, emotional insight, composure and dignity, physical health and an understanding of nutrition, and many other basic human values. NCLB, therefore, does not measure the most important factors in a student's education and future success and happiness. It is, therefore, useless as a measure of a student and school's performance.", "title": "Standardized tests poorly measure real student learning", "pid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00066-000", "bm25_score": 217.44668579101562}, {"text": "Standardized testing is not perfect, but it helps to sets useful standards that help student learning. It is important that a nation has a general frame of reference on where students should, on average, be at various stages in their education. Standardized testing helps do this by setting a baseline level of achievement at each grade, where the average student is expected to be. While some students may perform above or below this standard, the important thing is judging the general educational trends across society, so that governments can help guide their national educational system onto a globally competitive path. improve this  ", "title": "National, standardized tests are a poor measure of student learning", "pid": "eb991d36-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 217.4250946044922}, {"text": "Standardized testing costs 1.7 billion per year, this would save taxpayers a lot of money ending the madness. These tests are unreliable when measuring a student's performance. In 2011, a study found that testing does not improve student achievement. The United States has dropped in Math, Reading, and Science. The testing only measures a small portion of education. Teachers are in classes teaching a test as opposed to teaching from a book. This is only hurting education, the teachers and students should not be held accountable for poor test grades. Not all students test the same, some students test poorly, but at the same time know more than they are showing on the test. These tests do not bring a positive learning environment for the student or for the teacher, both of which are stressed. The student is stressed fearing they may not pass and can not move up to the next grade. The teacher may lose their job if some of the students do not pass this test. Testing is good to see what level students are at and what the school or teacher need to work on, but it should not be a deciding factor on anything. http://www.nap.edu... http://www.science20.com...", "title": "School Testing", "pid": "288c2167-2019-04-18T13:45:09Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.391357421875}, {"text": "My opponent simply doesn't understand anything that I am claiming. He says he can have evidence from the last century, while I cannot have some from 3 years ago; he is saying that because I never specifically said standardised testing any tests I say must not be standardised tests (yet, they actually are, it should be inferred); he is saying that what I am claiming is false because it's dumb; and because I don't specify that the US government is doing something then I can't have any ground.If you read my evidence and my case with a careful eye you should know literally everything I am talking about -- taking everything out of context and reading incarefully means you don't get what I am saying.Extend all rebuttals & defense, they were never really contested.", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States", "pid": "ab3b5067-2019-04-18T14:00:59Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.34629821777344}, {"text": "My opponent is worried that students will only do well on standardized tests and it won't improve anything. The problems with tests is that their different. Tests are different between each school and each teacher often. This allows for some student not to have learned things while others have. Which creates an unbalanced classroom where some students are struggling to learn material and others are bored because they had already learned it. In fact a study has shown that 79% of students think that standard tests are fair. My opponent is also worried that it restricts creativity of thinking. A test is to test your knowledge. Grades 1-12 are there to teach you the basics of a wide range of knowledge. Tests are there to see if you get what you are learning. Standard tests already have questions that promote creative thinking. Teaching for the test is a good thing. It eliminates time wasting activities. It focuses on the content and that way the students will all learn the same thing and no student will be left behind. Standardized tests do not narrow the curriculum. It focuses the curriculum. The multiple choice is actually helpful in improving the education system because it produces accurate information. Also the markings for standardized tests are fair. Teacher markings are not fair because the teacher may not like a child and mark their test harder than others. If you don't believe me China is living proof that standard tests work. They have a set of standard tests and they are leading the world when it comes to academics.", "title": "Standardized Tests", "pid": "b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.3144073486328}, {"text": "Closing Argument: In my closing argument I will list some reasons for why standardized testing is an efficient way to reflect the academic value of students. 1. Gardner states \"achievement data from tests provide teachers with valuable information to improve classroom and student learning\". This is yet another quote that supports my claim that the tests to help to improve academics in class rooms. 2. Standardized testing is the best way to know how a student is doing. If schools were to go onto one on one testing it will incredibly time consuming. Also, my opponent said something about a child having problems at home. Believe it or not, a teacher can know if something is wrong from the results of an examination. 4. Standardized tests are also helpful in providing students with the pressure of taking education seriously. Many students want to go to college and they know that in order to get into a respectable college they have to score decent grades in the SAT. This \"pressure\" will cause them to take education seriously and will be beneficial in the long run. Now, I want to leave my opponent and all voters with this quote, \"While there are many purposes that can be served by assessment, they are all secondary to the improvement of student learning.\" Thanks to my opponent for this great debate and I wish all voters will vote Pro. Thank you.", "title": "Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students.", "pid": "952e7fd8-2019-04-18T18:59:54Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.28819274902344}, {"text": "Why we don\"t need standardized testing Resolved: On Balance standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the Unites States. Standardized tests don\"t provide any further information we don\"t already know - Greg Jouriles 14 http://www.edweek.org... There are two main arguments against using standardized tests to guarantee that students reach at least a basic level of academic competency. The first is radical: These tests are not necessary. The second\"less radical and more familiar\"is that, even if standardized testing were an efficient benchmark of basic skills, the costs associated with it are too high. Standardized tests are unnecessary because they rarely show what we don't already know. Ask any teacher and they can tell you which students can read and write. That telling usually comes in the form of letter grades or evaluations that break down progress on skills. So trust the teacher. Publish grade distributions. Locally publish a compilation of evaluation reports. Release a state or national report reviewed and verified by expert evaluators with legislative oversight. People will say: \"That's crazy! Schools will fudge results. Grade data means nothing because teachers apply different standards with different values. Let's give them all one reliable test. And won't this proposal create a whole new bureaucracy?\" All true (except for the one test being reliable). Given high stakes and the accompanying pressure, people will game a system. And it is all too true that grades vary widely because of four factors: a teacher's conception of achievement, a teacher's sense of equity and rigor, a teacher's ability, and the composition of students. But people are already gaming standardized testing, sometimes criminally. And, at a basic level of competency, a grade or an evaluative report would give us as much information as we now get from standardized tests. We have the grade problem at my high school. In the same course or department, a B in one classroom might be an A, or even a C, in another. It's a problem for us, and, likely, a problem in most schools. \"To sum up, we don\"t learn much from standardized accountability, and we have lost a great deal by giving it so much prominence.\" But it has also been an opportunity. Recognizing our grading differences, we opted to create a common conception of achievement, our graduate profile, and department learning outcomes with rubrics. Our standards now align closely with the Common Core State Standards. Second, we created common performance tasks that measure these standards and formative assessments that scaffold to them. Third, we look together at student work. Fourth, we have begun to grade each other's students on these common tasks. We could publish the results of these performance tasks, and the public would have a good idea of what we're good at and what we're not. For example, our students effectively employ reading strategies to comprehend a text, but are often stymied by a lack of vocabulary or complex syntax. We've also learned most of our students can coherently develop a claim, citing the appropriate evidence to support it when choosing from a restricted universe of data. They aren't as good when the universe of data is broadened. They are mediocre at analysis, counter-arguments, rebuttals, and evaluation of sources, though they have recently gotten better at evaluating sources as we have improved our instruction and formative assessments. A small percentage of our students do not show even basic competency in reading and writing. That's better information than we've ever received from standardized testing. What's also started to happen is that teachers who use the same standards and rubrics, assign the same performance tasks, and grade each other's work are finding their letter grades starting to align. And, this approach has led to a lot of frank discussions. For example, why are grades different? Where we have looked, different conceptions of achievement and rigor seem most important. So we have to talk about it. The more we do, the more aligned we will become, and the more honest picture of achievement we can create. It has been fantastic professional development\"done without external mandates. We have a long way to go, but we can understand the value of our efforts and see improvement in student work. I would not advocate publishing individual teachers' grades because it would cause the same problems as publishing individual teachers' standardized-test results, but grades by subject, grade level, and demographic categories could be fair game externally. Internally, those breakdowns should stimulate hard conversations and necessary professional development. Of course, this proposal would have to be negotiated and modified locally to avoid the punishment/reward cycle of other accountability measures that force people to conform and tempt them to cheat. The goal is to spur the collaboration and conversation necessary for improvement. Well, that's your district, some might say. It's got a unique collaborative culture and a better sense of achievement than most. You can't do that across the nation. Why not? With the common core, a definition of achievement exists. And teachers are more likely to respond to professional development and accountability more concretely connected to their daily work. They are more likely to improve. That leads to the second argument. Even if standardized testing were not only desirable to give the public a picture of basic competencies, but also an efficient way to do so, the costs have been too great. Many have previously made cogent arguments (unrealistic definitions of achievement, skewed instructional schemes, inequitable curricular offerings, inevitable corruption, perverted charter school missions, alienation, disempowerment, and embarrassment of educators, etc.) in this vein, but let's think about a supposed example of success on this front\"a school with the high test scores. In general, such a school has a compliant or affluent population. Test scores are a point of pride. The school has a good reputation. But, when you go in and observe, the teaching and learning do not impress. Never once have I looked at the test scores of this kind of school and thought, \"How could I be more like them?\" That's because success represented just a score on a narrow test of a limited band of achievement (a test, by the way, with content that I was not even legally allowed to talk about), and I couldn't see how looking at that score could help me in my day-to-day teaching. Even worse, I don't think the teachers at such schools have learned much from their good scores. If anything, the scores have prevented them from becoming better. So, to sum up, we don't learn much from standardized testing, and we have lost a great deal by giving it so much prominence. The common core is at risk for failure, not because the standards are bad per se, but because with standardized accountability, as in so many partial reforms, we again won't get a real picture of achievement, people will be disappointed, and the standards and testing will run their course. Instead, why not just trust teachers and schools to report the progress of their students with the measures they have, and use internal and external local pressures to improve the measures and practices? It will avoid a plethora of social, emotional, and political costs. Any bureaucracy created can't be more of a drag on the government or economy than the legion of consultants and think tanks today feeding off the trough of education. This proposal is more in line with what we know about the success of sustainable local organizations and what we know about the inflated rise and inevitable fall of mass reform.", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States.", "pid": "dc4d2564-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.28025817871094}, {"text": "Essentially, your article covers both the pro and the con. Standardized test promote teaching a test rather than teaching critical thinking. On one hand you have a student who can pass a test but fails to apply their knowledge to a real world scenario. On the other hand you have a student who can take the various facets of a problem and create a solution that adheres to the nuances and minutia of that problem. Furthermore, Thomas Armstrong analyzes short comings of the standardized testing system: Because so much emphasis is placed on standardized test results these days, teachers are spending more and more time \"teaching to the test.\" If there is something that is interesting, compelling, useful, or otherwise favorable to the development of a student\"s understanding of the world, but it is not going to be on the standardized test, then there really isn\"t any incentive to cover this material. Instead, most of classroom time consists of either taking the tests or preparing for the tests, and this shuts out the possibility of learning anything new or important. For example, because the No Child Left Behind Law (NCLB) only tests reading, math, and science that means that art, social studies, physical education, history, and other subjects are given far less attention than used to be the case. Standardized tests occur in an artificial learning environment: they\"re timed, you can\"t talk to a fellow student, you can\"t ask questions, you can\"t use references or learning devices, you can\"t get up and move around. How often does the real world look like this? Prisons come to mind. And yet, even the most hard-headed conservative will say that education must prepare students for \"the real world.\" Clearly standardized testing doesn\"t do this. Standardized tests create stress. Some kids do well with a certain level of stress. Other students fold. So, again, there isn\"t a level playing field. Brain research suggests that too much stress is psychologically and physically harmful. And when stress becomes overwhelming, the brain shifts into a \"fight or flight\" response, where it is impossible to engage in the higher-order thinking processes that are necessary to respond correctly to the standardized test questions. Standardized tests reduce the richness of human experience and human learning to a number or set of numbers. This is dehumanizing. A student may have a deep knowledge of a particular subject, but receive no acknowledgement for it because his or her test score may have been low. If the student were able to draw a picture, lead a group discussion, or create a hands-on project, he/she could show that knowledge. But not in a standardized testing room. Tough luck.\" (http://institute4learning.com...) At the end of the day it comes down to what you value. If we continue to put undue interest into the importance of standardized tests, we may generate a general testing template but we lose creativity and ingenuity in the long run.However, if we allow the classroom to foster creativity and critical thinking, we will in turn create a generation of people who are able to tackle the complex problems that face our world today. As it stands now, the status quo of standardized testing is detrimental to US education and should thus be reformed.", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States", "pid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.27627563476562}, {"text": "Extend all; no response needed beyond that.", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States", "pid": "ab3b5067-2019-04-18T14:00:59Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.26101684570312}, {"text": "Standardized tests ensures students learn the most important information. There is some information in the world that is essential to know so that, as adults, schoolchildren can excel in their jobs. Standardized tests help ensure that all students learn this important information. It is true that this information can be difficult, and perhaps even boring, including history, literacy (reading comprehension), and math. Yet, it is, nevertheless, essential, so testing for it and ensuring students know the information is extremely valuable. A recent study of American high school seniors found that just 13 per cent could answer basic questions of American history correctly; national testing ensures that the next generation will be encouraged to learn about such history, in a fair and balanced manner, up and down the country1. 1 Banchero, S. (2011, June 15). Students stumble again on the basics of history. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from The Wall Street Journal: improve this  ", "title": "National testing will ensure all students learn the same, essential skills and information", "pid": "eb991d36-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00025-000", "bm25_score": 217.2367706298828}, {"text": "Support for the Pro position of this resolution if bountiful and defensible in a properly framed debate. At the outset, the Pro debater needs to recognize there is significant negative press against standardized testing arising from a multitude of factors, many of which are unrelated to the question of whether or not standardized testing is beneficial to student education. These negative factors poison the well and spread the perception that because some elements related to standardized testing are undesirable, then standardized testing in general must be undesirable. This, of course, is a logical fallacy; a kind of fallacy of composition in which one draws conclusions about a whole based upon an examination of smaller portions. Standardized testing is a tool and like any tool can be designed for specific purposes. We shall examine those purposes and their effect on education and we will scratch the surface of an abundance of studies which measure the effect of testing on students. Much of the research extends back several decades and is still cited in research journals today. A Basic Definition To clarify the position, I will provide a definition for standardized tests which describes their nature and their purpose. JCCHD (undated): A Standardized test is a test that is given in a consistent or \"standard\" manner. Standardized tests are designed to have consistent questions, administration procedures, and scoring procedures. When a standardized test is administrated, is it done so according to certain rules and specifications so that testing conditions are the same for all test takers. Standardized tests come in many forms, such as standardized interviews, questionnaires, or directly administered intelligence tests. The main benefit of standardized tests is they are typically more reliable and valid than non-standardized measures. They often provide some type of \"standard score\" which can help interpret how far a child\"s score ranges from the average. Based upon this definition we can surmise that the test may be administered by a school in accordance with some over-arching direction or purpose and may be required by local administration or government or at the state level. A key principle is the test must be administered and assessed in a standardized and consistent way aligned to the purpose it is designed to serve. Key Advantages Standardized tests offer advantages to school system administrators which are not possible with in-class testing and assessments designed and graded by teachers. The key advantages are objectivity, comparability, and accountability (Churchill 2015). Depending on the type of test one teacher's evaluation of a student's test may be different than another teacher's evaluation of the same student's test results. This variability can result from a lack of objectivity in the design or assessment of the test and lead to different impressions of a student's level of achievement. Standardized tests are designed to greatly reduce subjective grading. Often, standardized tests are assessed by computers rather than humans. Not only does this reduce costs by eliminating the need to pay graders, it enforces objective standards. The second major advantage is seen when a local school board needs to determine the overall level of achievement of, say sixth-graders in several different schools within their jurisdiction, Standardized tests ensure that all of the sixth-grade students will be evaluated on a common, objective standard. This allows a fair evaluation of sixth-grade achievement and helps determine which schools or classes may be in need of improvement. Objectivity and comparability are both necessary to realize the advantages linked to accountability. School system administrators use the tests as a feedback mechanism for the schools and classes to alter curriculum or resources in such a way they can benefit student achievement. Accountability requires the individual schools and instructors demonstrate forward progress in achieving the goals of the school administration. From Feedback to Blowback I do want to spend a little time discussing the downside of standardized tests because I believe a thorough evaluation and acknowledgement of problems increases the Pro ethos. Accountability is pushed by governments intent on maximizing their educational dollars. Obviously, an administration concerned with high costs will tend to view standardized tests as a mechanism for achieving goals for the least cost. First, the cost of testing is relatively cheap and secondly standardized tests can potentially isolate problems in individual schools, classrooms, or teachers putting increased pressure on those systems and individuals. Moreover, politicians can use accountability to enhance their own political statuses. Merrow (2001): But the fundamental problem is that many schools and school districts use standardized test results more for accountability than understanding or diagnosis. I'm not blaming educators for this situation, because they're only following orders. H. D. Hoover of the University of Iowa defends testing but agrees we've gone overboard. He places the blame squarely on politicians. \"They want quick fixes, and they like tests because they're cheap. They mandate external tests because to the public it looks like they're doing something about education when all they're doing is actually a very inexpensive 'quick fix.'\" When accountability increases pressure on school districts in a heavy-handed way, students are often re-categorized for failure to demonstrate achievement above a particular \"cut-line\" which alarms and often angers parents. Teachers are pressured to increase the performance of students and some teachers are viewed as professionally incompetent. All of this pressure results in negative attitudes about standardized testing and leads to abuses which have resulted in overly narrowed curriculum which focus entirely on the tests, and in extreme cases, cheating. All of these negative impressions ripple through communities and result in the perception standardized tests are the problem. The link between the home and the administration is the classroom and the teachers themselves play a significant role in the success or failure of the testing programs. Brown & Hattie (2012): The belief systems of teachers are a significant factor in whether standardized tests can be educationally useful. Clearly, pre-existing beliefs that standardized tests are irrelevant can and will influence how teachers respond to the possibility of using tests educationally. But there are other options for understanding the purpose and nature of assessment; assessment can evaluate schools, it can evaluate or certify students, and it can be for improvement (Brown, 2008). For example, in the development of the asTTle standardized tests system, it was found that teachers who endorsed the conception of assessment related to \"assessment is powerful for improving teaching\" had higher interpretation scores on a test about the meaning of the asTTle test score reports (r = .34). In contrast, teachers who endorsed more strongly the conception of assessment as a means of evaluating or holding schools accountable had the lowest interpretation scores (r = -.21) (Hattie et al. 2006).Thus, successful use of standardized tests requires believing that they can contribute to improved teaching and student learning for the individuals in a teacher\"s class. This belief leads to more accurate interpretation to the educationally useful information communicated in standardized test reports.[290] We can see tests as simple measuring systems which serve as an important tool in guiding the educational development of students. Ultimately it is how those tools are used and people's attitudes about how the tools are used which guides perception of whether or not the tests are beneficial. No doubt it guides the perception of the PF debate judge as well.", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States", "pid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.15679931640625}, {"text": "National tests will not improve educational equality, for they will be tailored towards the dominant group. National tests are written largely by the ethnic majority within states (e.g. white men and women in the United States) with a certain unintentional bias toward these ethnic groups, putting minorities at a slight disadvantage. National testing also effectively penalizes schools that have a diverse population of students. Because diverse schools more frequently have statistically underperforming minority groups, non-native speakers, or disabled groups, they are much more likely to \"fail\" and be penalized. National testing, therefore, effectively penalizes diversity in schools. improve this  ", "title": "National testing will improve educational equality", "pid": "eb991d36-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00026-000", "bm25_score": 217.1532440185547}, {"text": "Standardized testing has been used for many years, so why should the US change the system now if it has obviously been running well this entire time? \"Standardized tests have been a part of American education since the mid-1800s. Their use skyrocketed after 2002's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) mandated annual testing in all 50 states\" (2). It is an extremely useful tool when measuring students, teachers, and schools overall. It is ignorant to think that standardized testing is unfair just because one student may have less intelligence than other. In fact, that just proves both the students focus skills during school and their teachers ability to teach. Examples of a pro-testing education leader is Michelle Rhee, the public schools chancellor in Washington, D.C., who said, \"\"In order to have the privilege of teaching kids you have to be able to show that you can significantly move their academic achievement levels, she says. \"And if you can't show that, then you need to find another profession.\" Rhee launched a controversial evaluation system in Washington where test score growth counts as 50 percent of a teacher's annual performance score\" (1). In addition to Rhee\"s statement, standardized testing has other positive outcomes: \"Standardized tests are not narrowing the curriculum, rather they are focusing it on important basic skills all students need to master. According to a study in the Oct. 28, 2005, issue of the peer-reviewed 'Education Policy Analysis Archives', teachers in four Minnesota school districts said standardized testing had a positive impact, improving the quality of the curriculum while raising student achievement\" (2). In conclusion, not only is standardized testing proven to be fair, but it is also proven to be beneficial to everyone involved.", "title": "Education: Testing", "pid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.11447143554688}, {"text": "Challenge accepted, Standardized tests should not be used from Grades 1-12 as they discourage critical thinking skills, take away valuable time that could be used to educate students in a classroom, and fail to accurately assess a students academic progress. These reasons are just my starting point and only scratch the surface of the problems associated with standardized tests. I have many more reasons against the use of standardized tests, however, I will save those reasons for when the debate officially begins.", "title": "Standardized Tests", "pid": "b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.05963134765625}, {"text": "I'm fairly disappointed that my opponent forfeited, and hope they turn up for the next round. I'll pass this round for fairness, but if Pro forfeits the next, I'll crystallize my points.", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the U.S", "pid": "e4d12b1a-2019-04-18T13:55:40Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.05616760253906}, {"text": "Hello! my name is Thomas brooks and I stand in affirmation of the resolved, On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K\"12 education in the United States. We have three contentions to bring to you today. 1\" standardized testing compares schools, 2\" Standardised testing improves k\"12 education, 3\" On balance standardized testing has a positive effect on student achievement in school and in life. Point one) Without standardized testing, their would be no way to compare schools, and assure that they were meeting their constitutional standards. The fourteenth constitutional amendment requires fair and equal treatment to all, under protection of the law. The Supreme Court Case Brown vs. Board of education in 1954, Officially legislated that the 14th amendment applied to all education laws. Therefore, It is our constitutional right to receive an equal education. If there is no way to compare schools, there is no way for individuals to know whether a student is receiving a substandard education, vandalising our constitutional right. Without standardized testing there would be no form of comparison and equality would not be obtainable. This leads us into our second point. Standardized testing has made tangible the quality of education a school provides, and created accountability in not just teachers and schools, but in districts and states . This has benefited educational mandates in funding in two irreplaceable ways. 1) The implementation of NCLB has enabled schools to sue states for failing to provide standard and adequate teaching facilities. Study conducted by David G. Sciarra, shows direct correlation to how the instatement of No Child Left Behind created accountability to state and government to provide a standard of school safety conditions. The study focuses on, but is not limited to a number of lawsuits in states New Jersey, Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, New York, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho, and California where severely underfunded schools that lacked resources, and dew to the passing of the NCLB had the legal grounds to obtaining equil funding and such from the state improving the education of their students. 2) The second way standardized tests have improved education is in actually reforming state legislature dictating funding. Since the 1970\"s, when statewide standardized tests became more common, there was an increase of court cases discussing that different funding was required to support different schools. These arguments are called \"adequacy\" suits. The arguments are based in the belief that a school that supports a larger population of students, or educates students that live in poorer demographics need more state funding, and can not rely on property tax. Plaintiffs fundamentally rely upon low scores on standardized tests, and high dropout rates as proof that the state has failed to provide an adequate education for substantial numbers of its children. Standardized tests have created greater equality in school funding. Our Third contention is that on balance standardized testing has a positive effect on student achievement in school and in life. Test anxiety is real, and it is true that both high and low stakes standardized tests can create stress in K\"12 students. However, post primary education is also depended on high stakes assessments, similar to those of standardized tests. Students who participate in standardized tests will be more prepared to face future educational, occupational, and professional goals. Such tests include those pertaining to college admission and success, occupational licensing for trades such as law and medicine. Standardised tests are the only way to insure that individuals have the capability to obtain and equal education, key in creating safe campuses, and fundamental in legislature allocating school funding. Furthermore, Standardized tests prepare students for the stress in taking high stakes tests later in their life. On balance, standardized tests are imperative to improving k\"12 education, and benefit it in many ways.", "title": "on balance standardized testing is benifical for k-12 education", "pid": "fd3c1a15-2019-04-18T14:07:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.01742553710938}, {"text": "It is important that a nation has a general frame of reference on where students should, on average, be at various stages in their educational development. Standardized testing helps do this by setting a baseline level of achievement at each grade. While some students may perform above or below this standard, the important thing is judging the general educational trends across American society, so that we can help guide our national educational system onto a globally competitive path.", "title": "Standardized testing sets useful baseline achievement standards.", "pid": "40f19507-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00065-000", "bm25_score": 217.01539611816406}, {"text": "Though standardized test may help Identify racial inequity, it can by no means combat inequity: \"Dating back to the development of IQ tests at the turn of the century, standardized tests have been used to sort and rank children, most reprehensibly along racial and class lines, and to rationalize giving more privileges to the already privileged. Indeed the first standardized tests were developed by eugenicists anxious for \"scientific\" data to prove their theories of biological determinism.\" (http://www.rethinkingschools.org...) Furthermore as stated previously, policy makers place to much emphasis on the test and not on the real world: \"Proponents of standardized tests often wrap themselves in the language of high standards. But that's not the issue. No one advocates low standards. The issue is what we mean by higher standards, and how we can reach those standards.By and large, calls for more standardized tests come from politicians eager to prove they are serious about school reform and creating a \"high skills,\" internationally competitive workforce. But they offer little if any evidence that links increased testing to improved teaching and learning. Similarly, test-pushers pay scant attention to key issues such as smaller classes, improved teacher education, more time for teacher planning and collaboration, and ensuring that all schools receive adequate and equitable resources needed to boost achievement. Rather than grappling with these issues, too many politicians have seized on a simplistic formula for reform: more standardized tests, especially \"high stakes\" tests. Nationwide, states and school districts are forcing a growing number of children to take \"high stakes\" standardized tests and, on the basis of test scores, children may be retained, denied access to a preferred high school, or, in some cases, even refused a high school diploma. That's not public accountability, it's discrimination. Dating back to the development of IQ tests at the turn of the century, standardized tests have been used to sort and rank children, most reprehensibly along racial and class lines, and to rationalize giving more privileges to the already privileged. Indeed the first standardized tests were developed by eugenicists anxious for \"scientific\" data to prove their theories of biological determinism. To acknowledge the sinister origins of standardized tests is not, however, to dismiss parent and community concerns about school accountability. We understand and agree with these concerns. Too many schools fail too many children, especially low-income students, students of color, and students who do not speak English as a first language. The broader community has the right and the responsibility to oversee how well schools perform. Good assessments can be one valid method of insuring accountability.\" (http://www.rethinkingschools.org...) The test itself has come to bind our educational system, not by wishing to bring a better tomorrow, but rather to bring a process to categorize you by tomorrow. If our education stays along this path, then the future of our world will be as stoic and lifeless as these test are. It is for that reason that we must reform our testing system or annihilate it all together.", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States", "pid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.01480102539062}, {"text": "This hasn't been much of a debate. Let me sum up my opinion to the voters, though, to garner their votes and opinions on the controversial issue of standardized testing. I am against standardized testing because it has had a negative effect on the state of American education. When standardized testing was fully enforced, the US ranked 18th in math. Seven years later, seven years of standardized testing, the US fell to 31st in math. No improvements, whatsoever. Second, testing rushes teachers and students; as an effect, students don't fully understand the subjects. They remember it for a while, and then it fades from memory. What I support is quality education, education that isn't concerned about tests that don't prove any true statistics. I support the removal of standardized testing from our education system. I believe it is a unbeneficial, untruthful way of measuring students' intelligence. I have backed up my claim with facts and statistics from an unbiased website. My opponent only typed one word in this entire debate - 'testing' - which does not even support his pro-testing argument. Voters, I hope this is an easy debate to decide on, no matter which side you truly support.", "title": "Test", "pid": "9bab90c3-2019-04-18T17:06:03Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.9842071533203}, {"text": "So many students have coasted throughout middle school and since teachers aren't able to fail their students, students could literally do nothing in elementary school and still pass. Having standardized tests would not only make students have to do well but also teachers. Teachers in elementary school are absolutely ridiculous. There's no pressure on them to actually teach students anything. If marks went public, students and teachers would do better.", "title": "Standardized Tests", "pid": "b760077b-2019-04-18T13:01:46Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.96783447265625}, {"text": "As my opponent forfeited the round, I conclude I have won.", "title": "Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America", "pid": "ffd7fc64-2019-04-18T13:35:20Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.85568237304688}, {"text": "First, addressing my opponents observation of my plagiarism. I have given credit to Lisa Adams as stated: Lisa Adams, Research Associate, Joseph Pedulla, Professor at Boston College, George Madaus, Professor at Boston College, 2003, Theory into practice, 42.1, p. 18-29 I would also like to point out that the link my opponent has posted is not valid. May I also ask for the source for your definition of Standardized Testing? Contention 1: Notice how my opponent said that the only way for a child to retain information is through a standardized test. However, that is not always true. Although there are students who study and remember information, many teachers will FOCUS on the test, and afterwards, forget about making sure the students remember. This is called teaching to the test. Many students will remember the information ONLY for the test, and not for remembering information in the future. Contention 2: Yes, standardized tests can compare students, but is that necessarily good? Like you stated in your last contention, standardized tests can BOOST your confidence, but when you are compared with other students for other districts, doesn't that tear down your confidence, knowing that colleges are looking for smart people and you just aren't the smartest. Also, as I pointed out in my case, standardized testing can discriminate against students who have just moved here from foreign countries, or their families are too poor to help provide a stable learning system. This can create achievement gaps between them and middle and upper class students who are given plenty of tools and guides to help their education. Contention 3: As my entire contention three says, teachers are often hurt by standardized tests, because it forces them to teach something they aren't used to teaching. I would also like to say that my opponent's \"professionals\" are just teachers and parents. And although they are somewhat connected to standardized tests(their students take the tests), they don't have the right to be called \"professionals\". Adding to that, notice how the resolution says \"beneficial\". This means that my opponent should focus on how it is \"beneficial\", not teachers having a bias towards standardized testing. Contention 4: I have done my own part of research. and have found that standardized testing is actually only a quarter of a percent of the total US education budget. The USA spends more than a billion dollars on Standardized Testing ALONE! Can you imagine what else we can do with this money, instead of using it on tests that students forget about in a month afterwards anyways? We can help support the fight against ISIS, we can advance our research on Ebola. We could do all sorts of things with the billion dollars we spend EACH year on standardized testing. Contention 5: Just because a test is \"fair\", does not mean it is \"beneficial\". A fair test could compose of random questions that anyone could answer, but that doesn't make it \"beneficial\". This argument is not relevant to this debate Contention 6: My opponent is using statistics to dehumanize students who have suicide. as they say, \"On the news, you probably see stories about kids commiting suicide because of standardized testing. Those cases however, are extremely rare. What is common, is self esteem causing confidence. People tend to over exaggerate the small examples of bad things happening but tend to ignore positivity.\" Basically, what they are trying to say is that it's okay for a small fraction of students to suicide(STUDENTS!) because it helps the majority have confidence, which it doesn't necessarily, as I stated in my attack on their case. I would also like to point out that my opponent does not have any source or quote on this contention, making it a bias and frankly unfair contention. If my opponent were to have this contention standing at the end of the debate, I would like to kindly ask the judges to see that this contention has no warrant and should be ignored.", "title": "On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States", "pid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.82394409179688}, {"text": "Okay first of all, standardized testing is needed to see where each individual is at academic wise. Standardized testing is proved to be the only way to see that without having to do one kid at a time and not having control over the classroom. Second of all, standardized testing helps see which teachers should remain teaching. Let's say that you have a really clumsy teacher who does not teach anything at all. And you know that nobody will believe you if you tell them that the teacher is not teaching. Standardized testing is a good way to see where the teachers are at, as well as the students. Standardized testing is also not expensive at all! The average amount of students in a school is 800 and each student costs $7 for testing materials and booklets. $7 times 800 equals an average of $5,600 dollars per school with testing, which is nothing compared to what the schools make! And with the money they give to the school systems, they know that the cost is beneficial to their school.", "title": "Standardized testing should remain in our schools.", "pid": "8703c5ca-2019-04-18T16:10:43Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.78875732421875}, {"text": "There is a degree of hypocrisy in arguing that the tests are classist and racist and then complaining that schools take too long in preparing students for them. Ideally the tests should be on relevant subjects that will be useful to the student and is needed as part of a well-rounded education that prepares the student for life, and if they are not they are flawed. Many of the skills required for a successful performance on A-Levels or on the AP Essays are remarkably similar to those needed for University level written work. As a consequence it is wrong to argue they are of no relevance.", "title": "Standardized tests result in teachers “teaching the test”", "pid": "259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 216.77296447753906}, {"text": "The importance attached to such tests leads to teachers actively “teaching the test.” The result is that many teachers, rather than instilling useful skills or providing a balanced curriculum, end up trying to focus on things that occur on given tests. While this is not a huge problem with the SAT itself, it is a serious problem with subject tests like the SAT 2s, AP Exams, and the British A-Levels. This undermines the provision of education in the country.", "title": "Standardized tests result in teachers “teaching the test”", "pid": "259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 216.76824951171875}, {"text": "Okay let's wrap thing up here on both of our sides. Overall, having standardized testing in our school systems are more beneficial than bad. Let's recap, the cost is low, it prepares students for higher level testing, helps school systems need to see where they need to teach more of, helps compare different school's grades, sees where each student is at individually, and does help prepare the students for some jobs later on. My question to you is, \"If standardized testing is mostly beneficial, then why should it be banned?\" Other than that, that wraps up my part of this debate and I am looking forward to your argument as well. (It was very nice debating with you, in fact, I am having this debate for real at my middle school tommorow, so thanks for helping me prepare :)", "title": "Standardized testing should remain in our schools.", "pid": "8703c5ca-2019-04-18T16:10:43Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.7522735595703}, {"text": "Yes, if you create formal standards for the education system, the tests are probably necessary. I support the abolishment of all formal standards. They are designed to ensure that all students meet a certain criteria before they move on(see: No Child Left Behind). However, this also prevents superior students from moving forward with their education because they are stuck waiting for stupid kids. Standards are a terrible system for education.", "title": "Standardized Tests", "pid": "b760073d-2019-04-18T17:08:38Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.73841857910156}, {"text": "1. Not All Students The Same Badertscher, Eric, and Heather Newton. \"Counterpoint: National Education Standards Overlook Individuals And Local Communities.\" Points Of View: Standardized Testing (2015): 3. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 20 Nov. 2015. http://web.b.ebscohost.com... Standardized testing presents numerous problems in American education. First, it fails to take into account that not all children learn in same way. This is especially true in the primary grades, when children are still new to school in general. Even children with high intelligence may find themselves placed in remedial courses if they do not perform well on standardized tests. State and federal educational bureaucracies tend to use standardized testing as a way to increase their own control over the educational process. By establishing state or national standards, they reduce the role of the free market. Even private schools, for example, which accept school vouchers and are often developed by parents unhappy with local public school systems, find themselves subject to increased governmental oversight through forced conformity with federal standardized testingrequirements. Even state officials have discouraged home schooling on the grounds that this method doesn't provide sufficient standardized testing opportunities. In the bigger picture, the public needs to recognize that bureaucracies (whether local, state, or federal) cannot solve all educational problems. Parents must recognize that children are at school for only part of the day; learning, however, can take place all day long. Thus, parents can look for ways to teach children important concepts after school and during the summer when they are not at school. Parents can also encourage local school boards to use other forms of testingto gain a better assessment of each student's academic progress. Standardized tests have also been linked to an overemphasis on vocational education. For example, students learn business math, but are not taught the larger concepts of critical thinking in mathematics. Likewise, some English classes focus on business writing, rather than teaching students to write essays that develop analytical skills. Education should focus as much on pure intellectual growth and being a good citizen, as on earning a living and passing a test", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the U.S", "pid": "e4d12b1a-2019-04-18T13:55:40Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.7286834716797}, {"text": "I agree with what is said earlier..............", "title": "Standardized testing accuaretly represents a student's academic ability.", "pid": "372ca988-2019-04-18T19:00:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.71470642089844}, {"text": "When you come home from school your parent asks how was your day you say I sat in a desk writing the hole day. No parent wants to see their children upset,exhausted,and has pains from typing. Kids who are struggling in school the worst thing you can do is put a 50 page test on their lap. Doing work in the class would be better because the teacher can't help them during the test if they don't understand something. In normal work in school the teacher can spend more time with the students who are having struggles to help them understand their work and achieve higher grades in that subject and this can keep happening when you are a senior. Vote for me JAMES", "title": "Standardized testing is a good thing", "pid": "828c220c-2019-04-18T14:36:05Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.70370483398438}, {"text": "In his round, I will be pointing out some information and then stating my own contentions. Since my opponent did not provide any definitions, I will now do so. Standardized testing- A type of test that has the same questions for every student, depending on age and grade level. It is scored in a manner which allows the results of students to be compared. Even though the first round is about stating points, I feel that it is crucial for me to point out PLAGIARISM. My opponent has given a quote by Lisa Adams. That quote was in Part A of Contention 1. And I would like to point out that my opponent did not site a source. You can compare his quote with the one www. boledebate. com/uploads/2/. .. /3-pf-standardized-testing-starter. docx. There is no difference. But now, to return to the discussion. Contention #1- Taking the tests can make something be remembered by the child. . http://www.theatlantic.com..., \"Henry L. Roediger III, a cognitive psychologist at Washington University, studies how the brain stores, and later retrieves, memories. He compared the test results of students who used common study methods—such as re-reading material, highlighting, reviewing and writing notes, outlining material and attending study groups—with the results from students who were repeatedly tested on the same material. When he compared the results, Roediger found, “Taking a test on material can have a greater positive effect on future retention of that material than spending an equivalent amount of time restudying the material. ” Remarkably, this remains true “even when performance on the test is far from perfect and no feedback is given on missed information. ”\" If the only way to make a child retain information is taking a standardized test, then why not? Schools are created to help children learn. And if the way to achieve a strong education system is by testing knowledge and encouraging hard work, the tests must stay. psychologists such as the one I have brought up above admit that while students may not enjoy standardized testing in particular, they at the end reach their goal- to be able to remember information they learn in school and to be able to apply it. Contention #2- Allow the comparison of scores of kids from different districts. . http://webcache.googleusercontent.com... \" Public school students in the state of Texas are all required to take the same state standardized tests. This means that a student in Amarillo can be compared to a student in Dallas. Being able to accurately compare data is invaluable and is a major reason that the Common Core State Standards have been adopted. These will allow for a more accurate comparison between states. \"With standardized testing, people can compare the intellectual differences between one another. In order, to know what level we are at, people must assess us based on a comparison to other people our age. Knowing a straight percent is not enough to know whether or not you are on the correct learning track or whether you are perhaps suffering in your learniang skills. Someone may take a test in New York and receive at 85. However, most of the other New Yorkers will receive 100. If you do not know how others are doing at education, you will not know how well you are doing on a larger scale. Contention #3- Proffesionals and parents support stndardized testing. . https://prezi.com... \"Multiple-choice tests, in particular, are graded by machine and therefore are not subject to human subjectivity or bias A 2005 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll found that 60% of public school parents say the emphasis on testing in their local schools is either \"about right\" or that there is \"not enough\" testing. \" . http://standardizedtests.procon.org... \"In a 2009 Scholastic/Gates Foundation survey, 81% of US public school teachers said state-required standardized tests were at least \"somewhat important” as a measure of students’ academic achievement, and 27% said they were \"very important \" or \"absolutely essential. \" 73% of teachers surveyed in a Mar. 2002 Public Agenda study said they \"have not neglected regular teaching duties for test preparation. \"\" Many proffesionals admit that standardized tests are beneficial to child learning. Statistics show it! Parents understand it! Teachers see benefits! The education system is currently reaching its climax because of standardized testing. With this huge support of proffesionals, there will be no reason to stop testing. Contention #4- Standardized testing is a huge, indisposable industry. . http://www.pbs.org... \"The National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy at Boston College compiled data from The Bowker Annual, a compendium of the dollar-volume in test sales each year, and reported that while test sales in 1955 were $7 million (adjusted to 1998 dollars), that figure was $263 million in 1997, an increase of more than 3,000 percent. Today, press reports put the value of the testing market anywhere from $400 million to $700 million. \" Money, another benefit of standardized testing. The test industry earns a lot of money on a yearly basis. This money can be used to make adjustments of out education systems. If we modify and perfect our system of learning, it will be possible to make sure that testing is even more efficient than it is currently. Investments into the future is a solution which will fit everyone. Contention #5- Students consider standardized testing fair and square. . https://prezi.com... \"Public Agenda survey of 1,342 public school students in grades 6-12 found that 71% of students think the number of tests they have to take is \"about right\" and 79% believe test questions are fair. The 2002 edition of the survey found that \"virtually all students say they take the tests seriously and more than half (56 percent) say they take them very seriously. \"\" Before moving on to my final arguments, I would like to clarify one thing. Students dont enjoy these tests. They consider them fair. In fact, the student body should not like testing. They should feel that it is FAIR. However, they should like learning, The enjoying of learning at the feeling that tests are fair are corrolated. Contention #6- Standardized tests raise students confidence. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... \"Confidence: : a feeling or belief that you can do something well or succeed at something : a feeling or belief that someone or something is good or has the ability to succeed at something : the feeling of being certain that something will happen or that something is true\" On the news, you probably see stories about kids commiting suicide because of standardized testing. Those cases however, are extremely rare. What is common, is self esteem causing confidence. People tend to over exaggerate the small examples of bad things happening but tend to ignore positivity. Honestly, confidence is caused by being sure of yourself. That is what testing does. If students worked hard, they will know that they are smart. That is what happens in most of the cases. In addition, stress is caused by many other factors. So should we ban those too? Judges, I am sure that you can see why standardized testing has a positive influence on the education system. Thank you.", "title": "On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States", "pid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.70301818847656}, {"text": "Conclusion SATs damage a student's potential and future. They jump to conclusions at a young age by a single test score, causing them to shove young children into classes that are often too easy, or too hard. Once this cycle begins, the child will either fall terribly behind, or learn at the prescribed pace, no faster, causing them to have a ruined future. The test taking skills that SATs teach students are stressful and not suited for many children, and the oppurtunities for improvement at tests is limited to none. There is no flexibility, despite extenuating circumstances for some, and the stress level often causes poor scores. SAT's do not improve test scores, as numerous examples and studies have proven, and can sometimes even make them worse. They also cause a teacher to teach to the cirriculum poorly - one of the reasons for our failing education system. (Thank you, by the way, Pro). I, too, have the same sources as last time.", "title": "Standardized testing should NOT be banned", "pid": "961ba94a-2019-04-18T15:54:06Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.68284606933594}, {"text": "Standardised testing should not be eliminated, it should be improved and made more difficult. Why you may ask? It's simple, we as a nation are falling behind. Our kids know absolutely nothing. These test you want to eliminate help the school systems know where they need to improve. Nothing good will come from eliminating this from the school. Instead we should be pushing kids to do better and encouraging them to keep learning. Not the opposite. Without the test kids can just do nothing and still pass till they graduate and spend the rest of their life at mcdonalds.", "title": "should standardised testing be eliminated", "pid": "fc1e411a-2019-04-18T17:05:30Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.66998291015625}, {"text": "National testing does not ensure students learn the same, important skills and information. Many essential skills, like the development of confidence, public-speaking skills and innovation cannot be tested. However, the focus on standardized testing encourages teachers to just teach skills and information that will increase test results rather than focus on deeper understanding and life lessons that can be applied in life generally. National testing does not inspire a love of learning. The most important part in education is that students develop a love of learning, so that they seek to learn on their own, outside of school. National testing, however, makes learning such a strict process that it does not inspire such a love of learning, failing the most important test of a good educational system. improve this  ", "title": "National testing will ensure all students learn the same, essential skills and information", "pid": "eb991d36-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00024-000", "bm25_score": 216.6441650390625}, {"text": "You are saying that if we give a 50 page test to student not knowing half the stuff so we know where their at if that was the case a quarter of the class would be held back. That would not help children at all knowing where their at you need to do work with them give them the attention they need then they would probably understand. Giving them a test they don't know what to do would not help them what so ever. By helping them give maybe a little more homework or give a study guide about what their learning so they can review it at home. Do you know 1 in 10 students get held back we can probably make it 1 in 20 if we had no more standardized testing now who is with me!!!", "title": "Standardized testing is a good thing", "pid": "828c220c-2019-04-18T14:36:05Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.629150390625}, {"text": "Yeah - no parents want to see their kids upset. But they do want their kid to succeed more than anything else - and this helps. The test is to measure where in the ciriculum the kids need help - that is t he only way to find out. The teachers cannot help them for a reason - to have an accurate measure on what the child does or does not understand.", "title": "Standardized testing is a good thing", "pid": "828c220c-2019-04-18T14:36:05Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.60948181152344}, {"text": "Positive Aspects of Standardized Testing 1) Standardized testing gives teachers direction to help them conclude what to teach students and when to teach it. The outcome is more efficient instructional time and a simplified way of timeline management. 2) Standardized testing tells parents and the school how well students are faring across the country and locally. This can also indicate how your local area is doing compared against the national landscape. You need standardized testing to see where the problems are. Without the level knowledge that it gives, certain problems won't be recognized and dealt with. 3) Since all students in a school are doing identical tests, standardized tests provide an accurate comparison across groups. Over the years great improvements have been made with regards to test bias, which has led to more accurate assessments and comparisons. 4) Standardized testing permits students' progress to be tracked over the years. When students take the same type of test yearly, which is adjusted for grade level, it is easy to see if a student is improving, degrading, or not changing. This assesses the teacher and the child. 5) It improves the accountability of students and schools and motivates students to learn the material. Knowledge is cumulative, so a student doing poor early can end up behind indefinitely. 6) It costs 50 cents to $5 to score an essay, compared with pennies for each multiple-choice question. According to the new York times. Standardized testing simply makes education more stable, level, cheap, adaptable, and allows for better assessment.", "title": "standardized testing should be eliminated", "pid": "7182eb4d-2019-04-18T19:07:15Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.58277893066406}, {"text": "Abolished means completely eliminate. Standardized testing serves a purpose. For example, it can provide data for educators and students on strengths and weaknesses. Data can be used to make improvements to education standards and set goals. As for high school graduation, a standardize test will make sure that high school graduates will be ready for the work world and/or college.", "title": "Standardized Tests", "pid": "b760073d-2019-04-18T17:08:38Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.5652313232422}, {"text": "Standardized tests result in teachers “teaching the test”", "title": "abolish standardized tests for University Admission", "pid": "259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.54566955566406}, {"text": "In today's bustling society, technology is advancing at an exponential rate. With this rapid growth of technology, students are becoming smarter than ever. For example, not only do students have the luxury of researching things at the click of a button but students also have accessibility to a wealth of information which once would have taken days to find at a library . Because of the ease of researching , school tests and quizzes can no longer be a harbinger in determining the potential success that a student can achieve. Therefore to determine what can be accomplished by a student, a policy of taking standardized testings should be ensconced. Not only will this provide a fair and equal opportunity for all students across the United States of America, but it will also allow job employers and college admissions people to have a relative idea on whether the student would be a 'good' asset to the company. In addition by taking standardized testings, it will allow the college admissions and job employers to quickly asses the students scores and not waste more time than the admission staff has to use. Therefore, establishing standardized testing will not only allow the people to have a quick assessment of the student but it will also reduce possible wasted time on both sides of the party.", "title": "Standardized testing should NOT be banned", "pid": "961ba92b-2019-04-18T15:54:26Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.529541015625}, {"text": "ROUND 2 - COUNTERARGUMENTS: (Rebuttal 1): You cannot bring you personal life into a debate - it is unproffesional and unreliable. Not all kids enjoy school - you need a survey to back up your claim. There are going to be some things in life that you will not like and will have to do and/or get through for your benefit. And the tests are nessisay to see if students are learning, if they understand what they are learning, and if the teachers are doing their jobs.(Rebuttal 2): Homework is not an accurate estimate of a child's academic level. Their hands will hurt doing homework and regular school work as well! We might as well just ban school if you are going to be upset that your hand is hurting. Please use evidence and facts from sites and use statistics to support your claims.I rest my case for now ~ Sara", "title": "Standardized testing is a good thing", "pid": "828c220c-2019-04-18T14:36:05Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.5101318359375}, {"text": "Standardized tests are inherently skewed in favour of high-income students. Tutoring is and industry unto itself and the resulting rise in scores among high income students skews the scale against students whose families cannot afford it. By contrast, even if the money is available, the impact that tutoring can have on a student’s academic performance is limited. A tutor cannot write papers or take tests for them, and nor can they answer questions in class, or participate in sports or other extracurricular activities. As a consequence, eliminating easily tutored standardized tests helps even the playing field between richer and poorer students.", "title": "Standardized Tests are skewed in favour of the wealthy", "pid": "259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 216.50155639648438}, {"text": "First, the rules have stated that you back up your claims with adequate evidence. You have not provided any evidence, so I ask that you provide evidence from now on. Your point one is saying that standardized testing takes away from class time. Standardized testing teaches things in the test, so you are saying that standardized tests teach too much about the tests and too little about the other subjects. This is another way of saying \"teaching to the test.\" According to Marcus Hirn, \"\"Teaching to the test\" can be a good thing because it focuses on essential content and skills, eliminates time-wasting activities that don't produce learning gains, and motivates students to excel. [18] The US Department of Education stated in Nov. 2004 that \"if teachers cover subject matter required by the standards and teach it well, then students will master the material on which they will be tested--and probably much more.\" [19]\" This is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Your second point is saying that standardized testing is stressful. However, according to Jay Rakow, founder of ProCon.org, Testing is not too stressful for students. The US Department of Education stated: \"Although testing may be stressful for some students, testing is a normal and expected way of assessing what students have learned.\" [19] A Nov. 2001 University of Arkansas study found that \"the vast majority of students do not exhibit stress and have positive attitudes towards standardized testing programs.\" Standardized testing is NOT stressful, and the little stress it exhibits is normal and expected in life. Your third point is standardized testing does not affect student's grades. It actually provides the state with how students are DOING WELL. This is effective. Your solution, using students' overall grades, is ineffective. Worksheets and projects are good ways to test students about little categories here and there, but a standardized test is basically a big worksheet covering EVERYTHING. Now, onto my case. Contention 1: Standardized Testing Holds Educators Accountable (Hughes 2015) Their objectivity and ability to measure student learning, standardized tests are useful tools for holding teachers, schools, and districts accountable for success or failure. The tests help education officials pinpoint where something isn't working in a school or district. Contention 2: The alternative to Standardized Testing is Tenure, a proven failure. (Winters 2012) Their potential contribution to improving teacher quality--the single most important school based factor for fostering student learning--far outweighs the upfront cost. The alternatives to standardized testing have proved to fail, therefore standardized testing is the only possible program left. Contention 3: Standardized testing allows us to determine the most effective teaching strategies, and to make them contextually specific. Geir (2007) Several studies have examined the impacts of inquiry science interventions on measured achievement as they scale up to enactment across multiple schools involving thousands of students. In an experiment in 2006, data suggests a cumulative effect of the intervention as students participate over several years. The data describes positive achievement effects from a standards-based curriculum unit enacted in 10 urban middle schools. Contention 4: All effective educators determine instructional approach by adjusting to data revealed by assessment. More data is not bad, provided it's more accurate than no data at all. Aycock (2014) How would we know what kids know without assessments? That\"s the purpose of testing kids \" to figure out what they know and are able to do. Assessments also give us data to inform instruction. If I teach something, but my class still hasn\"t mastered it, then as a teacher I need to examine how I taught it the first time in order to teach it better next time. Likewise, if my class already knows something, I don\"t need to teach it to them; we can move on to other things. Maybe most of my class have mastered a skill, but a handful need more time. Either way, I need data to inform my teaching \" and that data comes from assessments. In sum, testing lets us know what kids know and can do, which helps us teach them better. Contention 5: Standardized Testing evaluates and improves student performance. Hughes (2015) Standardized testing is an indicator of skill. They are excellent objective indicators of student performance. The tests are designed to measure how well students learned the skills important tot meet state standards. Contention 6: Standardized Testing reveals and corrects flaws in students Flanagan (2009) Standardized testing yield quantifiable info results that can be used in screening programs, identifying students in need of further assessment. Standardized test results provide info regarding an examiner's areas of strength and weakness. Standardized tests can be used to assess students' progress over time results from a test administered in a standardized fashion can be empirically verified. This allows for results to be interpreted and ideas about an individual's skills generalized. That is why you should vote Aff.", "title": "Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America", "pid": "ffd7fc64-2019-04-18T13:35:20Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.48074340820312}, {"text": "Once again, con does agree to his plagiarism! He admitted that he put absolutely NO link and I am glad we could not put a period to that branch of the this discussion by agreeing that there has been plagiarism. And now to move onto first counter refutation and then counter- counter refutation. So without any further ado let me begin with counter refutations:To refute my first contention, my opponent stated:\"Although there are students who study and remember information, many teachers will FOCUS on the test, and afterwards, forget about making sure the students remember. This is called teaching to the test. Many students will remember the information ONLY for the test, and not for remembering information in the future. \"However, a. ) my opponent provided absolutely no evidence to show that students forget things right after the test. If you prepare a student to the test, the student will learn the material. Schools don't hand out the tests and go over every problem. They teach the information during the year and perhaps spend a month or so before the tests for preparation. That preparation is usually a summary of what was learned through out the school year. Therefore, even though yes, teachers teach information that will most likely be on the test, they don't just go through the tests. They give students worksheets and extensive practice to prepare for the test and memorize the information to use in the future. To refute my second contention, my opponent stated:\" When you are compared with other students for other districts, doesn't that tear down your confidence, knowing that colleges are looking for smart people and you just aren't the smartest. \"However, people must learn to face the facts. Colleges should know how students do on a scale compared to a larger amount of students. If someone just doesn't do well enough, compared to the nation, its their fault. Nobody is stupid. There are some people who don't work hard enough. In addition, losing, while this may seem illogical may boost confidence. When people loose or do not do as well as they hoped, they look forward to further improvement. And that self confidence and ability not to give up is a skill taught by standardized testing. They refuted my third contention by stating that \"As my entire contention three says, teachers are often hurt by standardized tests, because it forces them to teach something they aren't used to teaching. \"Every teacher is allowed to teach in a different style. It is about what they teach. And the educational guidelines suggest the same thing for every single teacher. At the end, if they want to let teachers teach with completely no restrictions, they are looking to abolish the whole education system which in fact is quite efficient. Its quite clear that the whole education system can not be banned. Teachers must teach information at an appropriate gradient for each class. They refuted my fourth contention by suggesting that \" I have done my own part of research. and have found that standardized testing is actually only a quarter of a percent of the total US education budget. The USA spends more than a billion dollars on Standardized Testing ALONE! \"A quarter of a percent of the budget. And then, they state that it costs 1 billion. But wait? Doesn't that mean that we make a profit? Then, my opponent goes on mentioning that we can spend this money to fight against ISIS. I would love to help stop ISIS. However, I am not apathetic to education and I am sure that the readers are not either. Next thing my opponent will suggest, is the implementation of child labor. I consider it very important to see what students have learned throughout the year and how productive the teachers have been. They refuted my 5th contention by saying:\" Just because a test is \"fair\", does not mean it is \"beneficial\". \"However, when students think its fair, it is implied that they admit that it is correct and that it is helpful. Students consider these questions fair which proves how not harmful these tests are. They refuted my sixth contention by saying that\" Basically, what they are trying to say is that it's okay for a small fraction of students to suicide(STUDENTS! ) because it helps the majority have confidence, which it doesn't necessarily, as I stated in my attack on their case. \"However, all my assertions have been proof of how standardized testing is a benefit and how students and professionals see it as a benefit. The small fraction of students have committed suicide. But lets think for a moment. Why is that number so small? Because the students who end their life because of a test are mentally ill and should have consulted a professional. Now onto counter-counter refutations. They rebuilt their point by saying This changes the curriculum, not allowing students to learn other things, such as fine arts. However, fine arts and other activities will still be in the school curriculum. Teachers blatantly will not spend the whole study day to prepare for tests. Fine arts are a required part of each students program. Math and language arts are everywhere. A large portion of the students will engage in professions which will require these two subjects. Many tests also include social studies and science. In part B, my opponent went on about how students will not be able to afford text books. However, students, rich or poor will find a way to get a text book to study if they want. There are public libraries, many schools give out free textbooks and kids can borrow from their peer. Therefore, standardized testing are about how determined one is, not about money. About disorders, many such kids are not given standardized tests. In Contention 2, Part A, they state how one size does not fit all and that does not work. However, there are guidelines for what a teacher should teach to whatever grade. And the teacher should follow those guidelines. Whenever a student is above his grade in a subject, he is technically in a different grade and takes the appropriate level test. In Contention 2 Part B, they state how schools have different curriculums. However, for the school, there are certain guidelines for what students should know in their grade level. The test matches the guidelines. In fourth grade, the test is what the student learned in 4th grade. The same goes for other tests. In Contention 3 Part A, they completely agree with what I am saying. There are guidelines. They would be here even without the test. The test, based on gradients and levels, is a recap of whether these guideline have been fulfilled or not. In standardized testing, the educational program makes a check on whether educational goals have been fulfilled to the needed extent or not. In Contention 3 Part B, they talk about paradox in my speech. Which is fact, has not happened. We never stated that these activities should be eliminated. After all, only a portion of the school day will be spent on prep and education. If one wants to take these courses, they can. And now to rebuild upon my own points. Contention 1- Taking the tests can make something be remembered by the child. Contention 2- Allow the comparison of scores of kids from different districts. Contention 3- Proffesionals and parents support standardized testing. Contention 4- Standardized testing is a huge, indisposable industry. Contention 5- Students consider standardized testing fair and square. Contention 6- Standardized tests raise students confidence.", "title": "On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States", "pid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.46531677246094}, {"text": "http://www.alternet.org... Using student standardized test scores to evaluate teachers, a trend gaining steam in a growing number of states in recent years as a result of the federal \"Race to the Top\" program, isn\"t about improving education. It is, and always has been, about ranking, sorting, and shaming schools and educators. But, just as controversial testing regimens don\"t accurately capture student learning or progress in the classroom, standardized, homogenized teacher evaluations don\"t capture what teachers do for students. Teaching and learning is hardly a beauty pageant. Educators and kids are more than a set of scores. Still, Americans like information for its own sake; we like to create and consume lists and databases, analyses and reviews, to stare at numbers before we make decisions even if, like Yelp reviews, they\"re as predictive as tea leaves. Though a Virginia parent sued for teacher evaluation and observations to be made available to the public, educators who have been in the classroom know that the information published is little more reliable than that onratemyteacher.com (where, if you look me up, you\"ll discover that I was simultaneously \"the best,\" \"the worst,\" \"real cool,\" and \"hype,\" as both compliment and insult). How does publishing a teacher\"s standardized test results support students and teachers? How does it turn into anything more than an adult-world re-creation of class rank, where we are shamed into competing against each other instead of working together to actually improve? How does it do more for parents than chatting in the parking lot or posting on Facebook groups would do? Evaluations based on testing don\"t show the hours we teachers spend researching, planning, and reflecting on lessons that will never be listed on an evaluation form. The standardized tests on which our evaluations are based often don\"t even align with the curricula we teach. And, instead of being an authentic element of ongoing professional growth and development, classroom observations have become just one more task for overburdened administrators to complete: even the best-intentioned principals often can\"t find the time in their days to get into our classrooms to experience the interactions taking place among our students. When I taught a reading program for 9th graders while still at Kensington CAPA High School in Philadelphia, my students began the year with an average reading level equivalent to a mid-term fourth grader. We created a safe space for learning, and worked hard, together; after a semester, most of my students improved by at least one grade level on reading assessments. The students felt pride in and ownership of their growth; my principal brought guests in to observe the great work that was going on in the program. But on state-mandated standardized tests, my students still scored \"below basic\" because even the two or three years of progress they made in one year meant that they were still reading at levels below what was expected of rising 10th graders. They were labeled failing; as their teacher, I was a failure, too. The tests could not show what was taking place in our classroom. The woman dubbed \"the worst teacher in New York\" taught in just such a classroom, and the truth about her teaching couldn\"t have been further from the picture the \"rankings\" (and then the press) painted of her. The tests and the evaluations that are based on them are unable to accurately portray what happens in classes and schools where students are mobile, speaking different languages, coming and leaving at different times during the school year, where students are already performing far above or below grade level, or where poverty is a factor in students\" readiness for school and the resources available in schools themselves. Just as all children are more than the sum of their test scores, so are their teachers. If you want to understand what\"s going on in your child\"s classroom,there are countless ways for parents and families to learn more and become more engaged in their childrens\" education. If we work together \" if you don\"t listen to advocates who want the public to view teachers as the enemy in the battle to educate children \"sharing notes and communicating about your child (and about the work he or she is doing in my class ), we can help your child succeed in my class and outside it. You\"ll learn far more about me and about your child in my class from talking to me than looking up some unreliable, meaningless standardized test score online. My colleagues and I actually crave feedback and opportunities to grow; we want professional observation and evaluation to be more in depth, intensive and useful. Our unions are leading the charge on this front, researching, developing training and models of effective teacher evaluation. We are constantly seeking better methods of helping our students. There are effective ways to engage with peers and principals to delve deeply into goals and practices in the classroom, and when we invest our time and resources into these best practices, teachers and students benefit. But we must resist the urge to artificially simplify those necessarily complex and time consuming evaluations just to feed the data monster with statistics and test scores. Information is important, but context is everything \" which is something we\"d love to teach your kids, too, if we could only find some time in between test prep sessions.", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States.", "pid": "dc4d2564-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.4410858154297}, {"text": "I disagree. The entire system of standardize education needs to be abolished.", "title": "Standardized Tests", "pid": "b760073d-2019-04-18T17:08:38Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.4365234375}, {"text": "While test prep classes for the SAT and ACT are available, only students who can afford those classes get the opportunity to succeed. By offering test prep classes in public schools, which will cover material on the test that is not learned in schools, as well as get students familiarized with the test format, students from all families-those who can afford test prep and those who can't, will be able to succeed and feel better about important tests such as the SAT, ACT, and AP Tests.", "title": "Standardized Test Prep Classes Should be Offered in Public Schools", "pid": "5db2bfc9-2019-04-18T11:41:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.434326171875}, {"text": "While I do agree with you that stress is not always a bad thing and can lead to results. I must question the practice of putting 8 year old children under such stress or children with disabilities that do not know how to handle themselves when in stressful situations. While I believe many adults have coping mechanisms to handle stress, I do not believe that children have the tools to deal with a stressful situation that they may feel they can not escape. With the emphasis being placed on test scores, teachers do not have time or room in the curriculum to teach those coping skills. I also understand that there needs to be a way to assess students in order to show growth and areas of deficit, however I believe that there is an over reliance on standardized tests. A standardized test is a snapshot of how a student is achieving on a particular day at a particular time. It does not take into account a student's physical or emotional state at the time of testing. In addition, standardized tests do not reflect other areas of growth such as emotional growth. In addition, if the government is requiring this testing, they should be funding schools so that they have the resources needed to administer the tests. In summary, I believe there is an over emphasis on standardized testing and I think schools should use standardized tests as a piece of the puzzle rather than the end all be all way to assess students.", "title": "Standardized testing is hurting our school population and community", "pid": "97409bf1-2019-04-18T14:11:04Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.4318084716797}, {"text": "Standardized Testing is Good Issitt 15 Standardized Testing: An Overview. By: Issitt, Micah L., McMahon, Maureen, Points of View: Standardized Testing, 2015, Points of View Reference Center, 11/20/15 http://web.b.ebscohost.com... A standardized test is one that is given to evaluate the performance of students relative to all other students with the same characteristics, for example, all fourth-grade students or all students taking AP English in high school. In the United States, standardized testing is one of the primary methods used to measure the performance of educational institutions (and often teachers) and to make decisions about the distribution of funding. Standardized tests have been used in American schools since the 1930s to help identify students with special needs Since that time, a series of legislative measures, including the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), has placed increasing importance on the results of standardized tests. In response to those measures, public schools currently administer standardized tests as a prerequisite for receiving federal funding. Proponents argue that standardized testing is the most efficient method of assessing the performance of students and institutions and of maintaining the quality of education. Some critics argue that standardized tests are culturally and socially biased and that educators do not understand the variables that contribute to test scores. In addition, it has been suggested that standardized testing is an ineffective use of federal funding. Though many agree that the testing system is flawed, some believe that the current model can be reformed, while others believe that it is impossible to create a test to accurately measure aptitude across a diverse student population Standardized Test: A type of test given and graded in a uniform manner in an effort to create a universal standard against which the performance of individual students may be measured. Standardized Testing Today NCLB has been criticized by educational organizations who believe that the program represents a misallocation of federal funding. Critics argue that federal funding could be better used to improve pay rates and benefits for teachers, especially since tenure and reappointment are often based on test scores. In addition, some have criticized NCLB for making standardized testing a legal requirement without engaging in a suitable public debate. Under the Obama Administration, NCLB waivers were issued to districts that felt the program was not working for their schools. These waivers exempt school districts from some or all of the federal requirements under NCLB, including standardized testing. Proponents of testing argue that the government has a responsibility to ensure that educational funding is given to schools with the greatest need, and that the government must rely on some testing procedure to ensure that federal funding is being effectively used. In addition, some proponents argue that without standardized testing educators would be unable to identify students with special needs. Several independent research studies have indicated that the process of studying for tests helps students to develop long-term recall, even concerning material that is not included in the actual test. However, recent studies indicate that short-answer and essay tests are more effective than the current, largely multiple-choice testing models in helping students to recall information. In addition, some critics believe that standardized testing teaches students to learn in a way conducive to multiple-choice exams (that there is always one right answer) while encouraging teachers to \"teach to the test\" rather than supporting students' critical-thinking skills. High-stakes federal achievement requirements have also led to several large-scale cheating scandals, including a 2011 revelation that hundreds of Atlanta public school teachers altered standardized tests in order to falsely report student performance improvements. Finally, while standardized tests offer information about a population, they do not provide data that addresses the achievement of specific individuals (Cangliosi, 1990, p. 26).", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States", "pid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.41844177246094}, {"text": "1. Kids in school enjoy school its not their favorite thing in the world but they enjoy school. Then when kids are sitting for half the school day in a desk writing they lose their spark for school some people I know try to avoid the school because of testing. 2. Can't you just gather their over all grades in work in the class instead of putting them through a 3 hour test for two weeks. It makes no sense that their doing this just use their grades from work in class and their homework. No more standardized tests. Kids will get tired and their hands will hurt from typing so much also when will you ever use that in life it is a complete waste of time please no more testing!", "title": "Standardized testing is a good thing", "pid": "828c220c-2019-04-18T14:36:05Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.41375732421875}, {"text": "\"Yes in the USA\" Argument: 1. SAT's give the school systems access to each student's achievement over the years. 2. SAT's are not expensive at all, and only cost 7$ per student. 3. SAT's show how well a teacher is teaching a certain material. 4. SAT's are good to practice because you have to pass them to become such professions as a pilot, lawyer etc. 5. SAT's show what level a student is at. 6. SAT's strengthen test taking skills for young ones. I am looking forward to your rebuttals. Resources: http://standardizedtests.procon.org... http://teaching.about.com... http://www.brighthubeducation.com...", "title": "Standardized testing should NOT be banned", "pid": "961ba94a-2019-04-18T15:54:06Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.3955535888672}, {"text": "Why Publishing a Teacher\"s Standardized Test Results Is a Very Bad Idea Using student standardized test scores to evaluate teachers, a trend gaining steam in a growing number of states in recent years as a result of the federal \"Race to the Top\" program, isn\"t about improving education. It is, and always has been, about ranking, sorting, and shaming schools and educators. But, just as controversial testing regimens don\"t accurately capture student learning or progress in the classroom, standardized, homogenized teacher evaluations don\"t capture what teachers do for students. Teaching and learning is hardly a beauty pageant. Educators and kids are more than a set of scores. Still, Americans like information for its own sake; we like to create and consume lists and databases, analyses and reviews, to stare at numbers before we make decisions even if, like Yelp reviews, they\"re as predictive as tea leaves. Though a Virginia parent sued for teacher evaluation and observations to be made available to the public, educators who have been in the classroom know that the information published is little more reliable than that onratemyteacher.com (where, if you look me up, you\"ll discover that I was simultaneously \"the best,\" \"the worst,\" \"real cool,\" and \"hype,\" as both compliment and insult). How does publishing a teacher\"s standardized test results support students and teachers? How does it turn into anything more than an adult-world re-creation of class rank, where we are shamed into competing against each other instead of working together to actually improve? How does it do more for parents than chatting in the parking lot or posting on Facebook groups would do? Evaluations based on testing don\"t show the hours we teachers spend researching, planning, and reflecting on lessons that will never be listed on an evaluation form. The standardized tests on which our evaluations are based often don\"t even align with the curricula we teach. And, instead of being an authentic element of ongoing professional growth and development, classroom observations have become just one more task for overburdened administrators to complete: even the best-intentioned principals often can\"t find the time in their days to get into our classrooms to experience the interactions taking place among our students. When I taught a reading program for 9th graders while still at Kensington CAPA High School in Philadelphia, my students began the year with an average reading level equivalent to a mid-term fourth grader. We created a safe space for learning, and worked hard, together; after a semester, most of my students improved by at least one grade level on reading assessments. The students felt pride in and ownership of their growth; my principal brought guests in to observe the great work that was going on in the program. But on state-mandated standardized tests, my students still scored \"below basic\" because even the two or three years of progress they made in one year meant that they were still reading at levels below what was expected of rising 10th graders. They were labeled failing; as their teacher, I was a failure, too. The tests could not show what was taking place in our classroom. The woman dubbed \"the worst teacher in New York\" taught in just such a classroom, and the truth about her teaching couldn\"t have been further from the picture the \"rankings\" (and then the press) painted of her. The tests and the evaluations that are based on them are unable to accurately portray what happens in classes and schools where students are mobile, speaking different languages, coming and leaving at different times during the school year, where students are already performing far above or below grade level, or where poverty is a factor in students\" readiness for school and the resources available in schools themselves. Just as all children are more than the sum of their test scores, so are their teachers. If you want to understand what\"s going on in your child\"s classroom,there are countless ways for parents and families to learn more and become more engaged in their childrens\" education. If we work together \" if you don\"t listen to advocates who want the public to view teachers as the enemy in the battle to educate children \"sharing notes and communicating about your child (and about the work he or she is doing in my class ), we can help your child succeed in my class and outside it. You\"ll learn far more about me and about your child in my class from talking to me than looking up some unreliable, meaningless standardized test score online. My colleagues and I actually crave feedback and opportunities to grow; we want professional observation and evaluation to be more in depth, intensive and useful. Our unions are leading the charge on this front, researching, developing training and models of effective teacher evaluation. We are constantly seeking better methods of helping our students. There are effective ways to engage with peers and principals to delve deeply into goals and practices in the classroom, and when we invest our time and resources into these best practices, teachers and students benefit. But we must resist the urge to artificially simplify those necessarily complex and time consuming evaluations just to feed the data monster with statistics and test scores. Information is important, but context is everything \" which is something we\"d love to teach your kids, too, if we could only find some time in between test prep sessions. http://www.alternet.org...", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States.", "pid": "dc4d2564-2019-04-18T13:57:13Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.39553833007812}, {"text": "The increase in standardized testing over the last few years has been harmful to students, staff, and the community at large. Students have been exposed to mandated state testing, district testing, and everyday curricular tests given by the teacher to assess acquisition of skills. According to Cox (2015) \"Increased pressure on students has resulted in more test-taking anxiety. Sleeplessness, loss of self-esteem secondary to poor performance and lifelong mental blocks can be seen in individual children\" (p. 1). Parents are also affected when the children come home from school feeling frustrated or exhausted from days of testing. With the mounting pressure for high performance on these tests, teachers have changed their teaching approach to focus more on test preparation than educating the whole child. Lastly the community has been forced to take on the burden of standardized testing as well. Many schools, especially large inner city schools, have had to totally revamp their technology infrastructure to accommodate the thousands of children that need to be tested each year. Cox, E. (2015, November 16).Author, A. A. (Year, Month Day). Standardized Tests Making our Students Sick?. Us News and World Report. Retrieved from http://health.usnews.com....", "title": "Standardized testing is hurting our school population and community", "pid": "97409bf1-2019-04-18T14:11:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.39378356933594}, {"text": "Seeing that I am Pro, the burden to prove the value of standardized testing is on me. I'll begin with a resolution, defintions, and then arguments.Resolved: Standardized testing is a valuable tool in evaluating a student's proficiency in a specific subject.Defintions:Standardized testing: testing that (1) requires all test takers to answer the same questions, or a selection of questions from common bank of questions, in the same way, and that (2) is scored in a “standard” or consistent manner, which makes it possible to compare the relative performance of individual students or groups of students.Valuable: of considerable use, service, or importance.Tool: anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose.Proficiency: the degree of how well-advanced or competent a person is in any subject.Subject: a branch of knowledge as a course of study.Con argues that STs ought to be eliminated from schools outright. I will argue that a) STs are the best type of test that schools and teachers can use for assesment, andb) Non-STs are unfair and unreliable,and thereby they ought to stay in use.1) Standardized tests are more fair than non-standardized tests.A standardized test is the same for everyone. This means that the \"playing field,\" so to speak, is leveled. Students aren't given advantages by getting a easier test, or vice versa. This is widly different from non-standardized tests, where students are given different tests, some are easier, others are much harder. This means that the grades will not be reflective of the actual level of proficency, because the level of difficulty varies. \"If Teacher A’s students achieve 1.5 years of growth in a single school year, then we need to know what she is doing and share it with others. If Teacher B’s students down the hall only grow 0.75 years, then he probably needs extra coaching and support. The same with a school or a district; those achieving growth should be celebrated, while those not achieving growth should be supported. Either way, we can only determine objective growth data if tests are standardized (1).\"2) Standardized tests are useful tools for teachers.In order for a teacher to teach at his or her best capacity, assesing how well learned his or her students are is critical. \"Assessments also give us data to inform instruction. If I teach something, but my class still hasn’t mastered it, then as a teacher I need to examine how I taught it the first time in order to teach it better next time. Likewise, if my class already knows something, I don’t need to teach it to them; we can move on to other things. Maybe most of my class have mastered a skill, but a handful need more time. Either way, I need data to inform my teaching – and that data comes from assessments (1).\" As shown before, these assesments must be fair and accurate, otherwise they cannot be relied upon by teachers. Standardized tests can be relied upon, as you can compare scores to others to see how well your students are doing. On the other hand, a non-standardized test cannot be used for this purpose. With this in mind, I'll respond to my opponent's points.A) Taking a test is hard.The purpose of a test is not to be \"easy\" or \"simple,\" its purpose is to challenge the student to see how much he or she knows. What kind of a fair assesment would it be if we knew everyone would get every answer right because all the questions were so easy that they wouldn't even need to study for it?Also, this point does not apply to only standardized tests. It applies to any type of test. Con is not topical in showing the problems with standardized tests, he is showing a \"problem\" with tests in general (that they are difficult).B) There should be exceptions for students that feel pressured by having a timed test.Everyone feels pressure when they are timed. I feel pressure when I'm timed, but in order to assure standards, one must accept that we ought to be given the same amount of time to complete the test to make it fair. See above for an explanation on this topic.C) Standardized tests play a role in funding for schools.Yes, yes they do. I'd assume that you are referencing federal funding. In this case, I respond that federal funding only accounts for about 9% of school funds (2). If you are meaning different funding types, please specify.D) There are other ways that you would be able to decide (what classes you want to take).Standardized tests don't influence your class choices. They assess how much you know in a certain subject that you are already taking. I'm unaware of what makes you think that this decides your class scedule. Where did you get this information?That concludes all of Con's unsupported arguments. I'd ask that Con answer two things:a) Are standardized tests the best possible assesment tool for teachers?b) Are standardized tests more fair than subjective ones?I await Con.Sources:(1) http://tnscore.org...(2) http://www.aft.org...", "title": "standardized testing", "pid": "215c5d68-2019-04-18T13:01:38Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.38487243652344}, {"text": "I will begin by refuting my opponent's claims, and then I will move on and create my own arguments supporting the elimination of standardized testing. ======== REBUTTALS ======== \"1) Standardized testing gives teachers direction to help them conclude what to teach students and when to teach it.\" All schools have curricula that is already predetermined by the nature of the course which they are teaching. Standardized testing is not needed to give these teachers a direction. If anything, standardized testing negatively impacts education in this way, since it results in what as known as \"teaching to the test\" where teachers do not care about truly educating the students, rather, they want to see positive results when it comes to test day. For a dramatic example of teaching to the test, we have to look no further than a teacher in Texas whose school, in some classrooms, stopped teaching social studies and the sciences completely since these were not on the state test [1]. Is this the education that these children deserve? \"2) Standardized testing tells parents and the school how well students are faring across the country and locally.\" Standardized tests are extremely inaccurate at gauging the capabilities of students, and thus cannot be used in this way. This is because it is impossible to create a test that is fair to all students, and thus it creates an inaccurate representation of both those that benefit and are hurt by this inherent bias. These standardized tests also cannot account for other factors critical to learning such as motivation that are key to success. \"3) Since all students in a school are doing identical tests, standardized tests provide an accurate comparison across groups.\" Much standardized testing, unfortunately, leads to cheating due to a pressure to obtain high standardized test scores by the students or teachers [2]. Also, to attempt to alleviate this cheating, many standardized tests have created multiple forms so that it becomes much more difficult for teachers to cheat and nigh on impossible for students. However, these again have the inaccuracies that inherently result from differences in the tests. \"4) Standardized testing permits students' progress to be tracked over the years.\" The performance of students on any given day should obviously not be used to establish whether or not they have made progress throughout the entire year. \"5) It improves the accountability of students and schools and motivates students to learn the material.\" While it may motivate students to memorize answers that will likely show up on the test, if anything, it discourages students from learning a wider range of material as sourced above, since the rest of their knowledge will not determine their results on the standardized tests. \"6) It costs 50 cents to $5 to score an essay, compared with pennies for each multiple-choice question.\" Is this an assumption that standardized tests only consist of multiple-choice questions? Many, like the SAT and PSSA do not, but under the assumption that they do, this only further encourages students to memorize concepts without learning the material. This is why many very important tests like AP Exams include free-response portions, because they are one of the most effective ways in analyzing the true knowledge of a student, as far as tests are concerned, which vastly outweighs the cost issues (which have not been shown by my opponent to be vast). =========== CONSTRUCTIVE =========== I propose that standardized tests be abolished in favor of what is known as the portfolio method. This method essentially consists of creating a file for each student and placing assignments and works of students frequently in this file. There are many benefits of this system [3]. 1) It is cheap. The amount of money that it costs to purchase some filing cabinets and folders for portfolios is minimal, and it can even be put online to further save money. 2) It is much more accurate. Instead of measuring student performance on a single day, and expecting this to account for the student's progress throughout the entire year, performance is measured constantly, which reduces stress and is inherently more accurate. 3) It encourages teaching a wider curriculum. With results based on a variety of tests and assignments given throughout the course, teachers focus on teaching the material on a chapter-by-chapter basis, instead of spending the entire course looking ahead to the standardized tests. This ensures that everything that needs to be taught for a complete understanding of the subject is taught. Since the portfolio method is much more beneficial than standardized testing, I therefore affirm that standardized testing should be eliminated. Sources: [1] http://www.www2.districtadministration.com... [2] http://www.cbsnews.com... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I look forward to my opponent's response and hope that this will be an enjoyable debate.", "title": "standardized testing should be eliminated", "pid": "7182eb4d-2019-04-18T19:07:15Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.37969970703125}, {"text": "National, standardized tests are a poor measure of student learning", "title": "end national testing", "pid": "eb991d36-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.31529235839844}, {"text": "By accepting this match, you agree to follow the process below: Round 1: Present Debate Cases Round 2: Recognize and attach opponent's arguments Round 3: Defend your case Round 4: Voters(Why you win) My partner and I negate today\"s resolution and stand resolved, On balance, standardized testing is NOT beneficial to K-12 education in the United States. Obs 1: Even though the SAT and ACT are considered \"Standardized Tests\", not all students take them, so the Con will ignore any arguments made about them. Obs 2: If the Con can prove that there are more harms than benefits, it should be enough for the Con to win. Contention 1: Standardized Testing results in incomplete education A: Standardized testing alters school curriculum to the detriment of a well-rounded education Lisa Adams, Research Associate, Joseph Pedulla, Professor at Boston College, George Madaus, Professor at Boston College, 2003, Theory into practice, 42.1, p. 18-29 Quote \"Much of the research on state testing programs addresses their effects on what is taught. A common finding is that teachers report giving greater attention to tested content areas. For example, of the Virginia survey by Myran & Workman(1999), more than 80% indicated that the state Standards of Learning (SOL) test had impacted their instruction, particularly with regard to the content focus of daily lessons. \" B: Low-income and minority students are hurt the most by the emphasis on standardized test scores. \"How Standardized Testing Damages Education (Updated July 2012). \" FairTest. The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, 28 Aug. 2007. Web. 03 Nov. 2015. <. http://fairtest.org...;. Quote\"Students from low-income and minority-group backgrounds, English language learners, and students with disabilities, are more likely to be denied diplomas, retained in grade, placed in a lower track, or unnecessarily put in education programs. This ensures they will fall further and further behind their peers. Many drop out, some ending up in the \"school-to-prison pipeline. \" On the other hand, children from white, middle and upper income backgrounds are more likely to be placed in \"gifted and talented\" or college preparatory programs where they are challenged to read, explore, investigate, think and progress rapidly. \"-Champ Briefs Pg. 147 MPK: Standardized testing can harm the well-rounded education curriculum teachers have been teaching. Standardized testing also hurts low-income and minority-group backgrounds and discriminates against them, creating even greater achievement gaps. Contention 2: Because of the limitations of standardized testing, it makes a poor measurement of actual learning. A: One size fits all just doesn\"t work W. James Popham, Emeritus Professor in the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Los Angeles. Why Standardized Tests Don't Measure Educational Quality. March 1999 | Volume 56 | Number 6 Using Standards and Assessments Pages 8-15. . http://www.ascd.org...'t-Measure-Educational-Quality.aspx Quote\"At a very general level, the goals that educators pursue in different settings are reasonably similar. For instance, you can be sure that all schools will give attention to language arts, mathematics, and so on. But that's at a general level. At the level where it really makes a difference to instruction, in the classroom, there are significant differences in the educational objectives being sought. And that presents a problem to those who must sell standardized achievement tests. \" B. Tests do not cover what is actually taught. James Popham continues. Quote\"To illustrate the seriousness of the mismatch that can occur between what's taught locally and what's tested through standardized achievement tests, educators ought to know about an important study at Michigan State University reported in 1983 by Freeman. They concluded that between 50 and 80 percent of what was measured on the tests was not suitably addressed in the textbooks. The proportion of topics presented on a standardized test that received more than cursory treatment in each textbook was never higher than 50 percent. \" MPK: Standardized testing does not cover much of what is taught by teachers, and are too limited. Therefore, such tests cannot accurately measure actual learning by students Contention 3: Standardized testing hurts teachers A:Teachers lose control of the curriculum. Segall, Avner. [Professor at Michigan State University]. \"Teachers\" Perceptions of the Impact of State-Mandated Standardized Testing: The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) as a Case Study of Consequences. \" Theory & Research in Social Education. 2003. Web. Accessed November 4, 2015. Quote \"Exploring the relationship between teachers and standardized testing, and using the Michigan Evaluation Assessment Program (MEAP) and the discourses surrounding it as a case study of consequences, this study both combines findings from previous studies on teachers and testing and adds to them. Like McNeil\"s (2000) study, it points out how standardized testing is not simply an evaluator of a curriculum but its creator. \" B: Teachers lose control of both content and scope \"How Standardized Tests Shape--and Limit--Student Learning. \" National Council of Teachers of English. James R. Squire Office of Policy Research. 2014. Web. Accessed 8 November 2015. . http://www.ncte.org...- nov2014/CC0242PolicyStandardized. pdf Quote\"Standardized tests narrow the entire curriculum in many schools, often squeezing out subjects such as music, art, foreign languages, and, especially in elementary grades, social studies, because they are not included in tests. For ELA teachers, these tests also lead to subject-specific narrowing. ELA teachers are required to focus their instruction on the literacy skills measured on standardized tests. Since reading is more prominent than writing in most tests, teachers spend more time on reading rather than writing, usually focusing on comprehension, not higher-order critical reading skills. \" MPK: Standardized testing forces teachers to teach to a test instead of being allowed to facilitate learning in their preferred ways. This leads to teachers feeling inadequate and struggling to teach a curriculum they didn\"t create. Conclusion: As my partner and I have proven, standardized testing is NOT beneficial to K-12 education. Standardized testing hurts minorities and low income students, and it does not cover what is taught, which causes teaching to the test.", "title": "On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States", "pid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.29847717285156}, {"text": "A student’s academic record tends to measure very different things from what a standardized test does. GPA tends to be based on repetitive assignments such as homework, and in many cases students receive at least some academic credit for simply attending class. By contrast, standardized tests reward ability, by seeing whether or not at the end of the process students actually learned the material in question.  Performance under pressure is an important skill to measure, especially for top institutions, while sifting through the differing standards for what goes into the grades in different school districts is simply not possible.", "title": "Standardized tests are arbitrary", "pid": "259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.2850799560547}, {"text": "== Clarification ==The resolution states, \"On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States.\"Let me clarify each of the terms. \"On balance\" means taking everything into consideration. In such a debate, all harms and benefits are weighed against each other to decide who wins. \"Standardized testing\" is a form of testing implemented at K-12 education in the United States, where the tests at the K-12 level are the same for all public schools. \"Beneficial\" means posing a net benefit.The burdens are shared. There's no burden of proof in this debate, only a burden of persuasion, due to the usage of \"on balance\" and \"beneficial,\" both of which make it a debate of opinions rather than a fact-claim.== Rebuttal ==Pro's case is contradictory. The position of Pro is intended to argue for the resolution. Instead, Pro argues that standardized testing is bad. He's arguing from the wrong side. Pro is arguing that different students require different forms of education, and standardized testing actually fails in doing that. Pro's own source notes that standardized testing is ineffective in doing so. Vote Con right there. Pro's argument is contradictory to itself, and fails to affirm the resolution. Regardless, I'll presume I'm taking the position of Pro and address my opponent's harms:Pro's first harm is that children learn in different ways. But Pro's source, and argument, only address primary school children, which is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution specifically regards K-12 education, and primary grade students don't link to the resolution. Furthermore, I agree that primary school children learn in different ways - but by K-12, they've all learned and prepared for this. The same set of educational portion would exist anyway, regardless of whether standardized testing exists. As such, the first harm doesn't apply.Pro says standardized testing has been linked to an \"overemphasis\" on vocational education. I have two responses: (1) overemphasis is subjective, and there's no objective reason to believe \"critical thinking in mathematics\" is more important than vocational education, and so forth and (2) I don't need to defend the status quo; as long as I can show some form of standardized testing is or would pose a net benefit, I affirm (therefore, you vote Con). This argument is also a bare assertion due to lack of sources. C1) Benefits to studentsPro concedes that testing -- in some form -- is beneficial. Testing allows parents and students to assess themselves. Such an assessment results in increase in total education for the student, and allows parents to stress on further improvement. Herbert J. Walberg (2011) says, “Students benefit directly when they take tests that offer information on how well they have mastered the material intended for learning. School reading and mathematics skills, for example, can be precisely specified, and as students learn the skills, they benefit from ongoing information tailored to their specific, individual progress. Computers streamline this process by providing immediate feedback about correct and incorrect responses far more quickly and with much greater patience than teachers and tutors can provide.” [1]On balance, standardized testing is a helpful form of testing to the student. John Bishop of Cornell University found that standardized testing poses huge educational value to the student. He found that countries requiring students to take nationally standardized tests showed higher test scores on international tests than those who took school-based tests. In another study, he found that US students who anticipated having to pass a standardized test learned more science and math, and were more likely to complete homework and talk with their parents about school work. [2, 3] C2) Teachers see benefit in standardized testsIt's largely agreed that standardized testing benefits teachers as well. According to Laura S. Hamilton and Brian Stecher, “[S]tandardized tests can do many things: tell policymakers and families how well students are doing overall; play a role in state and district accountability systems; contribute to teacher evaluations; and inform decision-making about student course placement. Some tests are used in other ways that include teachers adapting day-to-day instruction to meet individual student needs based on each student's test results.” [4] Teachers generally see standardized tests and associated accountability systems as beneficial. Teachers, therefore, do understand and perceive benefits. For all the above reasons, vote Con. [1] http://www.hoover.org...[2] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...[3] http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu...[4] http://www.usnews.com...", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the U.S", "pid": "e4d12b1a-2019-04-18T13:55:40Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.27549743652344}, {"text": "I am arguing that we do need standardized testing, so my opponent has to argue for the CON side.", "title": "Standardized testing should remain in our schools.", "pid": "8703c5ca-2019-04-18T16:10:43Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.25340270996094}, {"text": "The purpose of education has evolved over time. However, no where in the discussion does standardized testing seem to promote the goals of education. \"The one continuing purpose of education, since ancient times, has been to bring people to as full a realization as possible of what it is to be a human being. Other statements of educational purpose have also been widely accepted: to develop the intellect, to serve social needs, to contribute to the economy, to create an effective work force, to prepare students for a job or career, to promote a particular social or political system. These purposes offered are undesirably limited in scope, and in some instances they conflict with the broad purpose I have indicated; they imply a distorted human existence. The broader humanistic purpose includes all of them, and goes beyond them, for it seeks to encompass all the dimensions of human experience. \"Arthur W. Foshay, The Curriculum Matrix: Transcendence and Mathematics,\" Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1991 \"[The purpose of education] has changed from that of producing a literate society to that of producing a learning society.\" \"Margaret Ammons, Associate Secretary of ASCD, Purpose and Program: How Does Commitment Today Differ from That in Other Periods, Educational Leadership, October 1964 \"The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the man gifted with reason but no morals. We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character\"that is the goal of true education.\" \"Martin Luther King Jr., speech at Morehouse College, 1948 (http://www.ascd.org...) It seems that the only ad coming off the pro is a uniform system of testing. In no way can we establish any sort of syllogism that connotes that uniformity leads to and increase in critical and moral thinking. For that reason we must reject the advocacy for tests and the notion that standardized testing is beneficial in the United States. On record, Standardized tests promote racial bias and promote conformity rather than ingenuity. Conformity stifles the ability for society to learn what it means to be a collective human race. Standardized tests undermine the purpose of our educational system and must be rejected.", "title": "Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States", "pid": "ab3b5048-2019-04-18T14:01:05Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.25283813476562}, {"text": "SHENANIGANS!IT HAS BEEN PROVEN BY PSEUDO-SCIENCES THAT STANDARDIZED TESTS LET YOU LIVE LONGER AND HEALTHIER AND REDUCE STRESS! MY FRIEND'S, NEIGHBOR'S, COUSIN'S, DOG LIVED 100 YEARS BECAUSE HIS OWNER TOOK STANDARDIZED TESTS. THUS, IT IS CONCLUSIVE, YOU NEED STANDARDIZED TESTS OR YOU WILL DIE YOUNG. GOOD LUCK BEATING THAT KIND OF LOGIC, CON!", "title": "Standardized Testing...the person with the dumbest/craziest points wins", "pid": "be50aaf1-2019-04-18T13:34:22Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.24085998535156}, {"text": "either way. standardized tests do not really go as for college as SATs do. Colleges don't really worry about them. S.T. also takes away time from the curriculum that the teachers are supposed to teach, and therefore should be eliminated.", "title": "should standardised testing be eliminated", "pid": "fc1e411a-2019-04-18T17:05:30Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.22215270996094}, {"text": "Thank you.", "title": "standardized testing should be eliminated", "pid": "7182eb4d-2019-04-18T19:07:15Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.21026611328125}, {"text": "First of all if you mean inconsistent in terms of a huge difference in results you are entirely wrong. Again, it will make no sense in the world for you to have major differentials between tests of the same subject. 1. Bruce Whitehead, author of \"Using standardized test results as an instructional guide\", states in his academic journal \"One school was able to use standardized test scores to improve its curriculum as well as its educational policies.\" Extremely beneficial for schools and teachers are these tests. They provide a understanding of where a student stands. To my opponent, Tests are constantly worked upon to achieve perfection. Students themselves learn their weaknesses from examinations and use exams as a way to improve their academic standards. 2. My opponent does not seem to understand where im going with the educated guess respone. What I am saying is that students who do guess on tests do not do it for every single question and pass. Behind every guess is some strategy and something from a lesson must seem familiar to the student to choose his or her answer. Having to go to summer school as my opponent says, is not a curse. If you have to go to summer school is because you do not fully understand the material and your friend who made his guess and got it right most likely had some understanding of the question. Your friend had to have some background knowgledge of the material for him to even get close to passing the examination. 3. Teachers throughout the course of the year give students information as to what would be on standardized examinations and what to look out for. To those students who still feel pressure at the time of the test, I don't know what to say but we cannot just stop the tradtion and excellence of standardized testing for a handful of students who most of the time get through pressure with some counseling and help. I am happy you agree that it's silly. 4. Scores could with no doubt be used to improve teaching in the class rooms. The overall results of the class determine where they stand in general. Individually, students can be placed in classes with students who are also having a defiency in some aspect of the curriculum. Standardized testing proves to be efficient, not perfect of course, but a way to help students improve their academic value. Thanks to my opponent for this interesting debate. Vote for PRO!!! Good Luck 4.", "title": "Resolved: Standardized test scores accurately reflect the academic value of students.", "pid": "952e7fd8-2019-04-18T18:59:54Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.20249938964844}, {"text": "I do agree that in large quantities, stress can indeed seem overwhelming to children who do not necessarily have the coping mechanism and mental maturity to deal with such stress. It is important to note that however, children are not completely independent like adults and have others to turn to in event of too much stress such as teachers, peers, parents, or even the school counsellor. Children with disabilities are often given greater berth in standardised tests and they are often provided with extra time, extra resources, to help them cope with their disadvantages. Stress from standardised testing helps to push children to be the best they can be, creating an air of competitiveness in education which will ultimately provide incentive to children to excel academically. It is also vital to be aware that standardised testing does not always place an inherent focus on test scores. Some standardised tests are not always weighted or graded, and not all systems place emphasis on test scores purely. Holistic education is key to providing children with a healthy, well-rounded and quality education. I also understand that standardised testing only shows the progress of students at a certain point in time, which is why it is important in the application of standardised testing that students are testing at regular periods of time throughout their education career. For example, quarterly, bi-annually, termly, etc. This will help to reflect growth of students in terms of academic competence. Contrary to belief, such standardised testing can be tailored to show the maturity of students, mental, emotional development by incorporating questions require a more development or mature view point such as questions for opinion, debate, or discussion, which will help to depict the emotional growth of a student. I do agree also that governments should increase funding for standardised testing as this will prove to be ultimately beneficial in setting up new education policies, to drive the education sector to a whole new level. In summary, I believe standardised testing is an immensely invaluable tool and that it should be implemented regularly at regular interval time periods and throughout the education levels, to provide optimal results, and I think this will prove to be a catalyst in the growth of education.", "title": "Standardized testing is hurting our school population and community", "pid": "97409bf1-2019-04-18T14:11:04Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.19383239746094}, {"text": "I will be con for this debate of Resolved: Standardized Testing should be removed from states' curriculum. I will agree to the definitions that my opponent has put on this debate. My first contention is that it sets a good guideline for teachers to teach since it is loose enough to get off track. Most of the guild lines the state has states that the student has to master this keeps teachers less stressful for that they can teach anything anyway they want. An example would be if a history teacher is going over World War II he could bring in a map that is boarded and bring the Risk and Battleship pieces to show how the troops were moved and how they were used in strategy.", "title": "Resolved: Standardized Testing should be removed from states' curriculum.", "pid": "4ab880b6-2019-04-18T18:55:30Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.1715850830078}, {"text": "Arguments Extended. Glad we were able to have this debate!", "title": "should Standardized tests be eliminated? logical answers", "pid": "9168d27e-2019-04-18T15:43:14Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.1306610107422}, {"text": "My opponent has plagiarized from . http://webcache.googleusercontent.com... If one doesn't site the link, it is still considered PLAGIARISM. Now onto through refutations of my opponents points:The counter repudiations will be in round 3. I would now like to begin: Contention #1- Standardized Testing results in incomplete educationPart A- Standardized testing alters school curriculum to the detriment of a well-rounded education. The talked a lot about how teachers only prepare students for the tests therefore stopping a well rounded education. As I understood this point, teachers don't teach students everything, they prepare students for the test. However, on the contrary, standardized tests ensure a well rounded, balanced education. What is on the test is what the student needs to know which once again leads to a well rounded education. . http://www.educationreport.org... Consider a test of reading comprehension. Teachers may prepare their students by working on sample problems. Teachers may spend time instructing students on how to identify a passage’s main idea. They may also show them how to use context clues to figure out unknown words. Further, teachers may show students how to identify supporting evidence or conclusion sentences. These critical reading skills are precisely what teachers should be teaching anyway; in this light, teaching to the test may not be such a bad thing after all. Another criticism of teaching to the test is that other untested subjects do not receive as much attention. Rather than spending extra time at recess or in music or art, students practice for reading, math, science or social studies tests. Again, is this a bad thing? Students need a balanced curriculum, but the best thing we can do is to ensure that they are developing the cognitive abilities and skills that will prepare them for success in the workforce or higher education. Part B- Standardized testing mostly hurt minorities and the poor. However, I once again dont see the link. Studying is not about your skin color or your financial class. It is about hard work and dedication. If the poor work really hard to get a 300 on their NJAsk, theu can do it. If they dont, they will blatantly fail. The same goes for anyone in the upper class. If someone from the upper class works hard, they will get a scholarship and success. If they decide to waste their life while being a student, they will also receive the school to prison pipeline. Its not about heritage, its about dedication. Now onto a quick note about the disabled and language learners. Such people are given the easier gradient of the test or if the gradient stays the same, the expectation falls giving them the same chance for success. Contention #2- Because of the limitations of standardized testing, it makes a poor measurement of actual learning. Part A- One size does not fit all. My opponent went on about how the educators try to fit for the test. However, my opponents assertion and his evidence are completely irrelevant. And yet, I will attempt a thorough refuation. The one fit all approach and teachers trying to fit the tests is beneficial. What is on the test is what teachers should teach. For instance, on the third grade NJASk or PARK Test, students would be asked to measure angles and perhaps to multiply 5 digit numbers. Without the test, would the teacher be teaching the student 2+2? No. The hypotenuse? No. Teachers would be going over 5 digit number multiplication and measuring angles. About the one size fits all approach. .. Students who are on the same grade level are expected to know the same thing and the one size fits all in this case is a strong benefit of the education system. Part B- Tests do not cover material that is actually taught. However, tests cover what is taught. The teachers spend a lot of time preparing students to take the test. Educators give out practice tests to give students a feel about what the tests are about. If afterall what is on a standardized test is not knows by the student, then there is probably a problem. The teacher probably does not teach what is needed. Standardized tests have material that the student NEEDS to know. If they dont know it, school curriculum needs to be changed. Contention #3- Standardized testing hurts teachers. Part A- Teachers loose control of the curriculum. However, as I have mentioned numerous times, the teachers decide what they teach students and so does the education system. Of course, there are certain basics. These basics are tested just to make sure that the teachers are doing what they need. Standardized tests breifly go over what was studied throughout the year. If a teacher taught the required curriculum, whats the worry? None. Teachers dont loose any control over curriculum. WHAT THE TEACHERS TEACH IS ON THE TEST. Standardized tests are based on what teachers are expected to teach by the program. Tests dont provide the curriculum. The tests rely on the teachers and education program. In simple language, what the teacher SHOULD teach is in the test. If the teacher is teaching grade appropriate information, there will be no detriment to teachers. What the pro stated was that standardized testing directs the curriculum. However, the standardized testing is what teachers need to teach nevertheless. Part B- Teachers loose control of content and scope. They talked about how activities such as art will be squeezed out of the program. However, that is absolutely untrue. Activities such as art are required for the student program. The whole day is not spent on language arts and math. There is a schedule for every singl homeroom.", "title": "On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States", "pid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.12989807128906}, {"text": "You have still not acnowleged the fact that someone pointing out the pattern for you doesn't mean that you understand the concept, they STILL HAVE TO LEARN THE CONCEPT. It is like saying that someone who knows the mechanics of a gun inside and out is a better shot than me simply because they know how the gun works. This isnt true, you dont have to know the patterns, you only have to know the concepts, so even if you do point out all the patterns to a wealthy student that doesn't mean that he understands the concepts, but if you teach him the concepts, he can do the problem no matter where it comes up, pattern or not. I believe that by taking ENOUGH tests, (not by stoping after ten or fifteen tests), but by taking enough practice tests that they know the processes to solve the problems, a poor person can learn concepts just as well as any rich person who knows where the concepts show up.", "title": "Standardized Tests Such As The SAT Are Socioeconomically Biased", "pid": "d261fa94-2019-04-18T20:02:44Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.11300659179688}, {"text": "Once again, extremely valid arguments. However, I would believe that things would run similar to the ACT and SAT. When applying to colleges, most (if not all) look only at the highest score achieved over all test dates. This being the case, they would only look at the highest score on each section, which would be passing, even if it took several test dates. Also, the HSPA is used to \"measure whether [the students] have gained the knowledge and skills identified in the Core Curriculum Content Standards.\" These scores and results are also used \"to determine the appropriateness and strength of the local curriculum and to develop remedial programs to help students improve their knowledge and skills.\" With this knowledge, these tests are truly administered for the benefit of the students, not for acceptance decisions of colleges. Furthermore, these tests do in fact reflect situations in a post-collegiate setting. In many professions, especially those that require a higher education, there are periods of time that come with time restraints and in turn plenty of stress. One must learn to adapt to these stresses, and while a single test may not be entirely reflective of this, it does provide a certain aspect of urgency and demonstrates one's ability to perform under pressure. Sources: Same as previous round", "title": "should Standardized tests be eliminated? logical answers", "pid": "9168d27e-2019-04-18T15:43:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.1033935546875}, {"text": "I believe that standardized testing should be taken out of schools. Some kids have a hard time with testing and I think this is unfair because they try hard to study but they just cant get it and everything. They could be really good with in class work and homework and stuff but have a hard time testing on it. The tests that are timed have a a lot of pressure on someone who is bad at testing they feel pressured to going fast and rushing which may cause them to lose some points on there test. If they were gonna keep the testing in the schools let kids if they qualify for it to have more time on these tests and make sure that they do better. To qualify for extra time you gotta prove that you have a problem with the testing like that and need more time. Also I think that the reason they keep the standardized testing around is to get moneys for the schools. I know to that they can use them to decide what classes you can take or what schools you can get into. There are other ways that you would be able to decide that. That's why I think they should take it out of the schools.", "title": "standardized testing", "pid": "215c5d68-2019-04-18T13:01:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.07411193847656}, {"text": "NO! I don't know where you went or go to school, but school's do not make the effort to appease ALL of their students. They only make the effort to appease their stupid students because they are the one's that will drop standardized test scores and make them look bad. In my elementary school, middle school, and even about half of my high school, upper level students never got any benefits other than a rare gifted class. Even then, that would just be one class per day. In all the other classes, I always had to deal with the stupid kids asking questions and the teachers being forced to answer them all the while holding me back. It is not, \"No child left behind\". It is \"No child gets ahead\". In conclusion, I support the abolition of standards because it forces people be held back who does not need to be.", "title": "Standardized Tests", "pid": "b760073d-2019-04-18T17:08:38Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.0539093017578}, {"text": "Considering History fails to be on the majority of Standardized Testing, I find the point irrelevant. When it does show, it is nothing compared to the Math and English segments of the tests. For example, the Duke Program only pays attention to the Math and English portion in talent searches. For example, with Standardized Testing, The Duke Program searches for students in the upper percentiles. Now, even if it does offer some leniency, you did not debate against any of my points except that of leniency, which at the moment has me over you. I have already debated against your other point, and now I leave the debate back to you.", "title": "Resolved: Standardized Testing should be removed from states' curriculum.", "pid": "4ab880b6-2019-04-18T18:55:30Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.0298614501953}, {"text": "The Blair/Brown government is obsessed with targets, though their effectiveness seems marginal to say the least. The national curriculum does not effectively measure achievement in either students or teachers. Especially under a national curriculum that uses merit based pay. Using standardized tests encourages \"teaching to the test\" (teachers giving only the information that is required to pass the test). Now all our students are do is MEMORIZE and REGURGITATE information... as opposed to actually UNDERSTANDING the material (so as to be able to apply what they have learned). Overall standardized tests are ineffective at providing the information you argue that our policy makers need, because the results are often artificial.", "title": "The National Curriculum provides reference points of achievement for parents and government.", "pid": "9e069680-2019-04-19T12:45:55Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 216.017333984375}, {"text": "Yes, in this debate I do mean US schools. Great job so far, your a awesome debater! Okay continuing on, you said, \"it creates stress in students.\" I'm not going to lie, it does stress you out, I am still speaking at a students point of view. But most students don't get themselves so nervous that they get sick or have a panic attack. The reason for that is because they know that it does not count as a grade. And this kind of serious test taking can prepare them for later in life. Moving on, like you said, \"teachers teach to the test,\" you are also correct. Teachers also know, walking into their job, that they will have to have that pressure on them at some point. It's just a part of the job. Standardized testing also sees where more materials need to be taught. For example, let's say that you are in middle school, and your math teacher never taught your class pre-algebra. Then your class gets the test and does not understand it. The school systems are able to openly view where they need to teach more of.", "title": "Standardized testing should remain in our schools.", "pid": "8703c5ca-2019-04-18T16:10:43Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.01348876953125}, {"text": "I believe that standardized testing should be eliminated. They are not even a way for one to show their intellect.", "title": "should standardised testing be eliminated", "pid": "fc1e411a-2019-04-18T17:05:30Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.01345825195312}, {"text": "Standardize testing SHOULD be eliminated. I am a Junior in a NJ high school, I'm not sure about other states, but here we take the HESPA and if you do not pass the HESPA you do not pass high school. Which I think is ridiculous because for someone like me who is smart but is bad at taking tests is not fair. Also because they are changing the HESPA to something a lot harder called the PARKK, which will be really hard to pass. And I think it's ridiculous for someone like me who gets great grades to fail high school all because I am bad at taking tests, or for someone who is bad at memorizing things. Also I don't think one test should decide our fate in society. It's like saying OK I failed the test now I can't be a doctor because I don't know how to graph inequalitys!! Please share your thoughts, logical thoughts", "title": "should Standardized tests be eliminated? logical answers", "pid": "9168d27e-2019-04-18T15:43:14Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.00608825683594}, {"text": "I will be pro for this argument, the argument being Resolved: Standardized Testing should be removed from states' curriculum. I will start by giving a few definitions, them being: A standardized test is a test that is administered and scored in a consistent, or \"standard\", manner. Standardized tests are designed in such a way that the questions, conditions for administering, scoring procedures, and interpretations are consistent and are administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner. State: A state as being part of the United States. Curriculum: course of study: an integrated course of academic studies Now, my first point will be on the actual definition of Standardized Test. Under many situations, it sounds like a good thing; it gives students equality when taking tests. However, this is not necessarily good. Just as with No Child Left Behind, no matter how good it looks on paper, you don't know how it will actually be once performed in real life. Whereas, many students who perform exceptionally well cannot advance further, and many slow learners may never advance at all. The example I shall use is the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program, otherwise known as TCAP. Because of TCAP, teachers have to teach certain things in a certain amount of time. Students have to take in this information, and are limited to what they can learn. What standardized testing sets out to do isn't necessarily bad, in fact, in many cases, it lays out a great curriculum. However, this does not account for those that are bad at taking tests, and those that are simply great testers. It is not under any circumstances at testing what a student has learned. Not only that, but your scores on these tests plans out the rest of a student's middle school and high school career. Low TCAP scores but high grades will still keep you from ever doing any form of Honors class. Currently, there is in fact a project known as the Bartleby Project. It encourages parents to write on their papers, \"I will not take a test such as this\" in order to rid the USA of standardized testing. However, one of the reasons the Bartleby Project will inevitable fail is the fact that it will cause dismissal of teachers and many parents would want to subject their child to what could easily cause them to fail. In the Shelby County school district, failure to participate or score averages on Standardized testing causes you to retake the grade and upon the second time, it will result in expulsion from the school, or placement in ELL. This example in itself is another reason to rid the United States of Standardized Testing. Teachers being fired and students being expelled or placed in ELL simply is not acceptable. Secondly, Standardized Testing places immense stress on students and teachers. Both know that the outcome of these tests will in fact affect their future. For teachers, the students' outcome will determine if they keep their job. For students, their outcome will determine if they will enter the next grade, and if they will ever be in an honors class. Now, even if this is a short point, it is obviously a valid statement. Example can be shown through analogies. If one's job was on the line, stress levels would be rising. The same is with important classes and a teacher's job if they are lacking the necessary tenure. Stress is even placed on administrators as test scores rate their schools, and low ratings lower funds.", "title": "Resolved: Standardized Testing should be removed from states' curriculum.", "pid": "4ab880b6-2019-04-18T18:55:30Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.98434448242188}, {"text": "First, off, I would like to say that West Coast Starter File does not personally interview people. They take sources from other websites and creates a package to help debaters. Saying I plagiarized from West Coast is false, because they have not provided a link themselves. We provided the source they have given us, making our argument valid. Contention 1 A: Having teachers prepare students for the test causes teaching to the test. This changes the curriculum, not allowing students to learn other things, such as fine arts. When you say that what is on the test is what the students need in life is not always true, as some students are not as interested in math or language arts as others. Contention 1 B: Here is the link I posted ORIGINALLY: \"How Standardized Testing Damages Education (Updated July 2012). \" FairTest. The National Center for Fair and Open Testing, 28 Aug. 2007. Web. 03 Nov. 2015. . http://fairtest.org... Also, I am not saying that poorer students will not be able to do well. What I am trying to say is that it is easier for whites, middle, and upper background students to do well, because they have access to better education. It is harder for someone to do well on a test if they do not have to money to buy materials to help them study. However, other students who are richer will be able to afford these books and will therefore have a better chance of doing well. You defined standardized testing as followed: A type of test that has the same questions for every student, depending on age and grade level. It is scored in a manner which allows the results of students to be compared. This means that all students, even the disabled or language learners, will have to take the same test. Colleges will look at these tests, and may not know that these students are disabled or have just moved to the United States. Therefore, the disabled and language learners are not always given an equal chance for success. Contention 2 A- As I stated in my quote, different schools will have different curriculums, and trying to create ONE test to fit for all of these different settings makes it nearly impossible to compare scores. You stated that schools will teach the same thing, but as I stated before, this is generally not true with different teachers and different styles of teaching. Contention 2 B-As my Contention 2A said, different school have different curriculums and even if teachers did teach to the test, which I have already proven to be bad, it would limit the curriculum and students will be worse off if they wanted to learn things other than language arts, math, and science. Contention 3 A-The teachers actually do NOT decide what to teach the students. There is always a guidebook for what to teach at a certain time. These teachers must follow these guidebooks but can teach it their own way. It is not always true that teachers teach what is on the test. As I said in my Contention 2, different school have different curriculums, so making a test to fit all of these different schools is impossible. Contention 3 B- My opponent stated that activities such as art are still required for the student program. However, before, they said that it is good that these activities are taken out because they are not part of standardized tests. But students who wish to take these classes are not given the chance because standardized testing has already squeezed out these activities. Thank you.", "title": "On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States", "pid": "a331003f-2019-04-18T14:04:49Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.9820098876953}, {"text": "Standardized tests exaggerate small differences in performance", "title": "abolish standardized tests for University Admission", "pid": "259f65bb-2019-04-15T20:24:15Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.97622680664062}, {"text": "In order to give us each equal opportunity (giving each of us four rounds of debating), I will let my opponent make the first statements.", "title": "should Standardized tests be eliminated? logical answers", "pid": "9168d27e-2019-04-18T15:43:14Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.9470977783203}, {"text": "Extend my argument.", "title": "Resolved: Standardized Testing should be removed from states' curriculum.", "pid": "4ab880b6-2019-04-18T18:55:30Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.91712951660156}, {"text": "I strongly disagree with the fact that standardized testing are discriminatory against students who, for example, are unable to speak English well. In fact, \"Standardized tests are inclusive and non-discriminatory because they ensure content is equivalent for all students. Former Washington, DC, schools chancellor Michelle Rhee argues that using alternate tests for minorities or exempting children with disabilities would be unfair to those students: \"You can't separate them, and to try to do so creates two, unequal systems, one with accountability and one without it. This is a civil rights issue\"\" (2). In continuation, the United States is not the only nation using standardized testing: \"20 countries studied \"have achieved significant, sustained, and widespread gains\" on national and international assessments had used \"proficiency targets for each school\" and \"frequent, standardized testing to monitor system progress,\" according to a Nov. 2010 report by McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm\" (2). Standardized testing is not only an efficient way to measure school progress, but it is also a common way.", "title": "Education: Testing", "pid": "440fb971-2019-04-18T17:06:22Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.90513610839844}, {"text": "I feel standardized test are unfair to students that are still in school. If the student passes all of their classes and not the test they get held back that's not right.", "title": "Standardized tests in all schools", "pid": "a3eb04e5-2019-04-18T16:10:36Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.8902587890625}]}
{"idx": 25, "qid": "27", "q_text": "Should more gun control laws be enacted?", "qrels": {"ea8c138b-2019-04-18T11:35:01Z-00002-000": 0, "557e846e-2019-04-18T16:15:28Z-00005-000": 0, "a24807d1-2019-04-18T17:57:45Z-00002-000": 2, "a6235621-2019-04-19T12:44:35Z-00002-000": 0, "c1dd1361-2019-04-18T12:56:07Z-00003-000": 2, "c1dd1361-2019-04-18T12:56:07Z-00002-000": 2, "c72ee19b-2019-04-18T13:33:16Z-00003-000": 2, "dbe0f23e-2019-04-18T14:36:42Z-00004-000": 2, "ea8c1293-2019-04-18T11:41:07Z-00000-000": 2, "57d65aee-2019-04-18T15:16:02Z-00003-000": 2, "ea8bf48b-2019-04-18T15:51:12Z-00005-000": 2, "ea8bf583-2019-04-18T15:13:22Z-00000-000": 2, "579ea609-2019-04-18T19:52:27Z-00002-000": 2, "ea8c004a-2019-04-18T14:05:01Z-00001-000": 2, "ea8c0731-2019-04-18T17:31:06Z-00000-000": 0, "ea8c0731-2019-04-18T17:31:06Z-00005-000": 0, "f89bdc44-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00027-000": 0, "f46a8e38-2019-04-18T16:41:48Z-00005-000": 2, "da25e6c7-2019-04-18T16:51:38Z-00006-000": 2, "5f5df93c-2019-04-18T17:17:11Z-00001-000": 2, "ea8c69a4-2019-04-18T11:14:22Z-00003-000": 0, "615f0066-2019-04-18T18:53:38Z-00003-000": 0, "10733bf4-2019-04-18T14:18:11Z-00004-000": 2, "12fc6c09-2019-04-18T13:30:20Z-00000-000": 2, "12fcd08b-2019-04-18T11:17:01Z-00003-000": 2, "234c0da2-2019-04-18T17:50:04Z-00004-000": 0, "25f87e03-2019-04-18T16:22:01Z-00002-000": 2, "30db30e7-2019-04-18T11:35:57Z-00003-000": 2, "38cc7021-2019-04-18T17:43:52Z-00003-000": 2, "48aa891e-2019-04-18T11:53:59Z-00002-000": 2, "78ffe1af-2019-04-18T16:08:24Z-00002-000": 0, "557e846e-2019-04-18T16:15:28Z-00001-000": 0, "25f4afea-2019-04-18T11:58:00Z-00002-000": 0, "90dc2530-2019-04-18T20:02:12Z-00002-000": 2, "88a1fd68-2019-04-18T12:03:21Z-00001-000": 1, "6910d58f-2019-04-18T17:00:20Z-00000-000": 0, "9c362ae5-2019-04-18T16:33:10Z-00005-000": 2, "90dc25ac-2019-04-18T12:51:05Z-00003-000": 0, "934989d9-2019-04-18T11:38:17Z-00001-000": 2, "9c362344-2019-04-18T16:59:33Z-00000-000": 0, "93e44982-2019-04-18T17:37:53Z-00005-000": 0, "9c361fc1-2019-04-18T17:13:32Z-00001-000": 0, "9c3610bd-2019-04-18T18:25:13Z-00003-000": 2}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "There should be more gun laws enacted in the U.S! Armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation. According to the Los Angeles times, author Patt Morrison states in his article that was posted on August 2, 2017 that Americans who carry \"heat\" increase the rate of violent crime. After reviewing these articles and doing research it is clear to me that armed civilians are more likely to cause dangerous situations rather than protecting theirselves or others. 1.) Jeffrey Voccola, \"Why I Don't Want Guns in My Classroom,\" www.chronicle.com, Oct. 14, 2014 2.) Does carrying a gun make you safer? No. In fact, right-to-carry laws ... http://www.latimes.com...", "title": "There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S !", "pid": "934989d9-2019-04-18T11:38:17Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.36410522460938}, {"text": "Resolution: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control LawsThis resolution can also be interpretted as the U.S. Congress Should pass stronger, more effective gun control legislation than we have now, to deal with the surge in mass gun shootings over the last three years and the 491,930 cases of gun violence the nation experiences on average annually. (On average, 33,000 Americans are killed with guns each year [1], and contrary to popular belief, statistics show that gun violence has not decreased over the last decade [2]).First Round is for acceptance only. (However, Con make a brief statement about his position on this issue in ROUND 1 and even provide 1 to 5 sources to back up his claims.)[1] (http://www.americanprogress.org...)[2] (http://www.dailykos.com...)", "title": "The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws", "pid": "70e17380-2019-04-18T16:06:30Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.35873413085938}, {"text": "Enacting more gun laws in the United States would not stop crimes or dangerous situations from occurring. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences, Justice Department, there is no apparent link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence, or even accidents with guns. Creating such laws would not stop criminals from committing crimes. As John R Lott, the author of \"More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws\", stated in 1998, \"States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes\". In other words, increasing the number of guns did not increase the rate of violent crimes but instead decreased. With this, it is clear that people should be able to own guns because doing so prevents more crimes from occurring than actual gun laws. University of Chicago Press. (1998). Interview with John R. Lott, Jr. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://press.uchicago.edu... WND. (2004, December 30). Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://mobile.wnd.com...", "title": "There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S !", "pid": "934989d9-2019-04-18T11:38:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.3207244873047}, {"text": "I would rather leave my debate unmentioned until round 2.", "title": "The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws", "pid": "70e17380-2019-04-18T16:06:30Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.8181915283203}, {"text": "I argue for gun control(ie requiring a license to own a gun), Pro argues for the motionSeveral studies show that pro-gun legislation increases crime.Open carry laws increase crime - http://feeds.latimes.com...Another study shows: \"The overall homicide rate, among the metro areas whose principal city is in a state that requires some form of permit to purchase a gun, is 4.32 per 100,000 residents, compared with 5.74 among cities in no-permit states. This certainly does not confirm the gun control = higher violent crime hypothesis. Quite the opposite.\" http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Gun control decreases crime by making gun access harder and thus reducing the ability to commit violent crime.", "title": "The United States should not have any laws limiting access to guns.", "pid": "13966fe3-2019-04-18T12:08:09Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.5731658935547}, {"text": "This makes me a little sad, this debate was one of the most thought provoking I have had on gun control. I simply ask that all my arguments are extended. Thank you for the good debate.", "title": "The U.S. government should impose stricter gun control laws in order to reduce violent crime", "pid": "9e3e2e75-2019-04-18T19:50:01Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.56546020507812}, {"text": "Should guns laws be implemented and the second amendment abolished to prevent mass shootings. I personally feel as if we are safer with the right to bear arms. It is fairly rare for mass shootings to be committed by legally obtained weapons.", "title": "Should guns laws be implemented", "pid": "88a1fd68-2019-04-18T12:03:21Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.544921875}, {"text": "I am for more Gun Control laws and policies in America. My opponent must be opposed to any further Gun Control laws being established in America.", "title": "Gun Control (Copy #2)", "pid": "da25e6c7-2019-04-18T16:51:38Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.38253784179688}, {"text": "Sorry about the forfeit, thank you for postponing the debate. 1. An extremely high number of murders are committed by criminals. 2. It is a constitutional right to bear arms. 3. The reason for this is to avoid a tyrannical government.", "title": "Why more gun laws are a bad idea.", "pid": "47e1618e-2019-04-18T15:26:44Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.3204345703125}, {"text": "I believe that the lack of gun control in the Unites States is a serious danger to the public, in nations with full gun control the homicide rate, armed robbery rate, and suicide rates are much lower.", "title": "The US Should Have Better Gun Control", "pid": "22222c8b-2019-04-18T17:32:10Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.30404663085938}, {"text": "Gun control creates safer countries. Gun control is the most effective way to reduce crime if we done it correctly. Our federal gun control laws are so ineffective because there are too many loopholes. A criminal might not be able to obtain guns in one state. But in another state that is very lenient on gun ownership, he can get guns even without criminal background checks. We need to support stricter federal gun control laws because guns are just totally out of control. For those who are unfit to carry guns, we should disarm them, and work together to provide a safer society for ourselves. If we have stricter gun control laws, we would be able to live in a safe and harmonious society and we definitely have the rights to do so! I await your response.", "title": "That gun control laws create more dangerous countries.", "pid": "8c4d2ba1-2019-04-18T18:15:06Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.25575256347656}, {"text": "Studies show that gun control laws lead to a lower firearm murder rate in the United States. I am strongly in favor of stricter gun laws. http://www.politisite.com...", "title": "Gun Control Laws", "pid": "90dc256e-2019-04-18T16:43:44Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.21136474609375}, {"text": "I've limited the words to 1,000 to keep things nice and simple, not too complicated. We've heard the arguments for and against it all before, and it's constantly the same thing, \"constitutional rights\" this and \"safety\" that. Well now I've decided to settle it. I'm not a US national but I have done my research, so I have solid facts. I believe that gun control needs to be enforced. It needs to happen because of the countless mass shootings we've seen, the unnecessary violence, the psychological effects of simply owning a gun. Research has shown that 97,000+ people are sho0t in the US every day. That's a daily average of 268 people. Research has also shown that, due to strict gun control laws in Washington DC, the murder rate remains at approximately 69 per 100,000 people. Contrarily, Indianapolis' high murder rate at 1,152 per 100,000 people indicates loose or non-existent gun control laws. Evidently, violent crime rates depend on each state's gun control laws.", "title": "Gun Control", "pid": "ea8bffed-2019-04-18T14:12:28Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.1705780029297}, {"text": "So I will admit I got confused on this challenge. I read this as my opponent being Con against what was stated in his starting argument. However, I have no problem playing devils advocate even if it goes against my own personal beliefs. So I will argue my best in favor of Gun Control Laws and give the best debate possible despite the fact that it is against my personal belief. Now, that said, gun crime in the US has reached significant levels. Every few days it seems we hear of a new shooting or violent crime involving guns. In this debate I will argue for multiple proposed gun control laws and attempt to convince my opponent and the readers that these laws are necessary to stem the levels of crime that we have in the States. 1. Ban on assault rifles. 2. Ban on handguns. 3. Requirement for development of \"Smart Guns\" and technology to enhance safety. 4. Federal and State mandated buy back programs. 5. Increase in background check scrutiny. 6. High capacity magazine bans 7. Ammo bans. 8. Closing loopholes. 9. Limiting concealed and open carry laws 10. Changing castling clauses to eliminate deadly force with firearms and institute duty to run laws 11. And the most controversial, federal confiscation measures. Those are the points I will be arguing. I will allow my opponent to challenge these points now.", "title": "Gun Control Laws", "pid": "90dc25ac-2019-04-18T12:51:05Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.15292358398438}, {"text": "There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting. The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. In my research, I have found that other countries besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the united state. This includes Sweden, Spain, Australia, and Canada. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses. As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other.", "title": "Gun Control Laws", "pid": "90dc256e-2019-04-18T16:43:44Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.11895751953125}, {"text": "I will be accepting the challenge: gun control in the United States is necessary. For every 1 \"justifiable\" gun homicide there were 34 criminal homicides, 78 suicides, and 2 accidental deaths. The immediate aforementioned being an FBI, CDC source claim from 2012. Guns are a tool but they are also a weapon and it's our country's duty to control them to maintain a safer United States.", "title": "Should there be gun control", "pid": "6ad6d13-2019-04-18T11:44:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.10308837890625}, {"text": "The point still remains that criminals are not going to heed these \"laws\". According the the second amendment we are to have guns for self defense, or to protect against corrupt governments. Gun control disarms the public, making them easy to rule. Dont believe me? Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong all implemented gun control laws to further control their populations, Making them easy targets for massacre. Im not saying that countries like Canada, and the UK are planning to kill off there people, but its just a form of control. If we let the government disarm us, whats next? My point still stand that if we are required to carry a sidearm at all times, criminals would be very cautious. Crime rates would plummet. No longer would we be shrinking behind the police, we would have the capabilities to stand up for ourselves. If you were a criminal, would you attack someone knowing they and there whole family had sidearms? I think not, you would wait for some one who is weak, an easy target. The great thing is, as soon as you have a gun, your not an easy target anymore. Your something to be feared and respected. The governments tales of lower crime rates and safer cities are merely smoke shields for a bigger issue, that of total control.", "title": "That gun control laws create more dangerous countries.", "pid": "8c4d2ba1-2019-04-18T18:15:06Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.05747985839844}, {"text": "the debate is about more guns means more homicides or not. not about what concealed carry laws do or dont do. they might just make more guns less bad, but the bottom line is more guns means more bad, more murder. concealed carry might make so many guns less bad, i dont know. i do know ninety percent of gun researchers think more gun control is better than none when it comes to homicides. i dont know the magic gun control if we have lot of guns. but the point isnt about this or that gun control, it's about more guns mean more homicides or not.", "title": "more guns means more overall homicide", "pid": "2e55489a-2019-04-18T14:11:38Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.02684020996094}, {"text": "Gun control laws do not work because criminals will prey on citizens because criminals will be armed while citizens are defenseless. In Florida, the murder rate dropped 20% after gun control was abolished. Criminals fear armed suspects. My dad is a cop he knows that the main reason people think twice about robberies is because the may be armed. Our Constitution says, \"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.\" Gun control laws are unconstitutional.", "title": "The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns.", "pid": "42af831b-2019-04-18T19:42:13Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.00201416015625}, {"text": "Well...", "title": "More Gun control or less Gun control", "pid": "6b19ced-2019-04-18T16:55:34Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.9912109375}, {"text": "Current laws are not enforced concerning firearms. New ones will not be enforced efficiently either.People have the right to protect themselves from terrorists, murderers, rapists, and even our own government. Our government can't rid the world of 30-40,000 ISIS militants. How would they stop 350,000,000 angry Americans when the military itself would be related to these armed people by blood? I trust the American people to know when to act in such matters, not the corrupt government of the United States.We will get guns, laws or not. We will make them and stockpile them if we must. The government will never truely be in control, nor should it be. We are this nation, not them. We have our own checks and balances by being armed and outnumbering the U.S. military 300 to 1. And even within the military, most would defect with no desire to kill their mom's, dad's and family. The government will never win, so it can just accept it. It's not in control. We are.", "title": "The US should adopt stricter gun control laws", "pid": "c72ee19b-2019-04-18T13:33:16Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.9805450439453}, {"text": "I thank my opponent for this debate, I'm not against Gun control, as I believe it has worked it some states. But it cannot function in every state. I would like to mention that America doesn't necessarily have gun problem, but a homicide problem. A gun is only a tool, and cannot commit murders on its own. Banning guns is very impractical in the U.S. Nearly everyone owns a gun. All a ban would do is provide a gateway for black market for guns. U.S simply can't afford to spend billions on enforcing that law. On top of that, It is in the 2nd Amendment, and is deemed unconstitutional by many.", "title": "We need more gun control", "pid": "622002e-2019-04-18T15:10:57Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.96673583984375}, {"text": "con just restates points i responded to without responding to what i posted already as responses. you say they will just find another way to kill. but you didn't respond to the study that says the more guns there are, the more overall homicide there is. that means people don't just find alternative ways. you say they will sneak around to do it. this couldn't be true either, cause if they did there would be just as much homicide with fewer guns. plus it's common sense not everyone will be a black hoodie and go get a gun when denied one. con is arguing like we should get rid of crime laws, cause some crime will occur. you didn't respond to this, you just restated what i responded to. also, im not necessarily saying we take guns way, we should at least have background checks. this doesn't infringe on the second amendment. just like we have certain types of speech that can't be done per the first amendment.... there are just reasonable restrictions.", "title": "there should be more gun regulation", "pid": "5b342d86-2019-04-18T14:39:19Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.9539794921875}, {"text": "Should the gun laws be more strict?", "title": "Gun laws", "pid": "718b7e3d-2019-04-18T11:34:25Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.9433135986328}, {"text": "I believe firmly that stricter gun control laws will reduce gun violence. Having grown up in a conservative family, I have heard every argument against gun control but none of them stand up to any honest evaluation. Let's have a good argument!", "title": "Stricter gun control laws would reduce gun violence, both murder accident and suicide", "pid": "220ad58c-2019-04-18T12:53:30Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.9214630126953}, {"text": "more gun regulation should exist. background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here. the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons. http://thinkprogress.org... http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... here are two case studies on reducing guns: japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate. http://www.theatlantic.com... australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year. http://www.gunpolicy.org... also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like \"gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right\") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.", "title": "more gun regulation should exist", "pid": "63a919c3-2019-04-18T14:40:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.91696166992188}, {"text": "As my opponent has forfeited this round by not responding within 30 minutes, I'd like to summarize the points I've made during this debate. 1. Simple weapons should be legal for last-resort self-defence, while assault weapons should not. 2. Hunting weapons may remain legal. 3. Chicago may or may not have higher murder rates solely because of strict gun laws. 4. Enforcement of gun laws should be very strict, with several additional policies to prevent illegal ownership or usage. 5. Banning assault weapons will reduce the number of people who own dangerous weapons, while still allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.", "title": "Gun Control", "pid": "9c362e49-2019-04-18T16:18:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.87667846679688}, {"text": "The belief that imposing stricter gun laws will reduce violent crime is an erroneous belief. If a person is going to commit a violent crime with a gun, how does it make sense to think that stricter gun laws will prevent them from doing so? Does anyone really believe that a hypothetical murderer becomes compelled to murder someone in cold blood, but then stops him or her self because it may be illegal to have a gun at the time? This was the first news headline I read when I logged on to Yahoo this evening (2/14/08): \"DEKALB, Ill. - A man dressed in black opened fire with a shotgun and two handguns from the stage of a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University on Thursday, killing five students and injuring 16 others before committing suicide, authorities said.\" Illinois is a state which already has strict gun laws, but that obviously didn't protect these people from getting gunned down. After this incident and the one at Virginia Tech, I reaffirm my position that Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and that gun laws should be relaxed so law-abiding citizens are able to protect themselves in situations such as these. If the government were to take our guns away, or continue to impose stricter gun laws, it will only impede our ability to protect ourselves. The closer the U.S. comes to having full gun control, the closer we approach a time in which the only people with guns are cops and criminals. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, it's not working for drugs, and it won't work for guns.", "title": "The U.S. government should impose stricter gun control laws in order to reduce violent crime", "pid": "9e3e2e75-2019-04-18T19:50:01Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.866455078125}, {"text": "Extend. Notice that my evidence clearly shows that increased gun control regulation does not lead to lower crime rates; on the contrary, the Affirmative stance has actually been known to INCREASE criminal activity.", "title": "Increased restrictions should be put on firearms in the US", "pid": "6a00e1b7-2019-04-18T19:27:52Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.82411193847656}, {"text": "Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished", "title": "Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished", "pid": "557e846e-2019-04-18T16:15:28Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.8213348388672}, {"text": "i dont see any graph from the UN in that link that talks about guns v homicides. my links are from harvard and oxford and an academic study. that trumps con's missing graph. i dont know what con wants when he talks about inherency. he somewhat acknowledges that i provided evidence gun control is effective. if i've done that, doesn't it follow that i can argue we should have gun control? i dont know what's not inherent about that.", "title": "more gun regulation should exist", "pid": "63a919e2-2019-04-18T14:36:09Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.7562255859375}, {"text": "There is no reason that some gun laws/ restrictions should not be in place. I believe in the second amendment that someone should have the right to bare arms, but that does not mean we can not have screening and restrictions on what guns we can own/carry.", "title": "Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished", "pid": "557e846e-2019-04-18T16:15:28Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.74583435058594}, {"text": "Gun control is the way to go. Too many school shootings, too many deaths, why not just ban guns altogether for a safer America", "title": "We need more gun control", "pid": "622002e-2019-04-18T15:10:57Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.7412872314453}, {"text": "To make it clear I believe I am going to debating about why more gun control in the US is needed; meaning more stricter rules. And with that I pass it on to my opponent for the 2nd round.", "title": "More Gun Control is needed in the United States.", "pid": "f138ee62-2019-04-18T17:33:02Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.73654174804688}, {"text": "I am a little new to this site and will try to to best I can to get my point across on this platform. Be for I get stated you should know that some gun control is necessary but not to the extent that it has been presented by many. I believe you live in the U. S. so this response will be based on the U. S. unless you wish to extend to other nations around the world. Now we all after remember that criminals break the law. The laws we have in place now criminals have broken and we must not respond with feeling but with logic to the tragedies that occur. We currently have background checks and have many limitations on firearms now. What we should focus on instead of creating more regulations is to enforce the laws we have now. Examples of failures to act are in the recent Parkland Shooting when authorities failed to prevent the shooting while they had information of a possible unstable individual that could harm someone. We need to protect our second amendment. It allows us to protect ourselves from criminals or tyrannical governments. That is why we do not need to get new gun control legislation.", "title": "Should we have Gun Control", "pid": "810cf76c-2019-04-18T11:37:56Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.72463989257812}, {"text": "First, my name is 100% ORIGINAL! Second of all, even if we have gun control, Violent individuals can just rob the gun stores, and repeat the Las Vegas massacres anyway. What we really need is a better law enforcement. If there were more police, the Las Vegas massacre wouldn't have been as bloody. I affirm that stricter gun control doesn't need to happen, as it would be futile.", "title": "Gun Control", "pid": "ea8c0fab-2019-04-18T11:49:00Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.713623046875}, {"text": "Beginning Argument: The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America's pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: \"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\" Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. The is in fact not true! The Second Amendment protects an individual\"s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Now for some statistics: 270 MillionAPPROX. # OF CIVILIAN FIREARMS IN AMERICA 200,000TIMES A YEAR WOMEN USE A GUN TO DEFEND AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE4 3/5POLLED FELONS SAY THEY WON\"T MESS WITH AN ARMED VICTIM5 Closing Statement: With the given data we can assume that Guns do not kill people, People kill People... therefore it can be assumed that Gun Control Should not be Implemented Into American Law. Thank you.", "title": "Should Gun Control Be Implemented Into American Law", "pid": "3c91b0d8-2019-04-18T12:50:09Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.68504333496094}, {"text": "con hasnt even attempted to negate the resolution, he finds zero academic support for his position. if his position were true, he'd be able to find something. what he does show is one form of gun control, which could be effective or not, who knows, but it's irrelevant to this debate. i do know that washington DC has been shown to be no effect from the ban on guns, not a negative effect but this is getting beside the point.", "title": "you can't find broad academic consensus against me- more guns corerlates to more homicide, gun contr", "pid": "de0b7726-2019-04-18T12:59:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.66363525390625}, {"text": "I feel that we need more regulations on guns to keep America safer.", "title": "Gun control", "pid": "38cc7420-2019-04-18T17:34:32Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.6563720703125}, {"text": "more gun regulation should exist. background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here. the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons. http://thinkprogress.org... http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... here are two case studies on reducing guns: japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate. http://www.theatlantic.com... australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year. http://www.gunpolicy.org... also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like \"gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right\") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.", "title": "there should be more gun regulation", "pid": "5b342d86-2019-04-18T14:39:19Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.64712524414062}, {"text": "I will gladly accept. However, I will specify certain things. Resolved: Gun Control should be a law in the United States I will be affirming/upholding this resolution (Pro). You will be negating this resolution (Con) I hope we can be civil and I wish you best of luck! -LDBen", "title": "Gun Control", "pid": "ea8c0eb3-2019-04-18T12:03:06Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.63453674316406}, {"text": "There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting. The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. In my research, I have found that other countries and continents besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the United States. This includes Sweden, Spain, Canada, and Australia. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses. As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.sunray22b.net... http://www.deseretnews.com...", "title": "Gun Control in the United States", "pid": "f46a8e38-2019-04-18T16:41:48Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.63259887695312}, {"text": "Resolution: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control LawsThe U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that U.S. Congress has the right to pass gun control legislation as long as it doesn't violate the Second Amendment--but how is this possible? Easy. It's because most people don't truly understand the Second AmendmentBefore we get into the lively discussion of why U.S. Congress should impose sensible, more effective gun control laws than are currently on the books, I'm going to briefly explain that U.S. Congress has this power, and that the U.S. Supreme Court has historically and consistently ruled in favor of this interpretation [1][2]. Furthermore, the implied powers granted to U.S. Congress via Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution--the portion I'm referring to known as the \"Necessary and Proper\" Clause--give Congress the authority to pass gun control legislation, as long as it does not violate the Second Amendment [3][4].First of all, in order to understand why the U.S. Supreme Court has historically ruled that gun control is not unconstitutional, we have to look at the exact wording of the Second Amendment--which brielfy states the exact motive for having it inserted in the Bill of Rights.\"Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. [5]\"There are actually several ways to interpret this, but the most conservative U.S. Supreme Courts (and by extension, U.S. Congress) have interpretted this to mean that people have the right to arm themselves for the purposes of self-defense--but not necessarily for anything beyond that [3]. In other words, the Second Amendment grants people the right to arm themselves in self-defense--but not to maliciously and criminally injure others, to rob other people's property, or to act against law enforcement or state and federal governments [3]. Of course, this fits in line with the most conservative rulings of the nation's highest court, but historically the Court has also interpretted the Amendment to mean that having arms is only constitutionally protected for military purposes [4]. In fact, this is a position held by several sitting members of the current U.S. Supreme Court, and also the recently retired Justice John Paul Stevens [4].Either way, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is nothing unconstitutional about having moderate (conservative rulings) to abundant (liberal rulings) national gun control laws, because the Constitution doesn't guarantee the unrestricted, unconditional right to own firearms [1][3][4].In fact, because of historical U.S. Supreme Court rulings, U.S. Congress has already passed various laws restricting gun ownership or requiring gun registration and background checks on some gun purchases. As early as 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, which required certain firearms and destructive devices to be registered with the U.S. government and which imposed a tax on sales of such devices; failure to comply with the act had criminal penalties, including up to 10 years of incarceration and between $10,000 to $100,000 fines for individual violations [6]. Over the years, congressional legislation signed into law has made it a crime for convicted felons, those convicted of certain misdemeanors, and for fugitives of justice to own and use firearms; people who illegally use drugs are prohibited from owning/operating a firearm, as are people who have been committed to a mental institution and who suffer a dangerous mental illness (however, not everyone diagnosed with a severe mental illness is prohibited from owning firearms); others are outlawed from owning and using firearms as well [1].Current Federal Gun Control Laws and Their Limitations In the last paragraph, I explained that certain people are probited from owning/operating firearms under federal law in the U.S. These people include [1]:-convicted felons/people convicted of certain misdemeaners-fugitives of justice-unlawful users of drugs-non U.S. citizens/non-permanent legal residents-people committed to mental institutions and diagnosed with dangerous mental illness-those with a criminal history of domestic violence (a single misdemeaner incident or more/greater)-some othersBut current federal gun control laws also place legal responsibilities (punishable with a fine and/or incarceration for not complying) on people who engage in the business of selling and buying firearms, also known as gun dealers.Current national law requires gun/firearms dealers to be licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and federal restrictions make it a crime for them to sell firearms to people under 18 years of age and other people prohibited from owning/using firearms [1]. It is a crime for a gun dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a firearm without the transaction first being approved by a prescribed source, after a background check has been conducted; the dealer is also required to document the sale of the firearm with federal form 4473, which identifies the purchaser's information and the make, model, and serial number of the firearm [1]. However, form 4473 is kept by the dealer, and the ATF is not allowed to put the purchaser's information in an electronic registry that can be later used by law enforcement; furthermore, current laws (the Tiahrt Amendments) require that the ATF destroy records on background checks after 24 hours that it approves a gun sale, and the ATF cannot use tracing data in some legal proceedings to revoke or temporarily suspend a dealer's license [1]. The ATF can only investigate dealers on an individual basis with regards to purchases, and can only collect 4472 forms after a gun dealer goes out of business [1].It's these limitations that place great strain on the ATF and that prevent it from more effectively carrying out its work. Because the ATF cannot create an electronic registry on gun purchases and must destroy information after it approves a gun sale (background checks are performed soley to determine if the gun purchaser is someone prohibited from owning/operating a gun), crimes committed with firearms take longer to investigate and provides the assailant with more time to break the law. The lack of an electronic registry on gun purchases in some cases allows assailants who use guns to avoid ever being detected and be brought to justice.The Bradley Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reports that the current weak guns laws in place at the federal level have allowed tens of thousands of guns to leave gun shops without checks or records, one of the reasons being the severe restrictions placed on the ATF's role during transactions and the follow up [7]. Requring gun dealers to better keep records of all firearms in their possession and to register all gun purchases in an electronic registry would allow the ATF and other law enforcement to better track guns in this nation and would vastly reduce gun crimes and violence; it would also shorten the time between an incident of gun crime and apprehension by law enforcement.Gun sales and transactions between individuals is even less strict and unfortuneately a background check and federal form 4473 are not legally required in such sales, which increases the probability that someone prohibited from owning a firearm will obtain one through such a transaction, such as a convicted felon or a minor. It also makes it more difficult for the ATF and other law enforcement to track a gun sold in this way used in a criminal incident [7]. In point of fact, firearms sold by \"occassional sellers\"--people not required to abide with the federal background check--were used in the Columbine School massacre that killed 12 students and 1 teacher, not including the two young perpetrators [7], who committed multiple felony violations of federal in the days leading up to the school shooting [8].Firearms sold by \"occassional sellers\" in the U.S. have also found their way into the hands of terrorist organizations in the middle east, including the Lebanese branch of Hezbollah, and across the Southern border into Mexico, where rivaling drug gangs have used the weapons to mow down each other and countless innocent bystanders [7].Shockingly, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence reports that more than 90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels originate in the U.S; 2000 guns are estimated to cross--illegally--the Southern border into Mexico per day [9]. Mexico, where guns are strictly outlawed, has seen over 100,000 people lose their lives in a drug war partly fueled by illegal firearms being shipped in from the U.S. [10]. The ATF estimates that 40% of all gun sales in the U.S. are made by unlicensed sellers who do not perform background checks, and that this is one major reason why guns are flowing across the Mexican border at such an alarming rate [9].But, as we shall see in the next ROUND, the U.S. is also suffering a major crisis all its own, for its weak/inefficient federal gun control laws currently in place.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (http://online.wsj.com...)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[4] (http://www.businessweek.com...)[5] (http://www.ushistory.org...)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[7] (http://www.nytimes.com...;)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[9] (http://cdm16064.contentdm.oclc.org...)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)", "title": "The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws", "pid": "70e17380-2019-04-18T16:06:30Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.6325225830078}, {"text": "First debate here :) Anyways, I think stricter gun control laws should not be supported. Against popular belief, guns are much more useful than what people think. Reasons, I will state later. Thanks!", "title": "Stricter Gun Control in America", "pid": "93e44982-2019-04-18T17:37:53Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.63140869140625}, {"text": "My opponent, THE_OPINIONATOR, did not state any contentions in his first speech and so I forfeit mine.", "title": "Gun laws need to be more strict rather than banning them", "pid": "b20f6bdd-2019-04-18T18:59:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.60699462890625}, {"text": "yes facts are facts. you cant find scientific support for your position. i can find effective consensus. again this isn't a debate about specific gun controls so i dont know why you are arguing about it.", "title": "more guns mean more homicide, more gun control leads to less homicide", "pid": "d14fa3f8-2019-04-18T12:59:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.59963989257812}, {"text": "Gun control is definitely needed in today\"s society. The regulation of guns is an extremely necessary action that needs to be taken in order to save lives. Gun control is basically the effort to stop the rise in violent and fatal crimes by strengthening laws on the ownership of firearms (guns). These laws would reduce gun deaths being that guns are the leading cause of death by homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths. Gun control laws are needed to protect women from domestic abusers and stalkers. It is said that five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States a women's risk for being murdered increases by 500% if a gun is present during a dispute. Gun control can also lead to fewer suicides being that there were 270,237 gun suicides in the US for about 52% of all suicides. A recent study found that when gun ownership went down in the US, the overall suicide rates decreased. - There are way too many accidents involving children playing with guns or accidental discharges due to careless or inexperienced adults and if guns are readily accessible, they can more easily fall into the hands of children. Too many criminals purchase guns legally and use them to commit crimes such as the incident in Newtown, Connecticut which killed 20 children and eight adults (including the shooter himself). Even President Obama said that after the Newton incident, his administration would take action towards more gun control. In his speech at Newtown, he asked, \"Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?\" Lawmakers have also said it is time for the nation to take a look at its gun control laws.", "title": "Gun law Regulations", "pid": "7525390b-2019-04-18T13:30:35Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.59732055664062}, {"text": "We should not countinue to make more restrictions on gun laws. There are many reasons for this, crime prevention, protection, rights.", "title": "Why more gun laws are a bad idea.", "pid": "47e1618e-2019-04-18T15:26:44Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.58773803710938}, {"text": "My objective with this debate is to educate both debaters and the readers about firearms violence inside the United States and how it compares to other industrialized nations, and about troubling weaknesses in federal gun control laws and the loopholes specific prohibited individuals use to get their hands on these powerful, remarkable weapons. Loopholes & Weaknesses in current Federal Gun Control LawsAs I discussed in the previous ROUND, there are certain limitations with current federal gun control laws that make it difficult for the ATF and law enforcement to reduce gun violence in our nation and to sometimes quickly apprehend a culprit following an incident of gun crime or violence. Among the restrictions placed on law enforcement are the Tiarht Amendements, which prevent law enforcement from creating an electronic registry of gun purchases and gun owners at the federal level (therefore limiting the ATF and other national law enforcement agencies from being maximally efficient in their work and prolonging gun crime/violence investigations) [1]. The Amendments require law enforcement and the ATF to destroy records following gun transaction background checks and they prohibit law enforcement agencies from diseminating what information they might have (such as forms 4473, collected after firearms dealers go out business) to the courts [1]. Furthermore, firearm sales between individual persons is hardly managed at all by current federal gun control laws and such transactions do not legally require a background check to take place [1], providing convicted felons and other individuals prohibited from owning/operating firearms with an opportunity to get their hands on one. Indeed, the ATF estimates that a whopping 40% of all gun sales in the U. S. are made by individual, unlicensed sellers who do not have to perform background checks [2]. But, as I will demonstrate in this ROUND, current federal gun control laws are also weak in other ways and they're presently riddled with loopholes that make it easy for some prohibited people to get their hands on these lethal weapons of war. Currently, millions of fugitives across the country can pass federal background checks and buy guns illegally because police departments are not required to enter names into a national database that tracks criminals on the run [3]. This dreadful gap is largely a byproduct of the fact that police and prosecutors are often unwilling to spend the time or money to pursue fugitives across a state border. Because state law enforcement has no intention of pursuing these fugitives of justice in a different jurisdiction, these criminals travel relatively forgotten; the fact that there's no federal law requiring state law enforcement to enter fugitive names in the FBI fugitive database--the National Instant Background Check System--makes this problem a serious weakness of current federal gun control law [3]. Investigative reporter Brad Heath of USA Today recently found that in five states alone, law enforcement agencies failed to provide information to the FBI database for at least 2.5 million outstanding arrest warrants, according to police and court records on file [3]. What's shocking is that tens of thousands of these fugitives on the run are wanted for violent offenses and felonies [3]. According to USA Today, the federal databases used to perform background checks are missing more than 900,000 Michigan arrest warrants, 150,000 Ohio arrest warrants, 184,000 Washington arrest warrants, and many more from other states [3]. In response to this alarming discovery, Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has said, \"It is. .. not surprising to me the extent to which there are holes in our system, given Congress' lack of success in addressing them\" [3]. In many cases, entering fugitives' names in federal databases would be as simple as checking two boxes in a state law enforcement's computer system, but the lack of courage by Congress to pass additional gun control laws, such as requiring state police to report names to the FBI database, allows this major lapse in background checks to continue [3]. And fugitives on the run are taking this opportunity because of Congress' inaction. Fugitive Deandra Smith, who was already wanted for a nightclub shooting (and multiple felony charges), was able to purchase a variety of guns at an Arkansas Pawn Shop in 2013 because his name was not entered in a federal or even a state database [3]. To quote his lawyer, \"Without that [entering his name in a database for background checks], it wouldn't matter how many background checks. .. [firearms dealers] ran [3]. \" Every year, hundreds of thousands of fugitives on the run and people prohibited from owning firearms, like Smith, attempt to take advantage of the current set-up [4]. According to a new report by the UC Davis Violence Prevention Program, which observed 78 gun shows in 19 states, loopholes in present gun control laws allow for easy access to guns that can be purchased by just about anyone, whether legally prohibited from purchasing a gun or not [5]. Among the findings [5]:--illegal purchases, where surrogates buy a gun from a licensed dealer, is common at gun shows--anonymous, undocumented gun sales are common--parts used to make untraceable guns are widespread and easily attainable at gun showsGaren Wintemute, professor of medicine at UC Davis School of Medicine, found that “illegal\" purchases \"were often conducted entirely out in the open\" [5]. Wintemute asserts that more has to be done to prevent both unregulated gun sales and illegal guns sales at gun shows; “law enforcement needs to have an expanded, proactive program at gun shows to prevent the illegal sale of guns” [5]. If not, individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms, like the dangerously mentally ill, minors, and convicted felons, will find gun shows to be an excellent source to obtain firearms--weapons the law states they shouldn't have. Currently, 44 states have laws regulating the sale of firearms to the mentally ill, but few states submit the names of prohibited mentally ill to the national database for background checks; in fact, just seven states account for 98 percent of all names prohibited for mental illness [4]. A frequently cited example is that of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter who passed a background check to obtain the gun he used with which he killed 32 people on the university campus (and wounded 17 others), despite being declared mentally ill two years prior [4]. Different states also have varying degrees of additional gun control laws in effect, but some have very few, almost entirely relying on current federal gun control laws (some state governments have also tried to abolish federal gun control laws within their state borders, even calling for the arrest of federal agents who dare to enforce firearms legislation; something not permitted by the U. S. Constitution [6]). What Federal Gun Control Laws Ought to DoCurrent federal gun control laws do not go far enough to prevent fugitives, convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and minors from obtaining weapons they clearly shouldn't have. The Tiarht Amendments, though understandly trying to protect the anonymity of gun owners, create a stumbling block for the ATF and other law enforcement agencies charged with apprehending culprits of gun crime/violence. They frequently act to prolong the time between an incident of gun crime to final apprehension of the assailant, and in the case of new criminals or fugitives/convicted felons, like Deandra Smith, that's simply more time for them to engage in gun-related criminal activity. It would better serve law and order in this country to establish an electronic registry that law enforcement can use to link an individual gun owner with a registered firearm make, model and serial number. We can still protect the rights of gun owners to defend themselves while more effectively restricting criminals and others prohibited from owning guns. We shouldn't have to make the ATF and other law enforcement agencies jump through hoops and expand their investigations just to determine the individual that owns a gun make with a specific serial number. Determining who owns what gun should be as easy as it is to link a driver with a specified, registered automobile, especially for criminal investigations. Gun transactions between unlicensed individuals should still require a background check; it's simply way too easy for someone prohibited from owning a gun to purchase a firearm through these transactions. The ATF estimates that 40% of all gun sales in the U. S. are made by individual, unlicensed sellers who do not have to perform background checks--well that's just an incredible opportunity for minors, the mentally ill, fugitives of justice, convicted felons, drug peddlers and others to abuse! Gun Control Laws need to be expanded so that all gun transactions require a federal background check. Federal law should require state law enforcement to register a fugitive's name in the FBI fugitive database to better enforce current restrictions with gun laws. Our current gun laws would be so much more effective if this was already the case. Likewise, the names of the prohibited mentall ill should be required to be submitted to the national database for background checks. (Additional recommendations exist. )[1] (. http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (. http://cdm16064.contentdm.oclc.org...)[3] (. http://www.usatoday.com...)[4] (. http://usnews.nbcnews.com...)[5] (. http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu...)[6] (. http://www.nytimes.com...)", "title": "The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws", "pid": "70e17380-2019-04-18T16:06:30Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.57119750976562}, {"text": "There are two key aspects to this discussion. One is a constitutional outlook and one a statistical outlook. As Americans we are expected to value our constitution. Regardless of whether or not people agree with the second amendment, while it is on the books it needs to be respected. For people who desire to infringe on citizens' right to bear arms, they need to pass an amendment that repeals the second amendment, not passing legislation. Even if people want to utilize the correct method of changing law, they should not want to. People who want to control guns, typically have a lack of understanding of how guns work and what benefit they yield. While guns are used to commit crimes, they are also used to stop them. With the use of guns, a 100 lb female would be able to defend her house and family from a 200 lb male, something that would not so easily be done with any other type of self defense, regardless of the amount of training. Guns level the playing field giving Americans equality that is clamored for in so many other aspects of life. The net number of lives saved by guns is higher than the net number of lives lost by guns. On top of this, there is no reliable data that shows increasing gun control will reduce the amount of gun related homicides. Since there is a benefit to be had from people legally owning guns, and there is no proof that passing laws will lead to a decrease in gun violence, we should stay away from legislating guns out of the hands of people that can use them to protect themselves.", "title": "Creating gun control laws in the U.S. without passing an amendment, should not be tolerated.", "pid": "a339f889-2019-04-18T17:21:26Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.56564331054688}, {"text": "Gun control can be defined in many different ways. Background checks, banning automatic or semi-automatic guns, or the banning of guns altogether all fit under the range. I decided to argue to banning fire arms to make the topic more specific, and that is a perfectly valid argument. Anyway, thank you very much for accepting the debate. As Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association's vice-president once eloquently said \"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.\" While this may be a bit of an exaggeration, his argument certainly has a good point. Police carry weapons, but when they are minutes away at a station or across town, the criminals come out of nowhere fast. In a gun-free zone, or a world without easily accessible firearms due to heavy restrictions, the few minutes it takes for the police to reach the destination, lives could be lost. Russia has some of the tightest restrictions in the world when it comes to gun control. People only own nine guns per 100 people in Russia, while America has close to 100 guns per 100 people. Yet, in 2009, Russia had 21,603 murders and America had 13,636 (see link). Especially considering that America is approximately three times more populous than Russia, it is safe to say that guns to not have as much correlation to violence as some previously thought. Tightening gun control laws in America would most likely have a similar effect, and we could unfortunately see a spike in the murder rates. This is why gun control laws should stay just the way they are, or if anything, even be loosened. http://www.npr.org...", "title": "American Gun Control", "pid": "fffab27a-2019-04-18T13:50:33Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.5650177001953}, {"text": "Opponent Forfeits.", "title": "more gun control should occur", "pid": "56e1b675-2019-04-18T17:54:00Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.56483459472656}, {"text": "Limited restrictions on ownership and use are different in nature to absolute prohibition and are more easily enforced.  Statistical analysis shows that that gun control laws do have a deterrent effect on firearm deaths and that the magnitude of the effect is dependent on how well the rules are enforced.[1]  The ineffectiveness of badly drafted or enforced gun control regulations is not an indicator of the ineffectiveness of well drafted and enforced regulations.  [1] Kwon et al. ‘The effectiveness of gun control laws: multivariate statistical analysis’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Jan ", "title": "Effective gun control is not achievable in democratic states with a tradition of civilian gun ownership", "pid": "691acc63-2019-04-15T20:23:01Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 215.56399536132812}, {"text": "I am looking to debate with someone for gun laws. I believe that as an American citizen guns should be allowed to be carried by any person other than those with a mental disorder, or a prior record involving any type of violence. This is one of the fundamentals the America was raised on. My evidence that gun laws do not work and keep guns from the people that will use a gun for good use is Chicago. Where crime is 2.36 times higher than the national average. This is the city that has the strictest laws in the U.S. but yet their crime is through the roof. http://www.neighborhoodscout.com... Another argument made is California. According to the Brady Campaign score California has the strictest gun laws of any other state. You would think that they would be below if not at the bottom of the national average, WRONG! California is above the national average by 5%. http://www.deseretnews.com... http://www.neighborhoodscout.com... New Jersey is the second state with the most strict gun laws. Guess where 3 of the top 10 cities with the highest murder rates are. NEW JERSEY! http://www.neighborhoodscout.com... http://www.deseretnews.com...", "title": "There should be more gun laws", "pid": "f614a31f-2019-04-18T14:43:26Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.55828857421875}, {"text": "Regardless of how I MAY have gone off topic, my main statement and idea is that the gun control laws should be better upkept. The gun buyers and sellers are the main part of the issue. If we keep hold of the gun buyers and sellers, the guns will follow. Double checking, triple checking and even more checking after that is necessary to uphold the safety of the people.", "title": "Gun Control in America", "pid": "e95f1ffb-2019-04-18T16:59:14Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.54087829589844}, {"text": "Gun control laws do not work because criminals will prey on citizens because criminals will be armed while citizens are defenseless. In Florida, the murder rate dropped 20% after gun control was abolished. Criminals fear armed suspects. Our Constitution says, \"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.\" Gun control laws are unconstitutional. Our police spend a lot of their time fighting victimless crimes like prostitution, gambling, and drugs. No body is hurt but the police are being overstretched for these crimes. Our jails are filled with drug users, drug sellers, prostitutes and gamblers. Parole allows criminals to leave prison because the jail is overcrowded. If the jails were less crowded with victimless criminals, then violent criminals would not be back on the streets so quickly and people would not expect to get parolled and would be less likely to commit crimes. Plus, we spend trillions on the War on Drugs each year. That money could go to other forms of crime fighting or anything else including lower taxes.", "title": "Libertarians are right on crime- No victimless crimes and support gun control", "pid": "6857a58c-2019-04-18T19:45:33Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.53880310058594}, {"text": "While the poverty rate in America may be higher, surely if guns were more tightly regulated, there would not be as many gun crimes? This would reduce the need for police and even normal citizens to carry arms. What about mass shootings? If civil gun ownership was made illegal, citizens carrying arms would immediately be breaking the law and the police would be able to make an arrest much sooner. And, while the US Constitution's 2nd amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms, which is more important in the long term - a \"right \", or the safety of the general public?", "title": "Gun Control", "pid": "ea8bffed-2019-04-18T14:12:28Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.53807067871094}, {"text": "More regulations on the possession and sale of guns are needed in the United States.", "title": "Gun Control", "pid": "ea8c6909-2019-04-18T11:17:03Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.5373077392578}, {"text": "Please state your opening argument.", "title": "Why more gun laws are a bad idea.", "pid": "47e1618e-2019-04-18T15:26:44Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.5218048095703}, {"text": "Hope this doesn't end in a pointless debate. Thank you.", "title": "Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished", "pid": "557e846e-2019-04-18T16:15:28Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.50433349609375}, {"text": "If we have more gun laws we will have more crime.", "title": "Gun control", "pid": "e0c0b3cb-2019-04-18T13:03:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.49571228027344}, {"text": "I commissioned this challenge after reading my opponent's stance on gun rights. His opinion is simply based on facts that are just not true. I ask any following this debate to just check it out on their own. Gun crime is higher with more gun control. In major cities of America that have more gun control, there is more crime. [1] Chicago has some extreme gun control, against both open carry and concealed carry, and yet it ranks at the top in gun crime. Countries that have more gun control demonstrate worse stats. Countries like Honduras, which has approximately 5 guns per 100 people has a homicide rate off the charts compared to that of gun-loving countries. [2] Gun crime is lower without gun control. In Switzerland, every household is REQUIRED to posses one Sig 550 assault rifle, and are encouraged to have one Sig P226 sidearm.[3] They have some of the lowest gun crime and mass murder in the world. Israel, the US, and several others demonstrate similar trends. I now place the shared burden of proof on my opponent to prove to me that gun rights are harmful to society. (P.S. My opponent can rely on his anti-gun posters to protect him. But when my family is in danger, my Mossberg Maverick will do the job.)", "title": "Gun rights", "pid": "69133b4f-2019-04-18T15:11:31Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.48912048339844}, {"text": "This debate will cover whether or not we should have stricter gun control. For the first round, we will set up the perimeters and definitions. We should not have arguments/points/etc. in the first round, only introductions. From the second round onwards, we shall flesh out our arguments. Gun control would be considered as how easy it is to attain guns (meaning eligibility and sales), how strict the regulation on concealed weapons is, and how much power our government should have in terms of regulating guns. Gun control should not be considered on the levels of military and law enforcement. It is my position that we should not have stricter gun control.", "title": "We Should Have Stricter Gun Control", "pid": "af032b19-2019-04-18T19:11:07Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.4812774658203}, {"text": "Current laws are usually poorly enforced. Criminals are often able to buy guns even when the law says they should be prohibited. We need to enforce the laws we have right now first.Guns do not kill people. People do. We need to concentrate on the values and morals of our citizens and focus on the role the media plays in giving glory to violence and the lack of respect for law and law enforcement.Denial of firearms is comparable to the \"war on drugs\". If people want the item, they will get it whether legally or illegally. It doesn't matter. With the war on drugs, meth and marijuana are illegal in most states, so guess what? People started making and growing their own. And then Mexican cartels saw a new underground business to pursue, so we now have illegal drugs from Mexico being snuck in, drugs being made in private homes, and people growing their own. It didn't make it better. It's worse. The same would happen with guns.Mexico would have a new underground business. People would begin making their own, and the market would yield great money for private individual makers. And now, we would have unregistered illegal guns everywhere with no way to trace them. Here's a web site showing just how easy it is to make a gun.http://m.wikihow.com...And here's another.http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...Point? You will never stop people from having guns. The only thing you even have a prayer of accomplishing is disarming law abiding citizens. Congratulations.", "title": "The US should adopt stricter gun control laws", "pid": "c72ee19b-2019-04-18T13:33:16Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.46588134765625}, {"text": "Hello. In our society, many people wish to implement stricter gun control laws in our society. I am against the proposals, and am taking the con side of this argument.The link we will be using is here.http://www.feinstein.senate.gov...This is a very confusing legal document, so we will be quoting from here. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov...Yes, I know that there are quite a few gun control debates, but I think that this is a topic worthy of its controversy.First round is for acceptance, second round is for stating your initial arguments, then we can post our rebuttals. Thank you for the debate, and make sure it's serious. I do not want 50 word posts stating one argument. Good luck!", "title": "Gun control laws", "pid": "6910d58f-2019-04-18T17:00:20Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.46331787109375}, {"text": "i showed a correlation that said one thing about guns and homicide, you showed one that said another. im not sure what to make of it. where did you get your chart? i dont see a citation for it while mine is from harvard and oxford", "title": "more gun regulation should exist", "pid": "63a919e2-2019-04-18T14:36:09Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.45574951171875}, {"text": "I accept and look forward to a meaningful debate. Personal beliefs on gun control: I think it is unacceptable that criminals, terrorists, mentally ill, etc. are able to legally and easily access the guns they use for their crimes. I think firearms and the right to bear arms have enjoyed an undue immunity from any sort of regulation and this refusal to give any ground is costing lives. I do believe there are \"common sense\" gun control measures that will protect responsible gun owners' rights while preventing firearms from getting into the wrong hands. In the wake of acts of terror, natural disasters, and epidemics the U.S. takes drastic response measures, it is time we treat gun violence the same way by enacting gun control legislation.", "title": "Gun Control", "pid": "ea8c07ad-2019-04-18T13:04:12Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.44740295410156}, {"text": "Since my opponent forfeited the round, I will be making no arguments in this one.", "title": "There should be more gun laws", "pid": "f614a31f-2019-04-18T14:43:26Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.4462127685547}, {"text": "Although the government is leaning towards stricter gun control to decrease armed criminal activity, I believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed because it is unconstitutional, it will backfire and promote criminal activity as a whole, and criminals will always find a way to obtain guns.", "title": "Gun Control", "pid": "ea8c0370-2019-04-18T13:53:40Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.4451446533203}, {"text": "Concealed Carry owners are 6% more law abiding than police, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. They can shoot the shooter, and stop the massacre. States that implemented \"shall-issue\" concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent, according to an analysis of FBI crime data by economist and political commentator John R. Lott Jr., PhD. Conversely, states with more restrictive concealed-carry laws have gun-related murder rates that are 10 percent higher, according to a 2013 study in Applied Economic Letters. Statistically, guns save more lives than take them. Guns are for self-defense, but mainly to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, like the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. If the government takes away our guns, we won't have any self-defense against a tyrannical government.", "title": "Im Pro-Gun: Change my Mind", "pid": "1cf18e50-2019-04-18T11:36:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.44508361816406}, {"text": "Hi, so I saw your opinion on assault weapons and I thought you may like to have a debate concerning the 2nd Amendment and Gun Rights. My position is that more guns = less crime, whilst your position will be the opposite (more guns = more crime). If this debate is not satisfactory to you, please counter-propose a debate or send me a message.", "title": "More Guns Creates a Safer Society", "pid": "3cdeffe0-2019-04-18T12:14:42Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.44497680664062}, {"text": "I accept the... 'terms.'", "title": "Should guns laws be implemented", "pid": "88a1fd68-2019-04-18T12:03:21Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.44198608398438}, {"text": "Criminals and gangsters don't follow laws. If they want guns they will get them at any means necessary. If there was a gun control law passed, it would increase the death rate for the law abiding citizens because of lack of self defense options. It would in crease the number of break-in's because an intruder will know that he wont be shot because of current gun laws and they will have a gun they got on the black market. Speaking of which, with gun restriction laws in place, it would increase the black market so that people can get the guns back that they were forced to give up. And look at Switzerland. Every family is required by law to own a fire arm and they have the lowest crime rate in the world.", "title": "Gun Control", "pid": "9c3627bf-2019-04-18T16:33:08Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.4298553466797}, {"text": "For this first portion of my argument I'll show that when observing other nations we can see a correlation that the more Gun Control that you see that the higher the crime rates end up becoming. First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, \"Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime.\" He goes on to say that, \"[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time —not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls.\" This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. Where is the United States on this graph you may be asking yourself? It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates. (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...) Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime use other weapons like knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. (Kates and Mauser, \"Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide\") Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researches Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slight In the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002. (http://johnrlott.tripod.com...) To come full circle we can see that though we can do something and the public wants it does not mean that we should do it as it causes nothing but problems here for us. I'll now pass things back off to my opponent.", "title": "more gun regulation should exist", "pid": "63a919e2-2019-04-18T14:36:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.42764282226562}, {"text": "Extended", "title": "There should be more gun laws", "pid": "f614a31f-2019-04-18T14:43:26Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.4130401611328}, {"text": "I believe there shouldn't be more gun regulation. First of all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Taking guns away or controling guns is just going to cause people to sneak around and do it, or find another way to kill people. Also the second ammendment says \"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.\" People should have a right to have guns.", "title": "there should be more gun regulation", "pid": "5b342d86-2019-04-18T14:39:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.4122314453125}, {"text": "It would be productive to state what your utility is for saying one thing is better than another. And if more gun control would produce that effect then it would be deemed superior. Safer doesn't suffice in my opinion. Also i think it would be good to state what is your specific definition of gun control, such as stricter background checks, no gun permits at all, or whatever your preferred method of gun control is. I assume the burden of proof would be on both parties since it was not stated otherwise. Thanks for the debate in advance.", "title": "Gun control", "pid": "38cc7420-2019-04-18T17:34:32Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.40928649902344}, {"text": "As is with my previous round, I remain adamant that her latter two arguments are unnecessary for this debate. Since I have been bent on proving one rather simple premise, this round need not be long. Let me go back again: we both agree that preserving the human life and the quality of living is important, which we both agree to as a presupposition in this debate. Thus, we also value a method that would decrease the amount of criminals (or at least a criminal's power to do harm). As a consequence, we agree that a method which will overall decrease the amount of criminal power in relation to law-abiding citizen's freedoms is a method that SHOULD be undertaken. This general movement stemming from an ethical foundation to pragmatic considerations is what unites much of our beliefs. So the more focused question is whether or not stricter gun control laws will decrease the amount of criminal power - I'm sure we both agree that, at least to an extend, IT DOES. However, the negative must also observe that stricter gun control laws can impede on the freedom (and safety) of law-abiding citizens as well. Therefore, we must look at the BALANCE between the too -- if some certain gun control laws were to be implemented that would tip the scale towards impeding on the freedoms of citizens, then my opponent would have palpable contentions against my position. On the other hand, if some certain gun control laws were to tip the scale towards decreasing the amount of criminal power, then I would have similar grounds to support such a change. So the question remains: do stricter gun control laws on balance decrease criminal power more than impeding the freedom's of law-abiding citizens? I would argue that most gun control laws have a much more significant impact on criminals than law-abiding citizens, allow me to explain in further detail: Take on gun control law: more extensive backgrounds. For a law-abiding citizen, this shouldn't be a problem since there shouldn't be anything to hide. For a criminal however, things such as suspicious connections or a tainted background can lead to higher attention at their activities or even rejection can curb the amount of potential gun-related violence. Another law is a waiting period; though any dedicated criminal can wait for the time, often criminals buy guns soon before committing a crime while a law-abiding citizen does not, on average, need it as urgently (there will probably be only one or two occasions in their life when it ever comes in crucial use - it's otherwise mostly rotting in their drawers). There are many other examples, but the point is that given the purpose and situations for criminals that obviously differ in comparison to law-abiding citizens, gun control laws will have a much more significant impact. Gun control laws, on balance, have a much more significant impact on impeding the powers of criminals. This is evidenced in the needs of criminals rather than citizens, thus amplifying the effects.", "title": "We Should Have Stricter Gun Control", "pid": "af032b19-2019-04-18T19:11:07Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.40870666503906}, {"text": "Alright. I'm going to go point by point down my opponents statements. First my opponent points out the fallacy between linking gun control and rates of homicides in the United States. To some extent I agree with him, however it is obvious that if we didn't have guns we would have a lower rate of homicide with them also. Furthermore my opponent goes on to conjecture, \"I would attribute the higher rates of homicide to largely flaws in our legal / prison system / police state, which serve to worsen conditions for criminals instead of correcting them in any way\" I find myself in accordance with my opponent here however I can not deny that the availability to weapons has helped these criminals. Next my opponent states that school shootings don't happen with full Autos however I would challenge my opponent to back up this claim or prove beyond a doubt that school shooting have occurred with only small scale handguns. Anything but this would be superfluous and should be illegal under my arguments. Secondly my opponent goes on to tell me that full autos are illegal in the U.S yet this isn't entirely true. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited importation of non-sporting weapons from other countries. It also prohibited registry of most automatic firearms after that point. The The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 on the other handed restricted some semi-auto weapons and banned the production of the machine gun. This however still allows for the sub-machine gun, assault and auto rifles, and machine pistols. My opponent also makes it seem as if fully-automatic guns are nearly impossible to register however a quick glance at wikipedia reveals that nearly 175,000 have been licensed to date in the U.S. This does not account of unlicensed guns. By the way here is an entertaining link to 72 articles on the AK-47. A quick glance over the list shows at least a few of them to be shootings. http://topics.cnn.com... The third story about the mall shooting 2 months ago should be observed. Next my opponent argues that making guns illegal will only cause them to go underground. I partially agree with this statement however at the same time it still does make it harder to people to come across these guns. The amount of work required to attain an illegal gun is substantially more than that required to buy the gun or grab your dads gun (if you are a school child). My opponent goes on to state that a person who is compelled to commit mass murder isn't going to change their mind because a mass murder gun is illegal. So here I must state that any mass murderer would want a full auto machine gun as it would be one of those effective guns in doing such a task. However the fact that the machine gun is illegal within the United States has prevented this from happening. My opponent spreads some light on this issue when he argues that school shootings do not happen with full autos. School shootings typically happen with the easiest weapon to come by. My opponents third point is that a person walking into a classroom with a hand gun vs. a full automatic will do just as much damage. This is simply not true, a person walking in with a handgun will be 1. Forced to reload 2. Forced to actually aim and 3. Forced to take more time between each shot. These factors allow for nearby people to attack said person. If my opponent would like we could expand this idea to a school cafeteria, the larger scale shows the benefits of full auto over handgun. Fourth: In the odd even we as a people face tyrannical oppression I doubt guns will do anything to protects us from what the government has. Either way unless you can prove tyrannical oppression will be happening on this scale the point is moot. Next my opponent goes on to argue proactive vs reactive. I care little for such an argument, I am simply arguing preventive. My argument takes the guns off the street which lowers the chance of them falling into the hands, legally or illegally, of criminals. From here he argues that students should be allowed to carry guns. This is a bad idea, to have the gun there simply promotes the idea of violence. As I said earlier if a school shooting like this did break out it would simply result in chaos. Next my opponent argues once again that we need weapons in order to fight the government should it repress us. I would simply like to offer alternative versions such as peaceful diplomatic democratic discussions. Finally my opponent finishes his speech by attacking my school cafeteria chaos point. He does so on two levels. A. He questions why anybody would start a shooting if they knew everyone was going to shoot them back. My answer is simple, because at the point when someone walks into a school intending to shoot many people they have already given up their will to live. This can be seen through the AK-47 link above and many other incidents where the criminal commmited seucide afterwards. B. My opponent states, \"Historically, similar situations have occurred on numerous occasions. Think about the exact same scenario playing out in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries if a person walked into a bar full of people carrying a gun intending to kill many or all of the people in there. Do you think they'd all panicked and kill each other?\" This is his downfall and an example the clearly proves my case. As I recall from many old westerns such shootings resulted constantly in anywhere from 1 to 10 people dieing. It was incidents like this that started the whole \"gun control\" idea in the first place. The fact that we don't have these incidents any more simply proves my point. The fact that it is now illegal to carry guns like that has prevented many needless homicides. In summary my opponent advocates for a proactive stance on this issue; everyone should have guns to preempt other people. However my opponent never answers my argument stating that it is impossible to preempt someone who pulls a gun on you. I on the other hand advocate prevention, my case stops the gun crimes before they ever happen by making the guns more and more difficult to come by. Examples of this are the western scenario my opponent offered or the lack of school shootings involving full auto machine guns. I do not advocate the complete restriction of guns I simply advocate all guns above the common handgun and hunting rifles should have stricter control laws. Thank you.", "title": "The U.S. government should impose stricter gun control laws in order to reduce violent crime", "pid": "9e3e2e75-2019-04-18T19:50:01Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.40638732910156}, {"text": "You said it well when you said, \"Like I said the problem isn't the laws themselves it's enforcing them.\" We aren't talking about a gun-ban, nor the enforcement of gun control laws. We are talking about are gun control laws a good idea in general. We aren't talking about adding extra laws either. My position is simply gun control laws are a good idea to have, but not to go overboard with.", "title": "Gun control", "pid": "e0c0be54-2019-04-18T11:42:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.40316772460938}, {"text": "more guns =/= more safety but having more restrictions is pointless if it has no actual effect on homocides. However, this is completely contradictory because if more guns = more crime, less guns will = less crime. Furthermore, your statistic doesn't actually say \"92\" in it, yet states that criminals find it easy to acquire guns illegally, but does not give a number of how many actually acquired them illegally. It merely states that only 8% stole guns. Adding restrictions on guns takes away guns, leaving fewer guns in houses, which as I have already stated will lower crime. All of my arguments still stand as my opponent has made no clash.", "title": "Gun Laws in the United States should be tightened", "pid": "fc60053c-2019-04-18T17:42:17Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.39859008789062}, {"text": "1) Stricter gun control laws do not reduce crime. An overarching theme of gun control is whether the strictness of its regulations has a correlation to how much it controls and/or reduces crime. Stricter gun control laws include longer waiting times, stricter eligibility for the privilege to conceal arms, as well as tougher requirements for background checks. I contest that stricter gun laws will either have no impact on crime rates, or it will have a negative impact on crime rates. Firstly, statistics and studies on gun control show that a longer waiting period does not impact firearm crime rates at all. Moreover, all commercial gun dealers have to run a background check; there is no loophole during \"gun shows\", as many people assume, either. Background checks are a gauge of how lawful a person is on paper; it's impossible to gauge everyone's intentions and what they might do in situations that cause them spur-of-the-moment violence. Finally, the real kicker is that gun control laws do the opposite of what they are supposed to do. In fact, the 31 states with \"shall issue\" laws (the law to conceal weapons) \"have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. \" The nine states with he lowest violent crime rates all have right to carry laws. (. http://www.cato.org...) Gun control laws do *not* work, and it is not a theoretical statement, but a statistically proven one. To make guns harder to obtain simply makes no difference to crime rates. To pass laws that forbids someone to conceal weapons makes crime rates go higher. Gun control laws not only do not work, but they even bring up crime rates. 2) Guns save lives. Despite it being an incredibly corny line, guns don't kill people, people kill people. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. However, someone pro-gun control might say that guns make it easier for people to kill, and guns make harm more accessible to people. We have to consider that people are using the guns to harm others. How, then, will people defend themselves? Consider this: rape victims are mostly female and physically weaker than their predators. What's a quick way to bridge the gap between the physicality? With a gun, of course. A victim with a gun is far more likely to have a winning chance to defend themselves. One, of course, also needs to look at the numbers. \"Guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. \" (. http://www.cato.org...) Guns save lives. To the weak, easily victimized, guns are a way for them to give themselves a fighting chance. 3) Guns are a form of liberty. We all know that weapons are power. Time and time again we've been shown that whoever has the weapons, has the power. For example, Hitler himself said that the \"most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms\". (. http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...) The only people that could have guns were the German military, the military that ended up being the law and order of all of the Nazi-occupied countries. For there to be stricter gun control laws, we are putting more power into our governments' hands. What makes America a democracy is that the people hold the power. To hinder America's accessibility to arms is to hinder America's liberty. Just because America, at the moment, seem to be at a point where the people hold the most power, we shouldn't forget the recent events of World War II, where anyone Japanese in America by heritage, whether they are an American or not, were put into concentration camps whilst their property was taken away. 4) Conclusion Not only are stricter gun laws not effective or negatively effective, they are also a great component in people's safety. Statistically, and realistically, stricter gun laws will not save lives. In fact, it will cause more lives to be harmed. Even though the laws might be well-intentioned, they have to consider how the laws would work- and they wouldn't. Gun control doesn't work. I challenge Pro to come up with laws that aren't redundant or reductive. Just because we have a problem (gun violence) doesn't mean there's a solution to it. Stricter gun control laws are not a solution. My final argument is that yes, we have a problem, but the proposed solution (gun control) does not work. I look forward to hearing my opponent's side of the debate :).", "title": "We Should Have Stricter Gun Control", "pid": "af032b19-2019-04-18T19:11:07Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.39804077148438}, {"text": "The U.S government is taking gun control reform too seriously and the best idea is to stop gun control laws. I would like to thank my opponent, whomever it is for his argument and his time. Now I shall begin my argument: 1) Contrary to popular belief, the places with more gun control reform actually have more deaths per year than places where there are less gun control reform such as London. Why? That is because in those countries with more gun control reform, the criminals know that the citizens do not have weapons on them, making thm an easier target for burglary usually using knives. However, when criminals are in an area with less gun control reform- and lets say they own a gun too- they know the risks of breaking into a house where the owner owns a liscensed firearm and they will not risk being injured or killed. 2) The Second Amendment is one of America's oldest laws and it states that: \"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\" 3) Though some people say that it is the government's right to protect the people, it is also the citizen's right to overthrow he government when they find i not fit to lead. How can civilians fight off a trained military? With firearms. 4)Though some say less gun control reform makes for more terrorists attacks, that is also false due to the thorough background checks. The background checks involve seeing if a person has been to countries of dispute for suspiciously prolonged periods of time and whether or not if that person is mentally ill or if they have a criminal record.", "title": "There Should be no Gun Control Reform Laws", "pid": "ceedae87-2019-04-18T12:38:43Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.390380859375}, {"text": "Lets get started I. No correlation between more gun control and less crime \"…the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.\" -As presented by Harvard gun studyThe idea that banning guns will lead to less crime is false. In reality, it is actually the complete opposite. II. 60% of guns are used purley for self defense No, all gun owners are not criminals, and many have not commited any crime related to gun. 60% of guns are used for self defense and banning them may in fact lead to an increase of crime. It is really no supprise that a criminal would not try to break in to a house with person that owns a gun. Why should others suffer because of shootings , due to someone's stupidity or mental diesese? III. Decrease in gun ownership lead to an increase of crime\"If the mantra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)\"-As presented by Harvard gun study So, less guns do lead to more crime. In Ireland and Jamica, after banning guns, it has shown a steep increase of crime. http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org...http://www.theacru.org...http://www.gallup.com...http://www.bostonmagazine.com...", "title": "Severe gun control", "pid": "a1470987-2019-04-18T15:31:02Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.37945556640625}, {"text": "since my opponent forfeited I will hold my arguments for another round.", "title": "Gun Control Laws Should Be Abolished", "pid": "557e846e-2019-04-18T16:15:28Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.37924194335938}, {"text": "I am fantastically awesome in my own mind.", "title": "There Should be no Gun Control Reform Laws", "pid": "ceedae87-2019-04-18T12:38:43Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.37762451171875}, {"text": "Definitions and premises may be challenged or agreed upon. Arguments should be in regard to morals as well as plausibility. Resolution- Increased Gun Control is Unconstitutional Definitions: Handgun- firearm designed to have the potential to be held and operated by one hand although not necessarily used that way. Unconstitutional- not in accordance with an applicable constitution of a nation. Constitution- The document referred to as the supreme law of the land adopted on September 17, 1787 at the U. S Constitutional Convention. Premises (Open to Challenge) 1) Guns are not inherently evil and fulfill functions that have been crucial and useful to human society. 2) The right to bear arms is stated explicitly in the US Constitution under the fundamental Bill of Rights", "title": "Increased Handgun Control is Unconstitutional", "pid": "9e1a911-2019-04-18T18:17:47Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.37464904785156}, {"text": "more guns correlates with more homicidehttp://www.amjmed.com...i can find plenty more of those types of articles. so shouldn't we at least consider getting rid of guns, if we could reduce murders by say eighty percent? not everyone will stop at nothing to get a gun. most people if they dont have a gun, aren't as likely to kill. they dont just get a gun cause they dont have one.", "title": "Complete Gun Control", "pid": "378af022-2019-04-18T14:06:00Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.3709259033203}, {"text": "My opponent has forfeited, I will allow him another chance to state his opening argument.", "title": "Why more gun laws are a bad idea.", "pid": "47e1618e-2019-04-18T15:26:44Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.3585662841797}, {"text": "Is that all you can come up with?. Please give me something to debate you on.", "title": "Gun bans and strict gun control increases crime and homicide rates.", "pid": "4465369a-2019-04-18T16:09:55Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.35342407226562}, {"text": "lol", "title": "Gun bans and strict gun control increases crime and homicide rates.", "pid": "4465369a-2019-04-18T16:09:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.34686279296875}, {"text": "First, I will contend that equality is the primary thing our goverment should be achieving. Using social contract theory[1], the natural state of man is one of anarchy where the strongest rules, but this is unmaintainable for many reasons, some of which are obvious. No one has any security and the strong rules over the weak. So, what we do is create social contracts which are rules we must follow lest we be punished for our actions. These rules are manifested as our government, the entity that creates and enforces laws. These laws are primarily to maintain equality and safety, so that no man rules over any other and people do not have to worry whether someone will kill or punish them for not following someone else's self serving orders. With this in mind, I propose that the reason for restricting the sale of guns is to provide this greater ideal for the government, to maintain equality. Assuming that we have a good gun control plan that keeps guns out of the hands of most criminals, this provides a very strong barrier to violent crimes which is the breach of the contract that provides equality. Deterrence with our prisons is nice, but if we can do more, we are obligated to do it. Criminals have easy access to guns now, but if those guns are much harder to obtain for their suppliers, guns will eventually decrease and gun violence will decrease. 1. . http://www.iep.utm.edu........., primarily the philosophy of John Locke", "title": "Guns should be more heavily restricted in the US", "pid": "78052d56-2019-04-18T12:44:38Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.34490966796875}, {"text": "For my first debate, I would like to challenge a conservative with a strong commitment to the 2nd amendment. Opening Arguments in first round. In the wake of the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting (in which the gunman legally obtained weapons that granted him the means to murder 49 Americans and injure 51 more) and other mass shootings in recent years that seem only to intensify in frequency and damage, I will argue that gun control, at least its consideration in Congress, is a necessity. What type of gun control is needed? I believe the federal government should implement a universal background check system, close gun-purchase loopholes, and ban the purchase and sale of assault rifles. Only providing prayers to the victims of these tragedies is no longer an acceptable response. We cannot preserve absolute gun purchasing freedom at the expense of innocent American lives and our inaction in preventing mass shootings is shameful as well as complicit in their occurence.", "title": "Gun Control Is Necessary In Light Of Orlando Shooting", "pid": "822a2b32-2019-04-18T13:09:16Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.34449768066406}, {"text": "With all the heated debate about banning guns in America amidst all the recent shootings, it would be foolish to ban and or confiscate all semi automatic rifles as recent Democrats have suggested. Every major study in recent history has proven that there is no correlation between the number of gun owners relating to the number of homicides. In fact the areas of the country that have the strictest gun control have the highest number of homicides whereas the places that have relaxed gun control see the fewest homicides.", "title": "Banning guns places Americans in greater danger of being a victim of crimes.", "pid": "bb41c278-2019-04-18T12:59:57Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.34104919433594}, {"text": "My intentions for this debate are simple: I want to discredit all the myths that gun control makes law biding citizens safer. Gun control is not only unconstitutional, but dangerous for Americans. The 2nd Amendment was put in place not to protect the Nation, but to protect the people within the nation. I will go on in the later rounds to clarify, but I want to keep my opening statement brief. Thank you, and good luck.", "title": "Gun control laws do not make America safer for law biding citizens!", "pid": "f0dbfb03-2019-04-18T19:51:33Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.33331298828125}, {"text": "Sorry for the misunderstanding. When I defined gun control I said laws and regulations regarding guns which don't necessarily mean a ban on any type of gun it just means more laws regarding guns. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Firstly, Unsurprisingly America has more guns than any country in the world. A staggering 89 guns for every 100 people. This is far more then doubling the second leading country in this area. The USA also has the most gun homicides (A staggering 22 more per million then the second leading country in the world) and also the most deaths because of guns in general. This data was all collected by the United Nations. There has been research conducted by Leah Libresco that shows that these two things are directly related. Another smart group of individuals, who also found that these two things were connected are the Harvard School of Public Health\"s Injury Control Research Center. The Boston University School of Public Health found similar findings showing that a 1 percent increase in guns was most likely to create a 0.9 percent increase in firearm homicide rate at the state level. In all these findings the variables were controlled and the research was performed by experts. All this data proves that America's easy access to guns and quantity of guns leads to more violence. Having so many guns makes it incredibly easy for criminals and felons to access. To fix this problem America would have a limit on the number of guns made and imported into America. We could also have stricter laws on who could have guns. An example of a few is making background checks mandatory so that there would be less of a need for guns in America. We could also make an age restriction on guns. Don't you think its a bit weird how kids aren't allowed to drink until their 21 but they're allowed to have a weapon that kills humans? Thank you for reading my argument and I hope you consider it deeply. Sources: https://www.vox.com...", "title": "Gun Control Should Be Introduced In America", "pid": "3a2ea41b-2019-04-18T11:43:16Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.32818603515625}, {"text": "America's obession with guns is too much. It needs to stop. Obivously, nobody learned anything from the Newtown shootings. You won't need to defend yourself if you there weren't guns in the first place.", "title": "We need more gun control", "pid": "622002e-2019-04-18T15:10:57Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.32791137695312}, {"text": "Gun control should not be implemented because it violates the second amendment that was adopted into the bill of rights that gives us Americans the right to bear arms.", "title": "Gun control", "pid": "e0c0a46a-2019-04-18T15:00:02Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.32778930664062}, {"text": "Someone please convince me that the govt. should institute gun control legislation. Taking and banning weapons from the citizens.", "title": "Gun Control", "pid": "9c36149d-2019-04-18T17:49:21Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.32574462890625}, {"text": "I beg to differ. According to \" usatoday.com\", States with the most laws had a mortality rate 42% lower than those states with the fewest laws, they found. The strong law states' firearm-related homicide rate was also 40% lower and their firearm-related suicide rate was 37% lower\" (Alcindor, p.1, 2013). It was retrieved online at http://www.usatoday.com.... P1 This quote shows that stricter gun laws do in fact lower violent crimes. P2 states that have stricter gun laws have less violent rate conclusion The second amendment influence violence because most states have lenient gun laws Issue: whether the Second Amendment influence violence because of the lenient gun laws", "title": "The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees an individual right to own firearms.", "pid": "7e70bd2d-2019-04-18T16:37:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.31886291503906}]}
{"idx": 26, "qid": "28", "q_text": "Should prostitution be legal?", "qrels": {"52c8b976-2019-04-18T15:37:15Z-00005-000": 0, "52c8b976-2019-04-18T15:37:15Z-00002-000": 2, "52c8b957-2019-04-18T15:36:42Z-00003-000": 0, "436cc21d-2019-04-18T13:44:16Z-00002-000": 2, "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00061-000": 2, "35179721-2019-04-18T19:41:11Z-00005-000": 2, "31806999-2019-04-18T16:58:21Z-00002-000": 2, "29e66283-2019-04-18T19:27:24Z-00000-000": 2, "286347c6-2019-04-18T12:24:41Z-00004-000": 1, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "18dd4096-2019-04-18T11:17:01Z-00009-000": 0, "52c8b976-2019-04-18T15:37:15Z-00000-000": 2, "53ea1c8-2019-04-18T19:35:11Z-00008-000": 1, "9f061228-2019-04-18T15:29:10Z-00005-000": 0, "5e72cb5d-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00002-000": 0, "622af56b-2019-04-18T14:56:01Z-00003-000": 2, "7e6be05b-2019-04-18T18:28:25Z-00001-000": 0, "d80382e8-2019-04-18T15:28:06Z-00003-000": 0, "821c3072-2019-04-18T12:07:12Z-00000-000": 2, "861aa534-2019-04-18T18:27:34Z-00000-000": 0, "87d0ccd3-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00076-000": 0, "8f7cc685-2019-04-18T15:45:42Z-00000-000": 2, "181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00000-000": 0, "9010a352-2019-04-18T14:32:49Z-00004-000": 2, "9010a352-2019-04-18T14:32:49Z-00003-000": 2, "9c028fab-2019-04-18T18:03:30Z-00004-000": 2, "9c028fab-2019-04-18T18:03:30Z-00002-000": 2, "5a868245-2019-04-18T17:48:39Z-00003-000": 0, "7e6be05b-2019-04-18T18:28:25Z-00002-000": 0, "181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00002-000": 2, "de4e6edf-2019-04-18T19:42:08Z-00005-000": 0, "fc16d928-2019-04-18T18:05:52Z-00004-000": 1, "ecb3571b-2019-04-18T16:51:54Z-00002-000": 0, "df2c387e-2019-04-18T19:16:59Z-00005-000": 0, "dddbe3de-2019-04-18T17:24:51Z-00004-000": 0, "daa1bf82-2019-04-18T16:57:22Z-00004-000": 2, "d31537ce-2019-04-18T16:41:38Z-00006-000": 0, "cf3ad38f-2019-04-18T16:49:54Z-00004-000": 2, "d31537ce-2019-04-18T16:41:38Z-00002-000": 2, "bbe2f561-2019-04-18T19:26:06Z-00005-000": 2, "b186236b-2019-04-18T15:07:33Z-00004-000": 0, "aae93639-2019-04-18T17:25:58Z-00001-000": 2, "a4429c4a-2019-04-18T13:39:27Z-00001-000": 0, "a4429c4a-2019-04-18T13:39:27Z-00005-000": 2, "181f937b-2019-04-18T17:30:09Z-00000-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "I believe that Prostitution should be legal, I challenge anyone to change my mind, or give me a new perspective on the subject.I strongly believe that anyone, should be able to trade anything with anyone as long as everyone involved has given consent.", "title": "Prostitution should be legalised, change my mind.", "pid": "b72509d-2019-04-18T11:31:54Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.92303466796875}, {"text": "Please state your argument.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal.", "pid": "181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 219.44065856933594}, {"text": "I think it should be legal. I'm interested in arguments aganist it. I not putting my arguments up in the first round because I'm on a phone now and it would be a pain. Looking forward to the debate.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "cf3ad3ec-2019-04-18T15:15:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.25216674804688}, {"text": "conclusion: prostitution should be legal :)", "title": "prostitution should be legal", "pid": "6c53db90-2019-04-18T16:50:44Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.21713256835938}, {"text": "Prostitution is disgusting and should never be legal! When I was an European Nato soldier stationed in Afghanistan, I was told by my comrades, that whores were avaible in the next town over, and they were young, pretty and cheap. One day I decided to give it a try. One the men from the local Klan, took my 20$ and led me down a staircase to a basement. Here a young girl, was working as a whore. I felt disgusted. But I still fucked her! No, it should never be legal.", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized", "pid": "94b678b-2019-04-18T16:48:46Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.12155151367188}, {"text": "Prostitution should be illegal. If it is a person's right to decide what they want to do with their body, it follows that they choose to suffer a high probability of getting sexually harassed, raped and possibly be continually followed by the attacker if the person does not act. Suppose prostitution is legal, then the availability of prostitutes will rise, allowing for more people to purchase this service. Their motives are usually: sexual urges, satisfy sexual fetishes and dissatisfied with partner. This produces problems with men/women that cannot contain their sexual urges: sexual harassment rates increase. Additionally, if the person is religious, their acts of sins may make them go alcoholic or take illegal drugs to control their emotions. My last point is that people with sexually transmitted diseases will increase because cheap brothels will accept nearly everyone as they require currency to survive. As a consequence, the clients may have STIs and sexually transmit it to the prostitutes unknowingly and then we see a rapid spread.", "title": "Legal Prostitution", "pid": "2d288299-2019-04-18T13:53:09Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.1154327392578}, {"text": "prostitution is an agreement between consenting adultsProstitution is sex in exchange for money. One party is willing to pay money to have sex. The other party is willing to receive money for sex. If both parties adults, government should not take away their freedom to engage in the exchange. Of course, child prostitution and forced prostitution should remain illegal.legalization makes prostitution safer If sex workers are not treated as criminals, they can seek the protection of law enforcement without fear of being arrested. Sex workers should be registered. This way, it will be easier to for law enforcement and potential clients when sex workers are minors, when they are forced or when they are illegal immigrants.", "title": "prostitution should be legal", "pid": "6c53db90-2019-04-18T16:50:44Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.0909881591797}, {"text": "Prostitution should be legalized. A bullet point list of reasons why; -Safer, cleaner services, which also cut down on incarceration and diseases -Less stigmas and taboos against sex, lust, and the human body -Economic boosts -Hurts the human trafficking trade -Improves overall happiness and decreases stress of the population", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal", "pid": "a4429c4a-2019-04-18T13:39:27Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.03488159179688}, {"text": "There are three reasons as to why prostitution should be illegal. 1. It is an immoral act according to many religions. 2. It helps with the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. 3. It is a gateway to other bad behaviors such as drugs.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.", "pid": "ab52fe3f-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.02178955078125}, {"text": "I accept my opponent's invitation to debate.Resolution: Prostitution should be legalI'd like to clarify the rules and structure to avoid confusion.Structure:Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Opening StatementsRound 3 - RebuttalsRules:1) No hate speech/ slander2) No kritkiks3) No plagiarism4) No new arguments in final round5) Please use citations6) No forfeiture7) No troll arguments8) BoP is sharedTerms:Prostitution - the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.Should - used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.Be - (used to indicate the condition of a person or thing)Legal - allowed by the law or by the rules in a gameVoting Rules:1) Vote Convincing Arguments2) Only vote conduct if plagiarism, forfeiture, and/or slander is present3) Only vote spelling and grammar if it's so poor it detracts from the arguments at hand4) Only vote reliable sources if they're proven to be false, biased, etc. by opponentsThank you. I look forward to your arguments.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "181f937b-2019-04-18T17:30:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.00338745117188}, {"text": "Rape is a crime and does not have anything to do with prostitution. Diseases can be prevented by protection. Young women will have the choice to do what they want and they won't be harassed since it is not against their will.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "cf3ad40b-2019-04-18T15:04:08Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.9944305419922}, {"text": "Personally, it should be a fundamental right to have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want, and whichever way you want as long as both parties agree to the proceedings. (Aside from an adult having sex with a minor, that's a separate matter) Some arguments against the legalization of prostitution are semi-valid, usually to the theme of health risks and such. Whether or not that argument is valid should not effect one guy, who wants to have sex, and one girl, who is willing to perform sexual acts upon said person for money, to make a transaction of mutual gain. Other arguments attempt to define Prostitution as a moral issue by saying it's demeaning and should therefore be illegal, but what they don't see is that something being demeaning is only a subjective judgement, and besides, both parties would be accepting the alleged demeaningness. That argument is like saying that if someone doesn't like a movie because he/she thinks it demeaning, then he/she can make it illegal to see that movie based on subjective value judgements. You should not enforce subjective morality onto others. I'll restate my point one more time, for good measure: If it's consensual and doesn't directly affect anyone else, then it should be legal.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal.", "pid": "181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.97122192382812}, {"text": "kk", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal", "pid": "a4429b52-2019-04-18T17:41:28Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.94558715820312}, {"text": "A short debate.Not to be confused with the unrelated debate on the morality of prostitution, the debate here is concerned with whether or not Prostitution should be legal.To briefly state my case:Prostitution, whether it is prohibited by law or not, will always exist in Society. There will always be a Demand for sex, and likewise there will always be a Supply of it. Many of the woes that people claim come with legalized prostitution (pimping, child trafficking, forced prostitution) would actually be solved by legalizing prostitution as that the legal stigma would vanish. Both prostitutes and \"johns\" would have nothing to fear in approaching the police regarding potential crimes. However, those same crimes listed above are made worse when prostitution is illegal, both because of underworld economics and because prostitutes are less likely to go to police when they fear being arrested (as do their customers).", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal", "pid": "e410cf7a-2019-04-18T12:25:46Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.93115234375}, {"text": "The resolution is that prostitution should be legalized. Con will attempt to argue that it should stay illegal. Definition of prostitution: The practice of engaging in sexual relations in exchange for money or other objects of monetary value. Round one is for acceptance only as well as any definitions or clarifications con may wish to present. No new arguments can be presented in the last round. Good luck con!", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized", "pid": "94b676c-2019-04-18T16:56:27Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.90765380859375}, {"text": "I accept your challenge, for I do not believe prostitution should be legal under any circumstances. Good luck.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "181f935c-2019-04-18T13:30:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.9028778076172}, {"text": "I believe that prostitution should not be a crime and should be legalized. My first point would definetly be that prostitution is a victim-free crime. It is the prostitutes choice. My second point is that sex work is legitement work and problems within the job are caused by the fact that prostitutes are very vulnerable and thats what creates victims. My third point is if prostitution wasnt such an underground activity it would allow prostitution to be alot more peaceful and less abuse.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.", "pid": "ab52fe3f-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.8411865234375}, {"text": "prostitution is an agreement between consenting adultsProstitution is sex in exchange for money. One party is willing to pay money to have sex. The other party is willing to receive money for sex. If both parties adults, government should not take away their freedom to engage in the exchange. Of course, child prostitution and forced prostitution should remain illegal. legalization makes prostitution saferIf sex workers are not treated as criminals, they can seek the protection of law enforcement without fear of being arrested. Sex workers should be registered. This way, it will be easier to for law enforcement and potential clients when sex workers are minors, when they are forced or when they are illegal immigrants. (Another debate of mine on this topic never really took place, so I copied and pasted the opening arguments. )I am surprised that you are against legalization of prostitution, because on your profile you claim to be libertarian. My main argument for legalization is that government should not interfere and should not unnecessarily restrict civil liberties.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "cf3ad38f-2019-04-18T16:49:54Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.83212280273438}, {"text": "If prostitution was legal it would allow them to do checks on prostitutes and make sure they dont have any sexual diseases that can be passed on. They should have check ups at the doctors to make sure they are healthy and if they are not they shouldnt be aloud in the profession. Prostitutes wouldnt have to be victims if it was legalized because it wouldnt be so underground and secret and they could build hotels for prostitution services and if the prostitutes had any issues they would just call the main desk and they would notify police right away and stop the crime. GOLFWANG OFWGKTA", "title": "Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.", "pid": "ab52fe3f-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.80352783203125}, {"text": "This is actually an invitation to missbailey8 , so if you accept please state in round one and wait further instructions, if not then you can apologize for not accepting also in round one.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "181f937b-2019-04-18T17:30:09Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.79441833496094}, {"text": "Definition; Should: (Duty) used to say or ask what is the correct or best thing to do. http://dictionary.cambridge.org...", "title": "Prostitution should be legal in the United States", "pid": "821c3072-2019-04-18T12:07:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.78294372558594}, {"text": "Wow. What a nice guy. You've got my respect.Extend", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal", "pid": "a4429c4a-2019-04-18T13:39:27Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.7510986328125}, {"text": "1. Prostitution should be legalized. BUT, only if it is highly regulated, like the state of Nevada, Amsterdam, and Sweden. All Prostitutes must have STD tests every week, and there clients must use condems or they will be fined. Rape and abuse must be reported. 2. If a woman wants to sell herself, that's HER choice. 3. If a woman/man is in a bad financial situation, this is a better option over working at MCDonald's and getting paid minimum wage. 4. Its better than somebody breaking into a house and raping somebody when they can just go to the local brothel and get sex morally and legally correct. And if a prostitute is raped than it will be reported and the client will suffer consequences. 5. It will generate a lot of tax revenue. 6. No matter what, it will still happen, so we should just legalize it.", "title": "Legal Prostitution", "pid": "2d28827a-2019-04-18T15:32:33Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.71786499023438}, {"text": "Side note: This is my first debate on debate.org. Okay, my opinion is that prostitution should be legal because what people do consensually should not be regulated. If x thinks y is attractive, and goes up to y and offers money for sex, and y accepts, what's the problem?", "title": "Prostitution should be legal.", "pid": "181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 218.7164306640625}, {"text": "-It's not just a few people, it's more common than you think. -No, prostitution INCREASES rape reports. -Yes it is abuse because prostitution is human trafficking. Women are kidnapped everyday and are sold to the prostitution ring and suffer a cycle of abuse.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "cf3ad40b-2019-04-18T15:04:08Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.6915283203125}, {"text": "Many feminists consider that prostitution reflects the independence and dominance of modern women.", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal", "pid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 218.68873596191406}, {"text": "The resolution is that prostitution should be legalized. Con will attempt to argue that it should be banned. Definition of prostitution: The practice of engaging in sexual relations in exchange for money or other objects of monetary value. Round one is for acceptance only as well as any definitions or clarifications con may wish to present. No new arguments can be presented in the last round. Good luck con!", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized", "pid": "be3c3e1a-2019-04-18T17:01:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.68629455566406}, {"text": "This debate is about prostitution. I believe prostitution should be legal, but I've chosen to argue a side I don't believe in, to keep things interesting. This should be fun! There are three rounds. The first is for acceptance. The second is for arguments. The third is for rebuttals. I have made the voting open to members with a minimum Elo of 2500. I also ask voters explain their decision. That should keep randoms from voting and ensure a fair assessment.", "title": "Prostitution should be illegal.", "pid": "52c8b957-2019-04-18T15:36:42Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.68113708496094}, {"text": "This debate is about prostitution. I believe prostitution should be legal, but I've chosen to argue a side I don't believe in, to keep things interesting. This should be fun! There are three rounds. The first is for acceptance. The second is for arguments. The third is for rebuttals. I have made the voting open to members with a minimum Elo of 2500. I also ask voters explain their decision. That should keep randoms from voting and ensure a fair assessment.", "title": "Prostitution should be illegal.", "pid": "52c8b976-2019-04-18T15:37:15Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.68113708496094}, {"text": "Well this is very disappointing. I'll do a quick summary of what I think. Basically I believe if it's between consenting adults and it doesn't hurt anyone without there consent it should be legal.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "cf3ad3ec-2019-04-18T15:15:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.65231323242188}, {"text": "As I've said, prostitution is simply unethical, and will inevitably lead to more harm than good if legalized. Those are my final thoughts on the subject.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "181f935c-2019-04-18T13:30:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.64785766601562}, {"text": "Prostitution should be legal since women can have the choice to practice it or not. If they are not being forced then I don't see the problem. If we legalise it , many women that can't find a job will want to do it since it is not against the law. They can win money, have fun and give others pleasure too. There is nothing sexist about prostitution, and so it should be legal.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "cf3ad40b-2019-04-18T15:04:08Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 218.64483642578125}, {"text": "I disagree.", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized", "pid": "94b67e8-2019-04-18T16:15:54Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.63259887695312}, {"text": "I believe that the occupation of prostitution should be legalized in America. The fact that it is illegal is what makes this whole business dangerous for the prostitutes. The fact that it is illegal forces these women to work in a dark alleyway to avoid being caught by the police, while opening them up to violent attack. The only thing that prostitution affects is the prostitute, and the person seeking sexual favors. Since it only affects those two why would it be illegal. It only waste money by putting people who aren't a danger to society in jail. And I don't know about you, but I don't enjoy the fact that money is being flushed down the toilet like this. Thoughts?", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized", "pid": "be3c3d9e-2019-04-18T19:00:02Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.63186645507812}, {"text": "Well must prostitutes use condoms will having sex. It reduces the risk of spreading sexual diseases and it allows the female to not become pregnant. If it would be legalized it would be strictly regulated. It would help raise millions of dollars in taxes annually, reduce sexual crimes, and help protect the public from sexually transmitted diseases. In Nevada where prostitution is legal they do testing on all the prostitutes yearly to make sure they dont have any diseases and legalizing it also helped Nevada reduce the amount of street prostitutes. To legalize prostitution states would have to be very strict but it could work out and help street prostitutes to be safer and healthier in their work of business.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.", "pid": "ab52fe3f-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.59262084960938}, {"text": "I will be arguing that prostitution should not be legal because I believe it is unethical, that it degrades women, it would lead to a public health crisis and problems with children. First and foremost, the obvious; it is unethical for a woman, or a man, to sell themselves away for money. Even if they consent to it, it is still wrong. I predict my opponent will say something along the lines of \"My body, my rights\", and that's what I'll get to later. Second off, what kind of society would we be creating for ourselves if we allow prostitution. A society that basically believes that women are good only for sex work? That's not the kind of society I want to live in, or the kind of society I want the next generation to grow up in. And than there are the two downfalls of prostitution; the spread of STDS, and the unwanted children. I have no doubt that no matter how much government regulation there is, the spread of STDS would lead to a public health crisis. And imagine how many children the prostitutes would have. And don't say \"Just get abortoins\" because abortion is even more unethical than prostitution itself.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "181f935c-2019-04-18T13:30:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.58428955078125}, {"text": "Note: since missbailey8 is pro I believe you'll have to post your argument that supports your position on the legalization of what is considered by many to be a dishonourable act before I post mine .", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "181f937b-2019-04-18T17:30:09Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.5657501220703}, {"text": "k", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized", "pid": "94b678b-2019-04-18T16:48:46Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.56298828125}, {"text": "The law as it stands is wrong and patronising to women", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal", "pid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 218.55029296875}, {"text": "- Violence: In recent studies, prostitution has higher violent rates than other professions. Varying violence abuse includes rape, harassment, murder, etc. - Diseases: Prostitution spreads diseases such as aids. Since not everyone uses protection. - In conclusion prostitution should not be legalized because of it's degrading nature. It is not moral for a society to legalize young women to sell themselves on the streets to complete strangers.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "cf3ad40b-2019-04-18T15:04:08Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 218.5496826171875}, {"text": "Prostitution is a victimless crime. Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape -- acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "cf3ad3ec-2019-04-18T15:15:37Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.53553771972656}, {"text": "...ok then", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized", "pid": "94b678b-2019-04-18T16:48:46Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.52444458007812}, {"text": "Prostitution is harmful to both the prostitute and to the \"buyer\". Prostitutes aren't always voluntary, but can be forced into the profession and or kidnapped.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.", "pid": "ab52fe20-2019-04-18T17:03:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.51695251464844}, {"text": "Please Note: This is a 5 round Debate. Structure 1. Acceptance: brief introduction to your position 2. Pro' s opening arguments/ Con's rebuttal 3. Pro's rebuttal/ Con's 2nd rebuttal. 4. Pro's 2nd rebuttal /con's 3rd rebuttal. 5. Closing arguments and final rebuttals I believe that prostitution should be legalized. Prostitution as defined is the \"The practice or occupation of engaging in sex with someone for payment\". This is classified as the oldest profession in the world. it is very obvious why this profession has survived so long and why it has continued to strive. Therefore I believe that decriminalizing this profession will yield many benefits and legally open doors once closed. (1) www.dictionary.com", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized", "pid": "be3c3dbd-2019-04-18T18:24:51Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.48959350585938}, {"text": "Prostitution should not be legal because it is very immoral and it is not safe for the well being of the woman in the first place. Now a days we know all the of the effects that having sex can do to ones body. They can send different diseases and should not be legalized.", "title": "legalized prostitution", "pid": "286347c6-2019-04-18T12:24:41Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.48692321777344}, {"text": "I am starting this debate again because last time my opponent forfeited every turn. Please comment first if you are willing to make this a legitimate debate. Prostitution should be legalized, but be carefully regulated. Laws should protect prostitutes from abuse from their bosses and clients. All intercourse must be protected with condoms, and prostitutes must not have any STDs, STIs, or STVs. Rates must be regulated, and lack of paying will be considered rape in a court. Definitions (Dictionary. com): Prostitute: a man or woman who engages in sexual acts for money. Legal: appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law. Sex: sexual activity; interactions intended to result in the sexual pleasure of at least one of the involved parties. Regulate: to control or direct by a rule, principle, or method. Rules 1. No trolling or semantics 2. Forfeiture permitted, however if either party forfeits, they must explain why in the comments 3. Be respectful of others' opinions 4. Arguments and rebuttals are to be based on research, not opinion alone 5. If rules or format are broken, the respective party must forfeit the next round Format (organized by rounds): 1. Rules, definitions, format, introduction to topic, and acceptance 2. Arguments and opening statements; no rebuttals 3. Arguments and rebuttals 4.", "title": "Prostitution Should be Legalized", "pid": "f2b76fe6-2019-04-18T14:49:20Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.48416137695312}, {"text": "Yes, rape does have something to do with prostitution because it increases. Not all diseases can be prevented by protection and not all clients are willing to wear protection. Some choices are good and some are bad. Prostitution outweighs the good by allowing increase of disease, rape harassment, crime, violence, abuse etc.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "cf3ad40b-2019-04-18T15:04:08Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.48306274414062}, {"text": "Due to the scandalous nature or prostitution, the people in the business may not want to be regulated. Many will believe the can make a better and more profitable business without the government interfering. Criminal organizations also would keep their prostitution rings active due to their large profit margins and little upkeep. They would not obey these regulations simply because they don't obey other regulations and would harshly decrease their profit. even though prostitutes would benefit from these regulations. Many, if not most, would oppose these regulations to protect their privacy, and to profit more. If a prostitute has a day job, regulations may ask them to announce their part time profession, exposing and harming their day time job.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.", "pid": "ab52fe20-2019-04-18T17:03:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.44970703125}, {"text": "its hould be", "title": "Prostitution should be legal in the US", "pid": "1cb1375c-2019-04-18T15:23:13Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.44943237304688}, {"text": "I do not believe prostitution can be regulated, due to it's personal and broad problems and activities that need to be regulated. Not only this, but pimps prostitutes, and other people affected by this regulation, may try to avoid and work around the law. This may cause an illegal, expensive, harmful, yet more profitable form of prostitution. Like modern day moon shiners, people may do what is profitable, not what is legal or safe.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.", "pid": "ab52fe20-2019-04-18T17:03:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.4336700439453}, {"text": "In the United States Prostitution should be legal. There are three main reasons I have for making this claim: 1) Our government should not be allowed to dictate a persons motivations for engaging in intercourse. 2) People in American society should have the right to do anything they wish to do, so long as no other person is harmed. Excepting harms caused solely by the existence of the laws prohibiting prostitution, no person is being harmed by the practice of prostitution. 3) Laws regarding prostitution have no basis other than religion. Our Supreme Court has ruled, and our Constitution states, that religion and government should never mix. Therefore laws regarding prostitution, should not exist.", "title": "In the United States, prostitution should be legal.", "pid": "35179721-2019-04-18T19:41:11Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.42279052734375}, {"text": "Prostitution should be legal for a lot of reasons. A good example of prostitution working in a civil society is the Netherlands. Prostitution has been legal for years in this country and the people has benefitted from the tax revenue generated from prostitution. Many people say prostitution should be illegal for religious or moral reasons. This is a false premise to ban prostitution. The urge for sexual reproduction is inherent in all men. Those men who lack the skills or time to court women and engage in sex should not be denied their sexual instincts because the government deciding prostitution is illegal. Some argue that prostitution is derisive to the women who work in the industry. Allegedly many legal prostitutes are forced into their work and have no choice in the matter. The Dutch engineered a solution to this by providing social services and protection to the prostitutes working in the country's many red-light districts. If a Dutch night walker feels under pressure from a pimp and not acting under her own choice she would have many resources available to her. In a country with illegal prostitution these options do not exist. In Sweden the government has tried to fight illegal prostitution by prosecuting the men caught in the act rather than the hussy. Then they offer the call girls alternative education opportunities to reeducate them and reintegrate them into moral society. The man on the other hand must endure the difficult legal process and face the possibility of paying fines and doing community service/Jail time. While it is not surprising the Swedish socialist government would opt for such an extreme measure it nevertheless highlights why neither side of the exchange should be punished for paid sexual favors. While many men enjoy a good go-around with a slankpop once in a while we should still raise our children to avoid such behavior.", "title": "Should prostitution be legal", "pid": "936e7b82-2019-04-18T12:19:14Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.4225311279297}, {"text": "Haven't seen a debate like this for a while, so thanks for starting it, and good luck, it's always fun arguing against your own beliefs.I'll assume prostitution is implying the act of performing sexual favours in exchange for money or material wealth, objects, etc.I'm also going to let you present your arguments before I do, so good luck!", "title": "Prostitution should be illegal.", "pid": "52c8b976-2019-04-18T15:37:15Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.405517578125}, {"text": "I will be arguing that prostitution, or the act of providing sexual intercourse or other related activities should not be legal in the United States. I believe that the resolution is relatively self evident, however if there are any questions in regards to clarifying the resolution please ask before accepting as I wish to avoid any arguments contingent on semantics. The negating party has the option of presenting their arguments in the first round with the understanding that they will not post in their final round or simply accepting in the first round. In order to win the affirmative must demonstrate that the harms of legalization would outweigh the benefits provided and the negative is under a similar burden of proof.", "title": "Prostitution should not be legalized in the United States", "pid": "e388f11d-2019-04-18T14:49:31Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.4017333984375}, {"text": "Prostitution-the act of engaging in sexual activities for money. Legalized-Making it legal for persons over the age of 18 to be prostitutes or to \"use\" prostitutes at a federal level. However, prostitutes must be mandated to carry a license. Introuduction Currently, 49 states outlaw prostitution (Nevada is the only one that doesn't). As PRO I stand in affirmation that Prostitution should be legalized. I believe so for the following reasons. a) Prostitution is a victimless crime. No one is a victim of prosecution. It is not on the same level as rape or murder, where victims are involved. Prostitution is just a way of conducting commerce. To limit prosecution would be to limit freedom. b) Revenue. Legalizing prostitution would lead to a boost in the economy (not like were to going to come out of a recession or anything, but it will increase GDP). In countries where prostitution is legalized (Thailand, The Netherlands, etc) \"sex tourism\" is a big part of their economies. People use other services (hotels, restaurants) while using conducting \"sex tourism\". Also, the government could tax the the activity for a nice profit. c) The Equal Protection Clause is violated under the current law. In the current law only prostitutes are prosecuted, their customers are not. A similar analogy would be to only prosecute drug dealers and not drug users. It violates prostitutes' rights. d) Prostitution will become more visible. The more \"openness\" of prostitution will make it easier to monitor and regulate. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. Thanks for taking this debate.", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized.", "pid": "94aebaa-2019-04-18T19:21:27Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.3994598388672}, {"text": "Prostitution is already illegal.", "title": "Prostitution should be illegal.", "pid": "52c8b957-2019-04-18T15:36:42Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.3904266357422}, {"text": "Wanna do another one? I'll challenge you, hold on.", "title": "prostitution should be legal", "pid": "6c53db90-2019-04-18T16:50:44Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.38636779785156}, {"text": "Mikal said in a PM he's conceding the debate because some stuff came up. We'll probably try doing this another time when Mikal's got the time. For now, I'll accept the concession and also just say, after doing the research, I've convinced myself that prostitution should be illegal. I hope you guys are convinced too, because it's one of those issues that's easy to ignore if you haven't done the research. And it's something that's important, because it's easy to talk about in this \"academic\" setting, but prostitution is real for the women who are prostituted, and legalizing it has real effects on them.", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized in the US", "pid": "622af56b-2019-04-18T14:56:01Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.36190795898438}, {"text": "Ooops, Sorry clicked on the wrong button. I fully agree.", "title": "prostitution should be legal", "pid": "6c53db90-2019-04-18T16:50:44Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.35597229003906}, {"text": "I don't know if my opponent had other matters to attend to. Thanks for the debate!", "title": "Prostitution should be legal.", "pid": "181f179a-2019-04-18T16:34:11Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.3556671142578}, {"text": "Prostitution is for whores.", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal In The US", "pid": "5e72cb5d-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.3485565185547}, {"text": "The war on prostitution", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal", "pid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 218.34197998046875}, {"text": "It is the right way to see prostitution because these women mostly live in broken homes or are drug addicts and are forced to work in a profession they find dirty and disgusting for a quick buck. No you don't get it, prostitution IS human trafficking. Most of these young women are often forced by pimps and gang members to offer their services to random men on the street. See any documentary on gang members and you will often see that most of their money is off prostitutes and hookers. There is no evidence that suggests prostitution lowers the rate of kidnappers, crime, traffic, etc. In fact it just increases it. I'm going to end this round with a song that features a prostitute and former drug addict and tell me if prostitutes are enjoying their job or not.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "cf3ad40b-2019-04-18T15:04:08Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.3226776123047}, {"text": "I am in support of legalization of prostitution.", "title": "should prostitution be legalised", "pid": "10dba703-2019-04-18T16:38:10Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.3162384033203}, {"text": "Prostitution is simply an issue of individual liberty.", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal", "pid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 218.31549072265625}, {"text": "I believe that prostitution should be legalized in all states. It can help the people who are currently in need of some money. Without the concern of moral, legalizing prostitution will create a new source of income, and much like the red line district, it is self employed. Not only it is self employed, we can leave it and join it anytime. It can help college student to pay off some fees such as book fee or just pocket changes. It can also help families that need some quick bucks. So Legalizing prostitution can help people who are in need of some money. In terms of moral, it is not really a bad thing considering that it is a people's choice now to prostitute themselves to gain some money. Not only that, they can now be free of pimps' control and it would be much safer for the prostitutes. Not only that, playboy mansion is a high class prostitution ring so it is already being accepted throughout most of the U.S. By legalizing prostitution not only help families and college students, it would make prostitutes more acceptable to the society", "title": "Should prostitution be legalized in all states", "pid": "f4fc3e13-2019-04-18T18:28:50Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.3135528564453}, {"text": "It should be legalized.", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized in the US", "pid": "622af52d-2019-04-18T15:23:37Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.30201721191406}, {"text": "Prostitution is a rather disgusting trademark of society that America has been carrying on for quite some time. However, it should be allowed into our system. The average American citizen has the right of freedom under the constitution, and us being in a capitalistic country, we have our own say. Prostitution is a choice made by the public, if they're on unemployment, then that's their option at times. Using the term \"victim\" isn't a good terminology for this subject. The prostitute chose to be in that kind of business, and was not forcibly dragged into any situation. Evaluating your comments on prostitution, you might be confusing it with rape. Your stating that they're forcibly enacting in unwanted sexual interaction with another being, however, prostitution is all about sex for money, the prostitute chose to have sex. On the other hand, there is no need for rehabilitation, as sad as it is, the uneducated proportion of America needs to make money to live, and this is a choice. I'm not saying everyone should become a prostitute or it is a good trade, I'm simply stating that everyone has the given right to do what they want to do, and that is what truly gives the country's name \"Land of the Free\".", "title": "Prostitution should NOT be legalized!", "pid": "1fbfac08-2019-04-18T16:31:13Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.29859924316406}, {"text": "People, no matter their background, have built societies were prostitution plays some part. Anywhere you go you will find \"working girls\" with plenty of business. Certainly this practice is considered horrible and dirty by many, but we have not been able to stop it for the entirety of human history. Since we cannot stop the problem, and since we cannot ignore the problem, we must regulate the problem. When regulated brothels may be taxed, inspected, and/or shutdown if necessary. Under the current system of anarchy nothing can be done, but shutdown prostitution rings. And to currently shutdown a ring, police must work for months or years in order to properly take down such syndicates. Certainly most would prefer to live in a world where prostitution does not exist, but we do not live in that world and we cannot eliminate the problem. Therefore we must pick the best of two evils and regulate the industry.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.", "pid": "ab52fe20-2019-04-18T17:03:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.29800415039062}, {"text": "But Sex is a terrible thing to do constantly, there are many other things that are much better for you and think of it this way. In America anything that can make money is swallowed up by the fascist CEOs and then advertisements appear by legalizing prostitution ads would begin to appear everywhere. First of all prostitutes should not be doing this anyway so we do not need to protect them at all. People who consent to an act made to be a very private and gentle thing has been exposed for profit, this is disgusting and prostitutes as well as porn should be banned deleted and erased from our society to make things a better place so more people can focus on science, math and having fun... NOT THE DISTURBING version of fun. You have clearly lost the debate sorry son ! :)", "title": "Prostitution should be Legal", "pid": "d31537ce-2019-04-18T16:41:38Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.29617309570312}, {"text": "Prostitution should NOT be legalzed. Prostitution is the selling of one's body for a profit. There is NO need to sell a body. To be able to sell one's body that body must be seen as property and we haven't viewed people as property since slavery.", "title": "Prostitution Should be Legalized", "pid": "f2b76fc7-2019-04-18T14:52:56Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.28240966796875}, {"text": "Prostitution is an immoral act. The reason it is such a bad \"deed\" being is because there is no commitment involved. So if a prostitute gets pregnant then she either gets an abortion, or keeps the kid and has to raise it by herself. Both of these outcomes are bad for the prostitute. Legalizing this \"profession\" would only hurt the people involved.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.", "pid": "ab52fe3f-2019-04-18T17:03:06Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.2803955078125}, {"text": "Rebuttals: \"Prostitution is the selling of one's body for a profit.\" Prostitution is offering sexual favors for a profit, not a body. It is just like any other services job, like a maid or tailor. Please post, I want this to be a legitimate debate.", "title": "Prostitution Should be Legalized", "pid": "f2b76fc7-2019-04-18T14:52:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.27490234375}, {"text": "I am hoping for a great debate with whoever accepts this case. I will be arguing that, under certain circumstances and societies, prostitution should be legalized, and I will clarify what those qualifiers are in my opening argument. Whoever accepts this debate will be arguing that prostitution should not be legalized. Hope to debate you soon!", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "181f935c-2019-04-18T13:30:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.2730712890625}, {"text": "Prostitution should be legalized, but be carefully regulated. Laws should protect prostitutes from abuse from their bosses and clients. All intercourse must be protected with condoms, and prostitutes must not have any STDs, STIs, or STVs. Rates must be regulated, and lack of paying will be considered rape in a court. Definitions (Dictionary. com): Prostitute: a man or woman who engages in sexual acts for money. Legal: appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law. Sex: sexual activity; interactions intended to result in the sexual pleasure of at least one of the involved parties. Regulate: to control or direct by a rule, principle, or method. Rules 1. No trolling or semantics 2. Forfeiture permitted, however if either party forfeits, they must explain why in the comments 3. Be respectful of others' opinions 4. Arguments and rebuttals are to be based on research, not opinion alone 5. If rules or format are broken, the respective party must forfeit the next round Format (organized by rounds): 1. Rules, definitions, format, introduction to topic, and acceptance 2. Arguments and opening statements; no rebuttals 3. Arguments and rebuttals 4.", "title": "Prostitution Should be Legalized", "pid": "f2b76fc7-2019-04-18T14:52:56Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.26995849609375}, {"text": "Prostitution defined as someone selling their time as a service which includes sexual services for money should be made legal under the law as well as regulated in a way that would decrease the problems that we see today with illegal prostitution.", "title": "Prostitution should be Legalized and Regulated", "pid": "fc16d928-2019-04-18T18:05:52Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.2661590576172}, {"text": "Resolution: I am arguing that prostitution be made legal in the United States. Con must argue that prostitution laws should either stay the same or become more strict. The burden of proof will be shared equally.Definition to avoid semantics: The practice of engaging in sexual activity with a customer for payment. Note that prostitutes may be male, female, or both; and their customers may be heterosexual, homosexual, or other.An introduction to my arguments: After round 1, I will elaborate on my following arguments:1) People should be able to do what they want with their own bodies.2) By making prostitution illegal, a dangerous black market is created (which is what is happening now).3) Prostitution is victimless and is therefore not a crime.4) Personal and economic decisions of the people are none of the government's business, therefore making prostitution illegal is an intrusion.5) By legalizing prostitution, prostitutes will become safer and the business will be more efficient, adding another sector to the market.Rules: Pretty generic. Maintain a respectful attitude. Round 1 is for acceptance and any clarifications, perhaps a few opening arguments. It doesn't matter.Rounds 2 and 3 will be for statement of positions and rebuttal.Round 4 will be for closing arguments only.Thanks and good luck!", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal", "pid": "a4429b52-2019-04-18T17:41:28Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.24403381347656}, {"text": "First off all the fact that there is massive safety measures in your area does not matter because it is not the same in all areas. Prostitution is immoral as the point is artificially modifying ones body so that you can get free sex and money without giving any real effort. This creates lazy. And weak minded people who cannot truly work for their living. As sex used to be a private personal thing companies and lazy people are taking advantage of this to earn money as this is what prostitution is i have proven my points valid.", "title": "Prostitution should be Legal", "pid": "d31537ce-2019-04-18T16:41:38Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.22479248046875}, {"text": "-I'm not trying to say that prostitution will get rid of rapists and pimps. I'm saying that it will INCREASE the statistics. -The truth is that there will always be pimps. Sadly. -I'm pretty sure most prostitutes are forced to practice their jobs. LEGALIZING PROSTITUTION = INCREASE OF ABUSE, VIOLENCE, RAPE, KIDNAPPINGS, DISEASE, AIDS, ETC.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "cf3ad40b-2019-04-18T15:04:08Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.21559143066406}, {"text": "In this debate I intend to show that prostitution, when properly regulated, can be a victim less crime. One of the major reasons for prostitution's negative status is the world of crime that surrounds the business. This negative side of prostitution could be easily removed through government regulation. I intend to prove this in the course of this debate.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.", "pid": "ab52fe20-2019-04-18T17:03:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.20909118652344}, {"text": "I accept your challenge.", "title": "Prostitution Should be Legalized", "pid": "f2b76fe6-2019-04-18T14:49:20Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.2083282470703}, {"text": "The law should not condone illicit behaviour", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal", "pid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 218.19781494140625}, {"text": "I am putting the three point in favour of legalization of prostitution. Protective sex, Labour right's to prostitutes, Reduce violence Against Prostitutes Protective Sex: It would provide protective sex to prostitutes and to her customer, and also Legalized prostitution would allow the state to require a information that all prostitutes take regular health examine, and ensure that she or he is not carrying a sexually transmitted diesease like AIDs or HIV. Therefore Sex worker may get weekly tests. It would give employment rights to prostitutes: They can get rights like minimum wage, weekly holidays, freedom from discrimination , and a safe work environment etc.. Reduce violence Against Prostitutes: If prostitution is legalized then they can call the cops in case of any violence and may reduce force sex. Well-regulated and Legalized would pave way for licenses and registration, whereby workers would have their own identity, access to public facilities, and other services. Which leads to both safe and profitable.", "title": "should prostitution be legalised", "pid": "10dba703-2019-04-18T16:38:10Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.17745971679688}, {"text": "Good luck to you!", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal In The US", "pid": "5e72cb5d-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.1759490966797}, {"text": "The clients that are not willing to wear protection will have problems themselves. It is not a good idea to ban this activity just because of a few people. Rape can happen any time even if prostitution was illegal. Prostitution is not abuse, it is simply an activity which two people benefit from, since they chose to do it.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "cf3ad40b-2019-04-18T15:04:08Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.16830444335938}, {"text": "Prevent Prostitution From Going Underground", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal", "pid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 218.16807556152344}, {"text": "For many years people believed prostitution to be too taboo to talk about but as of late many countries have actually been making moves to legalize prostitution and some have even completely decriminalized it. Many people are quick to talk about how dangerous of a job prostitution is and that keeping it illegal keeps people from wanting anything to do with prostitution but should it be legalized then sex workers will become much less vulnerable as the field will be more exposed to the public and regulated by the government. Also in countries that have already decriminalized prostitution many of them claim that there has been little to no increase in sex trafficking only an increase in the protection of sex workers. While the field of work involving any form of sex is not a very popular choice for those who choose to work in it those who take advantage of it or even just society looking upon it but if you really think about it prostitutes are just ever day people just trying to make a living doing something that they may or may not like and who are we to judge that. Since the job of a prostitute is such a dangerous one and is illegal at that when a prostitute winds up with a dangerous or violent customer she can't call the police and say \"Hey this guy is attacking me please help\" because the police will show up and realize okay there's prostitution going on here you're going to jail so prostitutes can't rely on the protection of the police.", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized", "pid": "94b6b4c-2019-04-18T11:10:45Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 218.16439819335938}, {"text": "Hi everyone, I'm currently doing a debate project for my political systems class and I would like you guys to help me with my debate. My debate topic is abortion and my group is against it, so please give me some good reasons as to why prostitution is bad or should be illegal", "title": "Should prostitution be legal", "pid": "936e7b82-2019-04-18T12:19:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.15789794921875}, {"text": "Morality of Prostitution", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal", "pid": "3677e360-2019-04-19T12:44:54Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.1552734375}, {"text": "Looking for a fun person who wants to have a good debate, no forfeiters please.", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal In The US", "pid": "5e72cb5d-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.15126037597656}, {"text": "We must accept the fact that even if prostitution remains illegal, there still would be rapists and pimps. The question is to make it beneficial since some women would like to practice this job. In another way, if there would be no pimps at all, prostitutes will be happy doing their job since they are not forced to. Legalizing it will only be beneficial for those who want to do it increasing police searches will find the criminals, not be making it illegal.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal", "pid": "cf3ad40b-2019-04-18T15:04:08Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.14321899414062}, {"text": "You guessed wrong!", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized", "pid": "94b67e8-2019-04-18T16:15:54Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.13235473632812}, {"text": "Same, I joined yesterday, I guess, good round?", "title": "prostitution should be legal", "pid": "6c53db90-2019-04-18T16:50:44Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.1300506591797}, {"text": "I accept your challenge. Please present your case. Good Luck!", "title": "Prostitution should not be legalized in the United States", "pid": "e388f11d-2019-04-18T14:49:31Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.12844848632812}, {"text": "It is against God's will, therefore should not.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal in the US", "pid": "1cb1375c-2019-04-18T15:23:13Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.11917114257812}, {"text": "As PRO, I will argue that this resolution is a good idea. To you, CON.", "title": "Prostitution should be legal in all countries!", "pid": "7e6be05b-2019-04-18T18:28:25Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.09292602539062}, {"text": "Prostitution is the oldest profession. It is not exactly the noblest or most favorable occupation but I think that it should be legalized for the sake of making it safer and taxable. One only needs to look back at alcohol prohibition to see the negative implications that the criminalization of prostitution or any other activity of vice can attribute. Because prostitution is criminal, it is controlled by criminals, which gives rise to abuse and human trafficking. If prostitution was mainstreamed, regulated, and had an acceptable quality control, it could be one of the most profitable industries of American economy. Since it is illegal and unregulated, prostitution is extremely risky for all involved parties and criminals are the only people who benefit. Ron Paul once said that if you made heroin legal tomorrow, people wouldn't uncontrollably run out and do heroin. The same is true of prostitution. It wouldn't suddenly become something every girl wants to do as a job and every male indeed will partake. Legalization would reduce communicable disease in this country and increase economic stimulation.", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized", "pid": "94b67e8-2019-04-18T16:15:54Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.08624267578125}, {"text": "Having dyslexia can make it difficult sometimes for me if I don't focus on the words, and they look at a glance to be another word. You knew that I meant condom but I did make a mistake. Prostitution has been said to be the oldest profession in the world, and yet it's an illegal profession. And it's a profession men and women are getting into every year. http://www.nytimes.com... Even today women from other countries come to the us to become trophy wives. How is a trophy wife who trades sex for money any different than a prostitution who does the same? No one sees this as illegal though. http://www.thedailybeast.com... Prostitution provides an outlet for those who don't have time or a desire to have relationships. http://www.salon.com... Prostitution is going to happen even if it's illegal, but if it's legal we can tax it, as well as helping the economy. https://www.mrc.org...", "title": "Prostitution should be legalized in brothels", "pid": "3f7340ce-2019-04-18T12:13:23Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.08270263671875}, {"text": "Thank you for the exciting debate. Prostitution is awful and immoral.", "title": "Prostitution Should Be Legal In The US", "pid": "5e72cb5d-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.0813446044922}, {"text": "Good Luck! You may have the first turn to argue.", "title": "Prostitution should be Legal", "pid": "d31537ce-2019-04-18T16:41:38Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.0802001953125}]}
{"idx": 27, "qid": "29", "q_text": "Should the government allow illegal immigrants to become citizens?", "qrels": {"6d359933-2019-04-18T14:06:36Z-00005-000": 1, "d4ce048b-2019-04-18T14:57:27Z-00001-000": 2, "da97069c-2019-04-18T16:34:20Z-00000-000": 0, "cd8abfdc-2019-04-18T17:04:45Z-00005-000": 2, "d82d8130-2019-04-18T12:53:53Z-00005-000": 2, "72f9ab01-2019-04-18T19:07:31Z-00002-000": 1, "cd8abfbd-2019-04-18T17:04:37Z-00003-000": 2, "f84eab7b-2019-04-18T16:00:50Z-00004-000": 0, "8e58c781-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00005-000": 1, "928a8d47-2019-04-18T18:32:03Z-00003-000": 1, "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00004-000": 0, "9a95d91-2019-04-18T14:25:35Z-00002-000": 2, "9da75b55-2019-04-18T16:22:46Z-00005-000": 0, "78ed452d-2019-04-18T18:06:07Z-00003-000": 0, "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00003-000": 2, "ee228591-2019-04-18T16:24:45Z-00004-000": 2, "ed2ba9d8-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00023-000": 0, "6340764-2019-04-18T18:24:24Z-00000-000": 1, "5dd5d487-2019-04-18T12:35:34Z-00001-000": 1, "f238c9cb-2019-04-18T20:00:15Z-00004-000": 1, "59ad9eee-2019-04-18T17:17:47Z-00004-000": 2, "4cf9e3c5-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00062-000": 2, "9f061228-2019-04-18T15:29:10Z-00000-000": 0, "4cf9e3c5-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00045-000": 2, "3dfdaea9-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00046-000": 1, "3dfdaea9-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00062-000": 2, "3dfdaea9-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00058-000": 0, "2bb12d9b-2019-04-18T19:16:06Z-00001-000": 0, "27d7329-2019-04-18T19:03:26Z-00001-000": 1, "27d7329-2019-04-18T19:03:26Z-00003-000": 1, "ed2ba9d8-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00009-000": 0, "f84eab7b-2019-04-18T16:00:50Z-00000-000": 0, "adb11e8-2019-04-18T13:30:49Z-00001-000": 2, "fff3f47a-2019-04-18T19:56:04Z-00002-000": 2, "a5425c5-2019-04-18T19:18:05Z-00003-000": 2, "a9f792ce-2019-04-18T11:36:36Z-00001-000": 0, "abb8f548-2019-04-18T18:08:58Z-00003-000": 1, "af83a7e2-2019-04-19T12:44:04Z-00005-000": 0, "b128ce3c-2019-04-18T14:49:18Z-00005-000": 1, "b38d18fc-2019-04-18T12:13:23Z-00000-000": 0, "b4650710-2019-04-18T19:42:48Z-00001-000": 0, "b4650710-2019-04-18T19:42:48Z-00000-000": 0, "c7a8d000-2019-04-18T11:36:28Z-00002-000": 2, "c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00033-000": 0, "feca27b2-2019-04-18T16:55:14Z-00000-000": 0, "112ac42d-2019-04-18T14:32:34Z-00002-000": 2, "c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00018-000": 0, "188b21d7-2019-04-18T15:29:19Z-00007-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "What I mean is illegals and other immigrants should have the legal right to become citizens provided that they are not career felons. This would improve the economy by puytting these ableds to work, and getting them off welfare, reducing crime, and providing opportunities for people who would be an asset to the US of A. I take the affirmative position, make the first move.", "title": "America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants.", "pid": "f40414eb-2019-04-18T11:51:17Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.51112365722656}, {"text": "I think you forgot the topic question. \"Should illegal immigrants be allowed citizenship?\", is the question we are discussing. You repeatedly state that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens, and yet if we were to give illegal immigrants citizenship, then they would be citizens. There are currently an estimated 11,100,000 illegal immigrants residing in America, according to a recent survey taken by The Department of Homeland Security. America doesn't really have any choice but to give these immigrants citizenship; it'd be impossible to send back that many people to their homelands. In order to find and deport every illegal immigrant, the U.S government would need to undergo a massive bureaucratic expansion, in order to hire more workers to find the immigrants. You stated that \"illegal immigrants take up jobs that are for us.\" Employers should be allowed to hire whoever they chose to, and not be forced to hire based upon legal status. Businesses will increase in size the more people that they hire, which will help support America's economy. In conclusion to my argument, America needs to face facts; millions of illegal immigrants currently reside in America, and the vast majority of them are hardworking, taxpaying and law abiding. We should give them complete amnesty and work together to help make America a greater nation.", "title": "should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship", "pid": "8e58c781-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.1014404296875}, {"text": "Hillary Clinton said that if she wins the presidency, illegal aliens who are not violent criminals will be given a pathway to citizenship. I believe that giving illegal aliens citizenship, violent or not, will harm United States and diminish its immigration laws. Instead deportation for all illegal aliens (if not all, at least half) should be considered. 1) lannan13 cannot join. Love you bud but I wanna debate this with another user 2) Use citations 3) Follow this structure: ROUND 2: Opening Statements ROUND 3: Rebuttals of Opening Statements ROUND 4: Defense and closing statements", "title": "Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all", "pid": "d82d8130-2019-04-18T12:53:53Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.07504272460938}, {"text": "I am against making illegal immigrants citizens.", "title": "Allow illegal immigrants amnesty.", "pid": "9f061228-2019-04-18T15:29:10Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.04409790039062}, {"text": "Illegal immigrants should mot be granted the rights of legal citizenship. And why should they? They come into the United States and want to be treated like a citizen, but they are not. If they come to America searching for a better life, than wouldn't it be better for them to become a legal citizen anyway? If they come here illegally, than why do they deserve the rights of legal citizens? Yes, they do deserve human rights, but not the benefits of being a citizen of the United States. They do not pay taxes, they do not deserve the benefits of our educational systems, our roads, our public buildings, anything payed for with taxes. I invite anybody to agree or refute this.", "title": "Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship", "pid": "3cdc63cb-2019-04-18T18:06:59Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.00418090820312}, {"text": "Ah, I see where I may have been unclear. I believe that if an illegal immigrant does not become a legal citizen, then they should not get the rights of citizenship. If an immigrant becomes a legal citizen, instead of \"jumping the border\", than they do deserve the rights that come with citizenship.", "title": "Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship", "pid": "3cdc63cb-2019-04-18T18:06:59Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.90196228027344}, {"text": "Ok, So now that I have waited for a few hours to get this statement, this is what you give me. This is too easy. First of all, Immigrants could account for the population increase. Therefore, We could have alot of workers to fill in some of the jobs that no one would want to take. So that's a plus. Second of all, the American people are becoming lazy, so if there is a ethnicity race to the jobs, the immigrants might take them or the American's will have to shape up and quit being so lazy. So I still agree with the fact that Immigrants be allowed to have citizenship in America.", "title": "Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship", "pid": "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.87863159179688}, {"text": "Of course not, it is in the title illegal. If something is illegal it isn't allowed. Immigrants are allowed and should continue to be allowed, but illegal immigrants should not. If someone really wants to get into the U.S. they should go through the legal way and get a real citizenship. Would it make sense to allow people that haven't passed tests to freely live in the states without having to pay taxes, no. Any illegal immigrants currently in the country should be forced to leave until they can legally register as a U.S. citizen. This is necessary to gain the rights and duties of a U.S. citizen. However, people who are the children of illegal immigrants and never had a life outside the U.S. should be required to apply for citizenship, but not forced from the states unless they fail to do so. Only legal citizens are allowed to live in the U.S. long term as this is what preserves the structure of our country and it should stay this way.", "title": "Should illegal immigrants be allowed to live in the U.S.", "pid": "f44bcd7f-2019-04-18T11:45:00Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.86187744140625}, {"text": "As an born bred American Citizen I believe that allowing illegal immigrants into our country then giving them citizenship just like that is beyond wrong especially for those who are currently do the process right so that they may become a legal citizen of the United States. Now I don't want to hate on the Illegal Immigrants due to the fact that being human we strive to live better lives and most of us knowing that the U.S.A even in it's current condition is still very high on the scale for new opportunities, it's just that people have to want it bad enough, I digress but to my point if illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work. Now people are like oh those illegal are taking our jobs away but in reality if they were to pay attention in life rather than listen down the grape vine they would know that most illegal immigrants take jobs that most Americans wouldn't such as helping farmers pick food, they also pick up trash, and so on. These jobs are looked upon very unfavorably by the tens of millions of Americans. So to end my opinion, I shall state this, Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to , only and mean only if they have a working visa and are monitored very closely to where they could not just fit into the populous and just disappear. There shall be tight restrictions to what they may do. As for the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country i feel they need to be found and deported to their home countries and be encouraged to become a U.S. citizen but there shall not be any automatic citizenship. You cannot just be forgiven and be granted something that you haven't earned. Only those that follow the rules shall get access and sometimes they don't even fit the standards.", "title": "Illegal Immigrants", "pid": "59ad9eee-2019-04-18T17:17:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.83187866210938}, {"text": "Hello, I want to state my position that illegal aliens (both undocumented and those that overstayed their visas) should not be given American citizenship at all. Anyone can participate except lannan13 (Bud, I like you but I want to try debating this with a new participant). RULES: Here's the debate structure: ROUND 2 - Opening points ROUND 3 - Rebuttal of each other's opening points ROUND 4 - Defending your opening points from the rebuttals & closing statements You may not add a new argument past ROUND 3. You may not forfeit. It would be better if you are running out of time, post few paragraphs that summarizes what you want to say. You may not use any writing texts like Google Docs besides the ones from this site. Failure to follow the rules is an automatic loss.", "title": "Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all", "pid": "d82d8111-2019-04-18T12:55:53Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.755859375}, {"text": "A 2010 CNN/Opinion Research asked, \"Do you think the United States should or should not make it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens of the United States?\" Sixty-six percent of respondents said the U.S. should not make it easier. 33 percent said it should.[21]", "title": "Americans oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants", "pid": "4cf9e3c5-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00062-000", "bm25_score": 216.57664489746094}, {"text": "To be clear, I am saying that illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U. S. and apply for citizenship. The Con position will argue that all immigrants should be deported.", "title": "Illegal Immigration", "pid": "cac6bfdf-2019-04-18T12:31:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.57183837890625}, {"text": "I do not completely disagree with you because we should allow immigrants into the United States of America. But what we should do is prevent illegal immigration because handing out citizenship will not prevent drugs coming in from across the boarder I also do not agree with Donald J Trump but one very small thing that I do agree with is with is doing something about illegal immigration that is my argument for now", "title": "Not allowing illegal immigrants into the United States of America", "pid": "152a53f-2019-04-18T12:42:52Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.552001953125}, {"text": "- Illegal immigrants that are currently residing in America are active members of American society. They typically lead productive and law-abiding lives consistent with American ideals. Their only illegal action was entering the United States. As such, efforts should be made to integrate them into American society, and providing them the option of obtaining driver's licenses is a good way of achieving this.", "title": "Illegal immigrants in America should be integrated into society", "pid": "c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00039-000", "bm25_score": 216.51409912109375}, {"text": "Such is true", "title": "Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all", "pid": "d82d8111-2019-04-18T12:55:53Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.40402221679688}, {"text": "Obviously, CON is being a troll and I do not want to go any further if this is going to be the course of the debate.", "title": "Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all", "pid": "d82d8130-2019-04-18T12:53:53Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.39308166503906}, {"text": "Question: Should undocumented immigrants already in the United States, be allowed to become U.S. citizens? The answer is no, when illegal aliens come over they can only get small salary jobs at the risk of the U.S. government finding out about their presence. By taking these jobs away from a country whose unemployment rates are already over 7%(Bureau of Labor Statistics), they are stealing what could be a \"bread on the table\" job from hardworking American citizens. Aside from the fact that our jobs are being taken away, the thought of providing them with jobs, welfare, housing assistance, food assistance, and student loans is legally ridiculous. Why would we reward them for coming over illegally and stealing jobs and other resources from legal citizens? Common since dictates that if a person within your authority breaks the law, you don\"t reward them for their actions. This year half a million fewer students nationwide enrolled in colleges, but the number of Latinos enrolled spiked by 447,000, 17% of those students were illegal immigrants from the southern border of the U.S. In 2012 the number of Latinos enrolled was at 3.4 million, an all time high, (NPR.org). By allowing illegals into the country, who are not only stealing government support or low class jobs, they are stealing education from students and taking even higher class jobs from people who are legal American citizens. Our country is funded by taxes. When illegal immigrants come into the picture our country as a whole loses money. Whether it is income tax, or health care our country is losing money for every transaction they make. While it may seem to be a useful way for businesses to save money by hiring unlawful immigrants, in the long run it\"s a practice that is harming our country more than not, as 11% of all lower and middle class workers are illegal aliens (NPR.org), and giving them citizenship would only invite others to take more jobs. When it\"s all said and done rewarding illegals for breaking our laws is counterproductive to our country as jobs are being stolen, colleges are being filled, and taxes are being dodged. To give these people citizenship would only harm the U.S. more then not. When illegals living in the U.S. get citizenship it only invites more people from other countries to come in illegally in hopes for free citizenship. Granting them amnesty may give the U.S a slight economy boom at first, but in the long run will lead to our demise.", "title": "Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship", "pid": "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.39202880859375}, {"text": "How is an immigrant (albeit an illegal one) so different from an American Citizen? So long as they pay taxes like everyone else, how are they anymore detrimental to society? All immigrants want is a chance to gain a brighter future through hard work, they aren't looking for the easy way out. In fact, it makes far more sense to grant illegal immigrants full citizenship, because illegal immigrants don't have to pay taxes, and citizens do. If you give an illegal immigrant citizenship, then you guarantee that they pay taxes to the United States Government. The immigration policy is far more complicated than many might be led to assume. An honest foreigner will have a hard time getting into America as a citizen. Despite the fact that on our symbol of freedom: The Statue of Liberty; it states, \"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.\" America should be the land of opportunity for those who so desperately need a chance to restart their lives in a new place.", "title": "should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship", "pid": "8e58c781-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.37762451171875}, {"text": "For MY final argument, I am just going to attack Debate339. First of all, America is in a lot better shape in it's building and economy. So we don't have to worry about the \"slums\" popping up across America. Therefore, I still stand on the fact that immigrants are a help to America.", "title": "Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship", "pid": "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.35145568847656}, {"text": "I feel that you are right in a way but, if the immigrants work and abide by the laws and pay their taxes why should they not receive citizenship?", "title": "Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship", "pid": "3cdc63cb-2019-04-18T18:06:59Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.3147430419922}, {"text": "America is a free nation where anyone should be free to come and live. America is a free nation dictated by laws to ensure that is remains a free nation. Those individuals who want to take part in this free nation must fall subject to the laws; There are no exceptions. Currently, this country has laws that dictate Immigration. These laws are for the protection of the citizens who have accepted America as their country of origin, by means of legal birth(not birth right) or legal citizenship. America owes nothing to any other individual.", "title": "whether the government should enforce illegal immigration", "pid": "12a78a66-2019-04-18T14:05:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.30677795410156}, {"text": "Illegal immigrants have moved into this country illegally. This represents a clear violation of US law. Although the bible may support illegal immigration(which I highly doubt), illegal immigration creates problems for the Federal government, and problems for the American people. Contention One-Social Aspect Illegal immigration causes an increase in prejudice against the Latino community. The American people are very insecure about the amount of jobs accessible. Illegal immigrants taking these jobs will only add weight to white supremacists' case against the Latino community. Racism only diminishes the idea of America as a world leader. Contention Two-Laws: We should not forget that illegal immigrants entered this country illegally. A continual violation of our laws will invite more people to do the same. Terrorists could take advantage of America's disregard for immigrant laws. Contention Three-Fairness Illegal immigrants are treated unfairly in America. They are taxed unfairly, and are abused by the companies they work for. This injustice should not continue. This injustice will continue, because federal law cannot protect illegal immigrants. Instead, the government should make an effort to bring these people in legally.", "title": "America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants.", "pid": "f40414eb-2019-04-18T11:51:17Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.2837677001953}, {"text": "I will partake in this debate. Good luck to you.", "title": "Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all", "pid": "d82d8130-2019-04-18T12:53:53Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.2826690673828}, {"text": "I believe it is the right thing to do Their the hardest working people in america they work long difficult hours doing jobs no one else wants to for very low pay give them citizenship and let them help rebuild america This country was built on immigration For this debate their our three rounds For the con it is up to them to show why it is wrong to not give hard working illegal immigrants citizenship", "title": "giving hard working illegal immigrants american citizenship", "pid": "403d99e5-2019-04-18T18:53:31Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.269287109375}, {"text": "Good luck. What is an illegal alien, or for the sake of political correctness, undocumented alien? An illegal alien is either an individual who has entered the United States illegally and can be deported if apprehended or an individual who entered legally but has fallen \"out of status\" and can be deported [1]. Generally, there's nothing much different between a legal and illegal immigrant so immigrants, both legal and illegal, will be mentioned in the points below since if illegal aliens are given citizenship, they will become naturalized legal immigrants. I am going to address Hillary Clinton's position on illegal immigration. She supports a pathway to citizenship for all illegal aliens who have not committed crimes and deport only the \"individuals who pose a threat to public safety\" [2]. She also defends President Obama's executive action which allowed almost half of illegal aliens living in the country a \"temporary, quasi-legal status and work permits\" [3]. Currently, many reports estimate that there are about 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States. This may not be entirely accurate as not all of them participate in surveys and the numbers could be much higher. Hillary Clinton will ensure that many illegal aliens will be given a pathway to citizenship as long as they are not convicted of violent crimes. I argue that giving them a pathway to citizenship or legal status diminishes the rule of immigration laws, raises the fiscal deficit on the long run, keeps the American-born citizens and minorities employment rates and wages lower. I will also add that it will obscenely benefit the Democratic Party because only the Democratic Party has supported this immigration reform. My first argument is that the rule of immigration laws are diminished if we give a pathway to citizenship or legal status for illegal aliens. The laws [4] are clear: \"Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable\" and \"Any alien who was admitted as a non immigrant and who has failed to maintain the non immigrant status in which the alien was admitted or to which it was changed under section 1258 of this title, or to comply with the conditions of any such status, is deportable. \" All of the illegal aliens are liable to deportation as the laws specify, whether committed a violent crime or not. There is no any other crevices into this and the laws do not state that paying fines or any of that sort is the punishment. Indeed, unlawful presence of an illegal alien is not a crime but a civil offense which has deportation as its punishment [5]. Some states like Arizona, however, describes the presence of illegal aliens as a crime. It's either the rule of immigration law is eradicated or deportation as a punishment. The former yields anarchic results as well as encouragement of illegal immigration. Even if we change the laws, they will not apply to the illegal aliens as they are bound to the former laws like the ones posted above. My second argument is that there will be an immense fiscal deficit if illegal aliens are given citizenship or legal status. This makes sense as all four types of government benefits will be open to them: direct benefits, mean-tested welfare benefits, public education, population based services. The Heritage Foundation report [6] states that college-educated households tend to be net tax contributors, paying taxes that exceed the amount of benefits they receive. A well-educated household pays $54,089 in taxes and receive $24,839 in benefits, leaving a fiscal surplus of $29,250. It is the exact opposite for poorly-educated households and they are net tax consumers. The amount of benefits they receive exceed the amount of taxes they pay. It is reported that a poorly-educated household pays $11, 049 in taxes and receives $46,582 in benefits, generating a fiscal deficit of $35,113. This piece of information is crucial because half of illegal aliens have not completed high school and a quarter only completed high school. Not to mention the Social Security and pension plans that will be available to them. The Heritage Foundation also reports that granting them amnesty will raise the lifetime fiscal deficit to $6.3 trillion in fifty years ($126 billion annually). A piece of information that should not be ignored is that moderate to low-income earners can receive EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) and many illegal aliens are low-income earners, making them eligible if given pathway to citizenship or legal status. My third argument is that giving illegal aliens citizenship or legal status will keep the native-born and minority groups' employment rates and wages lower. Like what I wrote earlier, about 75-80% of illegal aliens have not received a college diploma and they either have high school diplomas or have not completed high school. This will make them more eligible for unskilled labour which do not require education. Businesses and companies are more likely to hire immigrants (both legal and illegal) because native-born less-skilled workers. which drags blue-collar jobs' wages down. Immigrants [7] depress the wages of blue-collar jobs between 1-3 percent but raise wages by 0.004% for less skilled native workers. Regarding the impact of giving legal status or citizenship to illegal aliens to the minorities, I will use a collection of reports [8] by the United States Commission on Civil Rights in which there are several findings:- 6 in 10 black males have a high school diploma or less - an individual who has a high school diploma or less earns less today than those of the same degree thirty-five years ago- illegal immigration increases the supply of low-skilled, low-wage labor available in the US labor market- illegal immigration tends to depress the wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens with black males forming a disproportionate number of themIt is also found by Professor Gordon Hanson's report that black high school dropouts' employment rate dropped massively from 72% in the 1960s to 42% in 2000s; white high school dropouts' employment rate also dropped significantly from 83% to 64%. He also questioned the notion that the lowering wages contribute to the black males quitting the job and turning to crime. His co-authored research suggested that in a 10% immigration-induced increase in labor markets is associated with a 4% decrease in black wages, 3.5% decrease in black employment rate and 0.8% increase in black incarceration rate. Final question is do immigrants (both legal and illegal) create jobs? The answer is yes, they do but most of the jobs they create are provided for other immigrants too. In other words, they take more jobs than they create. I will provide an example to show exactly what I mean. A fictional Chinese immigrant named Ms. Wong lives in a community where many first generation immigrants live in Los Angeles. Ms. Wong works as a hairdresser in a Chinese barber shop where a lot of her co-workers are also Chinese. After work, she goes to a Chinese grocery store and buys some noodles for dinner. On a weekend, she goes to a Chinese mall where she buys her clothes for a much cheaper price. All the places she goes to are owned by Chinese people that typically hires Chinese immigrants. Sure, she also helps the natives by subscribing on the Internet or visiting museums but she would need help from a Chinese speaker on translating the English words to her language. This will require one of the first to third generation immigrant on the job because from then on, fourth generation (or the native-born) is unlikely to grow up speaking the language. Now if we give citizenship to illegal aliens, it will obscenely benefit the Democratic Party. Why is this a bad thing? This is a bad thing because the party cannot even provide a reason why giving them citizenship will benefit Americans as well as deliberately ignoring the immigration laws in which all of the illegal aliens are bound. It is a perfect time to get rid of all illegal aliens and slow down the influx of legal immigrants for a balanced American society. SOURCES:[1] . https://www.irs.gov...[2] . http://uspolitics.about.com...[3] . http://immigration.about.com...[4] . https://www.law.cornell.edu...[5] . http://www.tolerance.org...[6] . http://www.heritage.org...[7] . https://www.washingtonpost.com...[8] . http://www.usccr.gov...", "title": "Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all", "pid": "d82d8130-2019-04-18T12:53:53Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.25299072265625}, {"text": "In the status quo there are over 22 million illegal immigrants in our great country. If half of these immigrants were to produce one child with another illegal immigrant that would mean 11 million more unexpected people in our population. Now i am pretty sure that my opponent will argue that populations naturally balance themselves out but this argument would only be relevant if these were normal circumstances. Our country has never seen an illegal immigration problem like the one we are currently having and this will distrupt the natural flow of population stabilization which can lead to a lack of resources such as jobs and energy. We are a well off country but if this problem is not effectivly solved we will not be in the near future.... challenge me if you dare", "title": "For now being born in the US should not make someone a citizen unless 1 of there parents is a citize", "pid": "bd5f8f32-2019-04-18T19:45:16Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.2495880126953}, {"text": "A USA Today/Gallup Poll dated March 2007 asked, \"Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country?\" In response, only 24% of American citizens believed the government should deport all illegal immigrants. Furthermore, 59% of American citizens believed the government should allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements.", "title": "Americans oppose the deportation of all illegal immigrants.", "pid": "3dfdaea9-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00062-000", "bm25_score": 216.23477172851562}, {"text": "Another argument is that if we don't have strong borders then we are opening ourselves up to overpopulation that would tax all cities. There is also the issue of weak borders allowing terrorists easy access to our country. By allowing illegal immigrants to stay in this country we are telling the world that we are an easy target. Come and get us. We won't do anything about it.", "title": "The United States Government should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants.", "pid": "67bd18e2-2019-04-18T18:50:42Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.22598266601562}, {"text": "Ok whatever you say.", "title": "Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all", "pid": "d82d8130-2019-04-18T12:53:53Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.2022705078125}, {"text": "I believe if there are some pathes for illegal immigrants to get citizenhood, the path will promote more illegal immigrants to enter the United States. Actually there are some legitimate paths for foreigners to got citizenhood, and the way to define whether an immigrate is legal or not is to check whether they got citizenhood through these paths. If the government provided another path for the illegal immigrants to get citizenship, how could we define they are legal or illegal? It seems that every illegal immigrats will be potential legal immigrants at that moment.", "title": "Immigration", "pid": "46817eac-2019-04-18T14:11:51Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.1941375732422}, {"text": "Make an argument... Illegal immigrants should be allowed in America and legalized because then they will still be working and paying taxes. On top of that, to buy a house without an American social security number forces you to commit social security fraud to buy a house. These are hard working people who deserve a good life and to escpe from what they had to sffer through in their theird world country.", "title": "Illegal Immigration", "pid": "68a8a87-2019-04-18T19:59:59Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.19168090820312}, {"text": "As the audience can see, he has failed to respond to my questions. He has the BOP. I will make a petite argument just for the sake of winning. Illegal immigrants should not have paths of citizenship because then they will have to pay a lot in taxes with very low paying jobs. It is better for them to stay illegal so that they may get through the system without having the United States take their money. Also, they would most likely get on welfare, which would throw the USA into even deeper debt than it is. The United States can not afford anymore debt. (1) By the way, this is not the responce I'd use in a real debate. I am just making a simple arguement that won't be responded to properly. (1). www. usdebtclock. org", "title": "illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship", "pid": "327c8f25-2019-04-18T18:09:12Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.1889190673828}, {"text": "Illegal immigrants already waste a lot of money. Illegal immigrants being given a pathway towards citizenship would show disregard for the federal government's laws. Illegal immigrants also take away jobs that should belong to legal immigrants.", "title": "America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants.", "pid": "f40414eb-2019-04-18T11:51:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.15777587890625}, {"text": "first is for acceptance", "title": "Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship", "pid": "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.15765380859375}, {"text": "What I am saying is that immigrants need to get their citizenship legally. I am not against immigrants in the slightest but I believe that they need to come to this country legally. As for babies, I believe that there is an easy solution. A special building, for the infantile illegal immigrants would be built, and eventually they would be up for adoption by families. They could then learn to speak English and go to school. They would be considered citizens. I do believe that immigration laws are here for a reason. I have read up, and out of the 11 million illegal immigrants that have moved to the United States, of which 820,000 have been convicted of a crime. I think that all immigrants need to apply for citizen ship for the safety of us all. I am not saying that all illegal immigrants are criminals, or that they are more prone to commit crimes, but we need to do background checks to make sure that no immigrants are criminals who would endanger our society. That is why we have a process of citizenship that people need to complete to become a citizen. Now, I think that all illegal immigrants who have been discovered should be forced to apply for citizen ship. If they have nothing to hide, they will accept, and if they are able they will become a citizen. A large percentage of illegal immigrants in the United States have been living here for an extended period of time and that means that they should have adjusted to our society and would easily pass the test and receive their citizenship. They would receive another attempt should they fail the test. If they fail it again, then they are not fit to be in society. The laws of immigration are here for a reason, and those who do not follow them must be reprimanded (deportation) or inducted as a full fledged citizen.", "title": "Should we deport illegal immigrants? (Not just from Mexico)", "pid": "9e36ecf4-2019-04-18T11:47:16Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.10658264160156}, {"text": "Yes, their are some paths for foreigners (aliens), who are here legally, to get citizenship. However illegal immigrants (aliens), DON'T have a path to citizenship, because they are here illegally. If everyone is given a path to citizenship, then there would be no need for the terms illegal and legal. We would all be Americans, having all the equal rights and privileges. If they are already here, they should stay here.", "title": "Immigration", "pid": "46817eac-2019-04-18T14:11:51Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.10293579101562}, {"text": "For my final argument i will focus on your statement \"Immigrants could account for the population increase.\" Yes the overall population increases, that is a known fact, when you have one group combined with another group you get a bigger group. Now ill ask, is that a good thing? for an example i will bring the country of Kenya into the picture. the Kenyan government was lax about the immigration of Ethiopians into the country but now kenya went down on the DTS scale to a 2 from a 3. When the immigrants joined the kenyan population the government had to mine resources at a dizzying rate and built massive cities that we know as \"slums.\" If we keep letting immigrants in the country will falter but at this point nothing but the extreme can be done. If we give these illegals a pathway to citizenship we are just inviting more immigrants into our country creating more of a problem. thank you for this debate but i believe my case is made and there is nothing more to say.", "title": "Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship", "pid": "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.10269165039062}, {"text": "yeah I guess so", "title": "Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship", "pid": "3cdc63cb-2019-04-18T18:06:59Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.1023406982422}, {"text": "I would have to say I agree.", "title": "Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship", "pid": "3cdc63cb-2019-04-18T18:06:59Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.08599853515625}, {"text": "Immigrants are just as important as us, or any other person for that matter! They Contribute alot to our society! They work in horrible condions for very cheap labors and still have to pay high taxes. And they do more work than regualar day americans.", "title": "illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship", "pid": "327c8f25-2019-04-18T18:09:12Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.0344696044922}, {"text": "My stance: America should enforce the law of the land, which is that Illegal Immigration is Illegal.", "title": "whether the government should enforce illegal immigration", "pid": "12a78a66-2019-04-18T14:05:38Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.03074645996094}, {"text": "I accept your challenge Eric. Maybe this time you can win on your choice of topic.", "title": "Should the US allow illegal immigrants currently in the US to have a path to citizenship", "pid": "eb83b1d7-2019-04-18T16:50:19Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.0166015625}, {"text": "My opponent is trying to remove the 'illegal' out of 'illegal immigrant.' Legal immigrants can benefit this country, but all illegal immigrants are criminals, because they did not legally come into this country, thus should not be rewarded with citizenship. Instead, they should legally immigrate. The notion that illegal immigrants are not criminals, despite having broken the law is outrageous. Breaking the law is what makes someone a criminal. Criminal definition. crim\"i\"nal G2;krimənl noun 1. a person who has committed a crime. This is exactly what an illegal immigrant has done, so why should they be allowed to reside in this country, because they committed a crime? Pro has to provide irrefutable evidence to prove this topic, but has not done so, therefor not fulfilling BoP.", "title": "In the US, illegal immigrants should not be deported.", "pid": "f84eab7b-2019-04-18T16:00:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.97714233398438}, {"text": "citizen ship is stupid in my views...we shouldnt stand as a country (id be proud to do tho)we should stand as citizens of the world not countrys but my point is that illegal immigrants shouldnt have to be citizens.....dou peopl feel threatin by our bothers and neighboors or something?these people have the abiliy to find cures for illness we havnt fond yet,they hve the ability to reach the stars to not only serve our country but our world.....but our goverment stands in their way", "title": "why shouldnt immigrants be able to go to collages or universitys?!", "pid": "3fc36285-2019-04-18T18:54:17Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.96255493164062}, {"text": "Nazi.", "title": "Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all", "pid": "d82d8130-2019-04-18T12:53:53Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.9351348876953}, {"text": "The primary basis for this argument is that illegal immigrants are, inherently, in the United States illegally. On a purely legal basis, they should not be afforded legal documentation such as a driver's license, and should be deported. Beyond the legality, many argue that the presence of illegal immigrants is harmful economically and socially to lawful citizens, providing additional cause to moving away from integration and such measures as providing illegal immigrants with driver's licenses.", "title": "Illegal immigrants should not be integrated into American society, but rather deported.", "pid": "c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00042-000", "bm25_score": 215.9176788330078}, {"text": "I think that immigrants should be allowed in the United States because they bring new job opportunities to the U.S.", "title": "Should immigrants be allowed in the United States", "pid": "39feade1-2019-04-18T11:56:53Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.91700744628906}, {"text": "Governments are required by their Constitutions to protect their citizens from crime and foreign threats. In so far as illegal immigration threatens citizens, governments are required to respond aggressively. Arizona, who's citizens have been terribly affected by illegal immigration, is required to respond robustly in fighting the problem.", "title": "Government protection (from illegal immigrants) is a const. right.", "pid": "31f5da82-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00088-000", "bm25_score": 215.8988494873047}, {"text": "I accept the challenge and will show why immigrants can come in, but legally.", "title": "Should immigrants be allowed in the United States", "pid": "39feade1-2019-04-18T11:56:53Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.87759399414062}, {"text": "I think that most immigrants should be allowed in the U.S.", "title": "Should illegal immigrants be allowed to live in the U.S.", "pid": "f44bcd7f-2019-04-18T11:45:00Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.87295532226562}, {"text": "Jared Bernstein. \"Path to citizenship and out of poverty.\" Economic Policy Institute. June 29, 2006: \"The policy implications should be obvious. We must not let ourselves become a nation of permanent illegal immigrants, who toil in the shadows; nor should we become a nation of 'guest workers.' We are a nation of immigrants who have trodden the path toward citizenship. A central goal of reform should be to clear that path for those who deserve the privileges, economic and otherwise, of being an American citizen.\"", "title": "US cannot be a nation of permanent illegal immigrants", "pid": "4cf9e3c5-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00032-000", "bm25_score": 215.8697967529297}, {"text": "Just for clarification this debate has no intent of bashing on foreign immigrants seeking shelter in the United States. The base of my argument is that they should not be granted citizenship to the United States if they have not learned English (to a very low level) at least the ability of carrying out a simple conversation should be required if you wish to have permanent citizenship of the country. Please no swearing or terrible spelling mistakes. Good luck!", "title": "The United States should not grant citizenship to immigrants if they cannot speak English", "pid": "f17d1307-2019-04-18T15:47:50Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.8662109375}, {"text": "Illegal immigrants are criminals. They have broken US law. Why should they be given any special favors? They should treated like criminals, found, charged, jailed, and deported. It's simply a matter of enforcing the law.", "title": "A path to citizenship grants amnesty to criminals.", "pid": "4cf9e3c5-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00037-000", "bm25_score": 215.86434936523438}, {"text": "Okay. I negate. My contention is simple: \"Illegal immigration is not a problem, therefor illegal immigrant babies are also not a problem.\" Definition: Problem in this case will be put forth under the paradigm of utilitarianism coupled with quality of life over quantity. Hahaha!", "title": "For now being born in the US should not make someone a citizen unless 1 of there parents is a citize", "pid": "bd5f8f32-2019-04-18T19:45:16Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.84088134765625}, {"text": "I think that illegal immigrants are lawbreakers and if caught should be sent back to the country of origin. Why? Becaus these people take the jobs of others and lie on who and where and etc. Not only they get to the US illegally, but they forge Us based documents, hoping not to get caught. I saying that illegal immigrants are people that break the laws and only do it to find freedom, but they should do what other people did, apply for residentship or citizenship. But, never to sneak to the US and hope not to get lucky, because they will get caught and continue it. Illegal immigrants are lawbreakers and people that waste peoples' tax money trying to hunt them down. They can go to a life of lawbreaking like drug dealing, robbery, etc. We don't know who these people are and they can do bad things. I'm not saying all illegal immigrants are bad, but their are some out there.", "title": "should illegal immigrants ive in the Unites States", "pid": "f238c9cb-2019-04-18T20:00:15Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.82803344726562}, {"text": "yeah it would make things easier if become a U.s. citizen but not all immigrants wish to contribute to all that it takes to be a citizen. most illegal immigrants that are in our country come for economic reasons because their country does not have much of an economy or avaliable jobs, if they already face problems economically which is why they come to our country leads in unwilling tax payers that do all the same we do. im not referencing to all. its unfair but it should be harder to get granted citizenship because all that has happened in our country, we cant just let anyone in our country...how is that safe or reasonable?", "title": "Effort to regulate our countrys borders", "pid": "c1e8634f-2019-04-18T18:54:56Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.82656860351562}, {"text": "Vote KHAN!!!!!!!!!1!!! The other guy wants to strip children of their 14th Amendment rights or separate families!", "title": "Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all", "pid": "d82d8130-2019-04-18T12:53:53Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.8260955810547}, {"text": "Why should illegal immigrants be able to even get jobs here in the first place? If you are not an American Citizen, you should not be entitled to the same rights that an American Citizen has. I forget the name of the law, but it goes something like this: If you are not a citizen of America and you are in America, you: A) Are not protected under the law by the constitution or it's amendments since they are reserved for American Citizens. B) You are however, held responsible for any criminal acts that you commit. You say that Illegal Immigrants could be a major contributer to the economy if they became citizens. I agree, somewhat. If they are actively applying for citizenship or else taking a citizenship course, they should be allowed to stay. If they are simply here to either commit crimes or steal American jobs, get the hell out. If they come on a visa, okay, but once it runs out, get the hell out. Wouldn't it make more sense for American Citizens to get those jobs first?", "title": "Illegal Immigration Is Bad For Americans", "pid": "f48be0a0-2019-04-18T12:05:27Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.8153076171875}, {"text": "I don't 100% disagree with you either. My opinion is that the best way for the United States to address the issue of illegal immigrants is through reform of the immigration/citizenship process...I don't think a lot of people realize how difficult, costly, and time consuming it is to move to the the US. These issues are things we need to work on. I don't think \" handing out citizenship\" is the best way to describe the reform happening in the U.S. recently. It gives a path to citizenship (so they are allowed to go to college and pay taxes, hooray!) through background checks and lots of hard work, and require the person to have lived in the U.S. for a long time. I argue that this type of legislation allows immigration officials to focus on the people who may actually be dealing drugs. What specifically would you do to reduce illegal immigration?", "title": "Not allowing illegal immigrants into the United States of America", "pid": "152a53f-2019-04-18T12:42:52Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.8089141845703}, {"text": "I disagree with your point about \"If everyone is given a path to citizenship, then there would be no need for the terms illegal and legal. We would all be Americans, having all the equal rights and privileges. \" I think if the government promote this kind of unlimited immigration policy, the country will be out of control. Actually, almost every country in the world has its immigration restrictive laws, for the reasons of structure of population, national security, cultural protection, trade safety, etc. Therefore, some limitations in immigration to divide immigrants into legal and illegal are necessary.", "title": "Immigration", "pid": "46817eac-2019-04-18T14:11:51Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.79437255859375}, {"text": "I have not joined this argument to debate, I'm simply here to say that your entire argument is contradictory. Illegal aliens are given that title simply because they are Illegally residing in America.", "title": "Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all", "pid": "d82d8111-2019-04-18T12:55:53Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.7929229736328}, {"text": "I'm not against immigration thank you very much. I'm against illegal immigration. illegal immagrants take up jobs that are for us that are legal and thanks to Obama we have less jobs and they are taking them, and i live in Colorado were there are a lot of illegal immigrants here because we are really close to Texas and Arizona, and this is true because i have friends that are illegal immigrants. now i think that immigrants that were brought here illegally when they were small children should be granted citizen ship because they had no choice, because they were children. this is my closing argument.", "title": "should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship", "pid": "8e58c781-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.78103637695312}, {"text": "Other than the dwindling population of Native Americans that still live in reserves all Americans are and were immigrants at one time. Even though those with strong family ties to this country may claim to have a stake here this land was never truly ours. We moved in like a hostile force with no regard for anyone or thing else. Our nation's history is one of immigration and change. Monuments and what are now tourist destinations such as the Statue of Liberty(Ellis Island) and Angel Island are remnants if what once was. Immigrants came by the boatload to have a new and better life in the land of opportunity, But now even more so they are looked down on and made to feel as though they are less than us, The only thing that separates us from them is the amount of time we've been here. So why now do we have such a large problem with it, Why should we close ourselves off from the rest of the world?", "title": "Should the United States continue to allow illegal/undocumented immigrants to enter the country\"s", "pid": "ef923e09-2019-04-18T11:19:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.76390075683594}, {"text": "As much as I support immigrant rights, I don't think that immigrants should be allowed to become presidents. Only because if an immigrant became president, he/she might have conflicting interests with America and their home country. I'm not saying all immigrants are out to infiltrate the US government, but to ensure that American interests are being preserved, citizens whom have been born and raised in the States would be less bias. Of course, there is always the opportunity to become a representative, governor, or even senator. In these offices, immigrants can still be represented without taking executive control. Again, it's not that immigrants aren't able or would only pass laws benefiting their demographic, but we need a citizen that has been born and raised here in order to ensure that American interests are put first.", "title": "\"That Arnold Schwarzenegger should be able to become president\"", "pid": "2b8563c2-2019-04-18T19:52:57Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.7515106201172}, {"text": "Hello, my name's Woody!", "title": "Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all", "pid": "d82d8130-2019-04-18T12:53:53Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.71939086914062}, {"text": "The U.S.A. is thought to be the land of opportunity, the land of freedom. Other countries should follow their example. The world should provide equal rights and opportunities to everyone. I believe that the whole world should allow immigrants a chance to apply for citizenship. Sometimes, there is simply no other way for immigrants. This is their only chance to get a better life. Some people like us won the \"human lottery\". We have everything we need to survive and prosper. Some other people simply lost. They have no way to live well in their current condition. For example, in Mexico, it is very hard to get a job without a college degree because there are so many of those people, and not many jobs. Also, the living conditions are terrible. These type of people have almost no chance to live well in Mexico. You might hear all the stereotypes about very violent people that deserve to be deported, but that is not true. For example,only 1.6% of illegal immigrants in the U.S. commit crimes, which is actually less than the overall U.S. crime rate, which is about 2.8%. Most immigrants are hard-working people who just want a better life for their family. Even if immigrants do commit crimes, then they would be put in jail/prison and then deported. That is how the process works for legal immigrants already. More immigrants will benefit the country, not hurt it. Also, if immigrants have kids in the country, then those kids will have to be split up from their families. No kids should have to undergo that hurt. Illegal immigrants usually are good people trying to get a better life. We should let them.", "title": "Illegal Immigration", "pid": "cac6bfdf-2019-04-18T12:31:47Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.70562744140625}, {"text": "Basically I am opposed to illegal immigration, I am totally for giving people better lives but i don't feel that it should be at the cost of others. If all of America's benefits and opportunities is a life boat and the people already on it are citizens, we can't just keep putting people on the life boat(illegal immigrants) because than it endangers the people already on the life boat. And I know feel that illegal immigrants probably haven't done anything illegal in their lives and they had good intentions when they got in the US but just the sheer act of them bypassing the usual protocols of becoming a citizen is what is illegal, and that is something we cannot look past, I feel America is not stepping up to the task and securing boarders, that they are almost aiding and abetting them in committing the crime of coming to the US illegally.", "title": "Illegal immigration", "pid": "6340764-2019-04-18T18:24:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.69557189941406}, {"text": "Hi! I am Lola and I would like to debate that immigration reform should not include a path to citizenship. On to my first contention, illegal immigrants have already broken U.S. Immigration law by crossing the border illegally. Title 8 U.S. Code section 1325 defines crossing illegally as: Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact. Why should we extend the right of citizenship in our country to a criminal who has willingly broken the law? On to my second contention, the people who crossed the border illegally should not get the benefits of citizenship. Those who entered legally should get the benefits, or at least the status quote. Those who crossed the border illegally should not be rewarded, or at most, get the status quote. They shouldn't\"t get the benefit of citizenship in the US. While rights and dignity for these individuals should not be restricted, the path to citizenship is unfair to those who are legally entering and rewards the illegal behavior that enabled them to be living in the U.S. in the first place. On to my third contention, providing pathways to citizenship, especially new pathways, encourages people to migrate illegally to the United States and makes it easier for more people who earn citizenship through the new path to sponsor those who do not yet have it. More people in the US also means that there will be higher demands on social services and welfare. These increased demands on public services will fall particularly hard on state governments. Costs associated with criminal activity also strain government budgets (pay access). And since most undocumented immigrants already file tax returns there is not likely to be any significant increase in tax revenue. Any potential gains in economic activity are offset by a number of factors. First, as more workers become available wages tend to decline because there are more potential workers to hire, allowing companies to pay any interested worker less. Illegal immigrants reduce the wages of an American citizen by 1.6%, which was $90 billion in 2005. This is particularly true in the agriculture sector. Second, increased immigration arguably contributes to deflation because consumers cutback spending in fear that they will lose their jobs to immigrants. And if the lower wages argument is true, there will be even more deflation due to less money available to spend. Third, a central premise of the economy arguments is that we need to increase immigration because the US has a shortage of skilled workers, but this shortage is not significant . A new study claims that this is a myth that needs to be demolished. And, if necessary, workers could work in international waters \" or simply be allowed to work in the US without becoming citizens! Conclusion: As a conclusion, immigration reform should NOT include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States because they have already broken the law and shouldn't\"t get the benefit of citizenship for it, there is no justice for those who crossed the border legally, and providing pathways to citizenship encourages people to migrate illegally to the United States. So, please give a con ballot. Thank you. :)", "title": "Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.", "pid": "feca27b2-2019-04-18T16:55:14Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.6658172607422}, {"text": "As I am unsure as to what Con means by being \"against illegal immigration\" I will be playing devils advocate and arguing for an open border policy, something that would make all illegal immigrants legal. I'm also not sure as to weather I should present a first round argument, so I'll just leave it at this. Back to you Con, and thank you for having me.", "title": "Illegal immigrants", "pid": "2a0e6f4c-2019-04-18T11:59:25Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.65475463867188}, {"text": "I am taking the stand point that illegals should be allowed to stay. Also if you have any questions or opinions please put them in comment so we can all have a better understanding of this topic.", "title": "Should illegal immigrants be allowed to stay in the U.S.", "pid": "7af5072-2019-04-18T11:55:42Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.65042114257812}, {"text": "There should be no such thing as illegal immigration and those individuals already in the country that are labeled as illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. Immigrants fuel the economy, whether or not they have entered the country legally. By entering the country, immigrants join the low-cost labor pool that increases American money in circulation and government tax revenue (procon.org). Jobs that working-class Americans do not want will be taken by these immigrants, in no way taking jobs from Americans. The main argument of the opposing point of view, that immigrants hurt the American economy, is completely false. Morally, illegal immigration is wrong and without reason. Immigrants generally bring good values to the country, and it is unfair to arrest millions of immigrants due to an opposition that stems from racism (nationalreview.com). As politician Jack Kemp once pointed out, \"Americans and immigrants share the same value of work, family, and opportunity. There is no reason to fear the newcomers arriving on our shores today. If anything, they will energize what is best about our country\" (nationalreview.com). There is no reason to disallow immigration in this country besides from ideas of Caucasian superiority. Targeting the entire illegal immigrant population in America would fall just short of genocide, targeting and removing a whole body of people from the country. Immigration is the foundation of America and should be made completely legal for all individuals.", "title": "Immigration", "pid": "46817e6e-2019-04-18T17:05:35Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.64976501464844}, {"text": "Immigrants help the economy and the population.", "title": "Should immigrants be allowed in the USA.", "pid": "cbe216c2-2019-04-18T16:33:46Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.6424102783203}, {"text": "We are a nation of immigrants. Not ILLEGAL immigrants. \"So why now do we have such a large problem with it, Why should we close ourselves off from the rest of the world? \" Every other country has border security and doesn't allow anyone to enter their country. We don't have a problem with immigrants. We have a problem with illegals. If you want to come in, Come in the right way. It's not that hard. America is a nation of laws. With no immigration laws crime would rise and we would hardly be a country. We are letting in many more immigrants now than we were back then.", "title": "Should the United States continue to allow illegal/undocumented immigrants to enter the country\"s", "pid": "ef923e09-2019-04-18T11:19:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.64027404785156}, {"text": "The CON erroneously accepted this debate, unwilling to participate and we agreed to end this debate.", "title": "Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all", "pid": "d82d8111-2019-04-18T12:55:53Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.6245574951172}, {"text": "I would like to begin this round by laying down one fact. First, there are between 7 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States. http://www.csmonitor.com.... Additionally, I would like to ask my opponent one question: if all these illegal immigrants came into the United States legally, would you turn any away, and would you be supportive of them? America was, of course, founded by immigrants, and is currently populated with the sons and daughters of immigrants, so I think most Americans should be supportive of immigration in principle. Because my opponent has not stated his opinion on this idea, I will assume that he or she is supportive of large-scale legal immigration unless he or she were to say otherwise in a response. This preface leads me to the following argument: Illegal immigrants are often portrayed as being leeches who suck away American jobs, and in most other scenarios, I would be against illegal immigrants. They don't pay taxes, and receive much of the benefits normal citizens do receive. However, I believe the current illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty for one reason: if you are poor, it is nearly impossible to immigrate legally, let alone become an American citizen. Many of America's immigrants in the past would not have been able to immigrate legally, because they would be too poor in the current system. To immigrate legally, you need all sorts of documentation, and while I believe these papers are a noble attempt to stop the people like drug dealers from getting in to America, most of these Latin American immigrants simply do not have the paperwork necessary. When you are living in total poverty under an oppressive government, it is difficult to keep track of things like birth certificates, if you even had them in the first place. http://www.alternet.org... Therefore, I believe that until the immigration process stops becoming a bureaucratic nightmare, all illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. In addition, the United States should allow its immigration process to be more open, and allow immigration on a larger scale.", "title": "should all illegal immigrants get amnesty", "pid": "188b21d7-2019-04-18T15:29:19Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.61927795410156}, {"text": "First off, these people could either come from or be allied to an enemy country and work for that country as spies trying to infiltrate the government and help ensure it's downfall. Also, these people might not know and respect the Constitution, so they might not be viable as the United States' Head of Government and State.", "title": "Naturalized citizens should be allowed to run for the presidency.", "pid": "f2c09b09-2019-04-18T20:02:30Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.619140625}, {"text": "You're right, we should change bad laws, but this is an essential safeguard. We should do everything in our power to reduce espionage, no matter how rare it is today.", "title": "Naturalized citizens should be allowed to run for the presidency.", "pid": "f2c09b09-2019-04-18T20:02:30Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.61434936523438}, {"text": "There should be no such thing as illegal immigration and those individuals already in the country that are labeled as illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. Immigrants fuel the economy, whether or not they have entered the country legally. By entering the country, immigrants join the low-cost labor pool that increases American money in circulation and government tax revenue (procon.org). Jobs that working-class Americans do not want will be taken by these immigrants, in no way taking jobs from Americans. The main argument of the opposing point of view, that immigrants hurt the American economy, is completely false. Morally, illegal immigration is wrong and without reason. Immigrants generally bring good values to the country, and it is unfair to arrest millions of immigrants due to an opposition that stems from racism (nationalreview.com). As politician Jack Kemp once pointed out, \"Americans and immigrants share the same value of work, family, and opportunity. There is no reason to fear the newcomers arriving on our shores today. If anything, they will energize what is best about our country\" (nationalreview.com). There is no reason to disallow immigration in this country besides from ideas of Caucasian superiority. Targeting the entire illegal immigrant population in America would fall just short of genocide, targeting and removing a whole body of people from the country. Immigration is the foundation of America and should be made completely legal for all individuals. http://www.tolerance.org...... http://immigration.procon.org......", "title": "Immigration (w/ 5 rounds)", "pid": "7b43bc48-2019-04-18T17:04:21Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 215.60342407226562}, {"text": "Illegal immigrants should all be deported. Just like the title states ILLEGAL means they entered the country unlawfully and broke the law. Laws are put in place to keep society in order. If everyone broke laws we would have complete anarchy in society. By entering the country illegally in the first place, the immigrants are using up valuable resources from ICE and border protection in now looking for these people, border security to enforce future illegals and are taking away chances for legitimate immigrants who in some cases have waited years through the legal immigration process to enter the country. Deport all the Mexican landscapers and laborers who are here illegally, deport the Caribbean nation illegals who are here for a free ride, deport all the illegals.!!! You want to come here, do it the proper way, apply for a vise from your countries embassy or consulate, follow the legal proceedings, not skip out on your visitors visa or run across the border. If you are here illegally, I will kick your azz and send you back packing and also put you in the ICE system if you try to come again. Like the title says Illegals are still illegal in this country, why should they stay???", "title": "Should illegal immigrants be allowed to stay in the U.S.", "pid": "7af5072-2019-04-18T11:55:42Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.60084533691406}, {"text": "However, I never mentioned taking Illegal Immigrants out of the U.S. I was simply talking that we should stop letting them in. If you do want a solution to removing all Illegal Immigrants from the U.S., then the best solution is to just make them legit citizens.", "title": "Illegal Immigration Is Bad", "pid": "c3e0c9c1-2019-04-18T16:36:28Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.59298706054688}, {"text": "Offering drivers licenses to illegal immigrants provides legal status to individuals that have knowingly broken US laws. The Immigration and Nationality Act clearly states that illegal aliens should be deported. These long-standing laws must be upheld. Offering illegal immigrants driver's licenses clearly violates these laws and the impression that the United States is capable of enforcing them. It also undermines the notion of rewarding law abiding citizens and punishing those that break the law. Why should illegal immigrants be allowed to get away with their illegal acts. US citizens (not illegal aliens) are not afforded this luxury of forgiveness in the face of the law. Therefore, the proposition is an unwarranted and immoral concession that undermines the consistency of US law.", "title": "Offering illegal immigrants driver's licenses would violate the rule of law.", "pid": "c8662773-2019-04-17T11:47:49Z-00045-000", "bm25_score": 215.58816528320312}, {"text": "Illegal immigrants undoubtably bring many benefits to the US. However, they bring much more harm than good. They increase the poverty rate in the areas they live in. They most likely are a bad influence on the Americans they live near with. They come to the US illegally and beg for legal citizenship so they can get rights they don't deserve. They came to here illegally and want citizenship so that they can have rights and abuse the US system. They decrease the morale of the parts they live in because of discrimination and also because of the suspicion, the fear they bring in because of their image of being criminals and drug dealers. Why should we grant them citizenship when they're here first illegaly?", "title": "Illegal immigrants do more harm than good; deport them.", "pid": "4cf9e3c5-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00042-000", "bm25_score": 215.57762145996094}, {"text": "This debate is pointless. I've pointed out twice that I do support LEGAL immigration. The debate has nothing to do with whether or not immigrants contribute to society or not. It has to do with the fact that ILLEGAL immigration needs to be stopped. I'm all for Mexican citizens coming into the United States in a LEGAL manner. The problems starts when they completely disregard our LAWS and STATUTES that we uphold. By allowing ILLEGAL immigrants to stay in OUR country, we are simply rewarding unlawful behavior. So next time someone breaks into your house just give them a plate full of food and $1000 and tell them that their friends and family are more than welcome to do the same. You'll have more come, I promise. There are thousands of ILLEGALS in the U.S. that have been convicted of felony's. Explain to me how you justify allowing ILLEGALS to stay in our country but turning a cold shoulder to those who are following the LEGAL judicial process to become a citizen of the U.S.", "title": "Illegal Immigration", "pid": "68a8a49-2019-04-18T20:02:39Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.57565307617188}, {"text": "It should be pretty short. Pro says that these people are just as important as us, however he fails to say why. I will await his explanation in round two. Pro says they should have a clear path of citizenship, yet does not explain exactly what that means. A major flaw in his argument is the statement \"They work in horrible condi(ti)ons for very cheap labors and still have to pay high taxes. \" That makes no since. Lots of Illegals don't pay all the taxes they would have to pay if they were legal. Also, just because someone is legal does not mean they don't have to work in these same environments. I fail to see how this helps Pro. I ask my opponent to elaborate before we go any further. I'd like to see if this debate is worth it before writing an in depth response. Thank you.", "title": "illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship", "pid": "327c8f25-2019-04-18T18:09:12Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.57296752929688}, {"text": "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION . I Still, the point remains that you haven't explained how my case is wrong. I will simply list what policies I would find acceptable for citizenship. . II Illegal immigrants still are protected by the police force and use the public education system. That really is not fair, giving them an education and allowing them to work in establishments for the same pay as regular citizens is unjust. Illegal immigrants do not typically go to college or produce nearly enough money to be worth their income, they also are a minority who has the most typical involvement in crime. REFUTES . I Your source is correct but then adds \"Rich Chinese moms\" which I don't think is statistically backed up anywhere so therefore its legitimacy is dismissed until you back it up. . II Still even so, doesn't matter if the mom intends to if the baby is born there and she is already there illegally in the first place its the same outcome. I don't see the difference if intended or not she is on the soil illegally and therefore having a baby is still abusing the system. . III Yes, but they still cause competion and many still go through public school. In the end still costing the government money and in the process possibly making real US citizens lose jobs. Citizenship subtext to post . II under Illegal Immigration * Parents must both be legal citizens of the USA * Legal immigration remains the same as current policy CONCLUSION Whatever my opponent may believe, Illegal immigrants cost some portions of money and sometimes take jobs from real US citizens. Meaning they cause problems and many more come a year. Illegal immigrants due to being poor also are a big source of getting drugs over the border. Source: . http://www.cis.org... . http://www.usillegalaliens.com... . http://www.mnforsustain.org...", "title": "Birthright Citizenship should be retained in the United States", "pid": "1e41d536-2019-04-18T18:26:07Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.57196044921875}, {"text": "You said children run from terrorist attacks and wars in other countries. I believe they can come here if their country is in a dangerous situation temporarily. However, after their situation is figured out, then should go back to the their home country. They are actually bringing crime and murder here and I could give you several examples of people getting killed by illegals. Regardless of what the rate of crime is, it is one they should not have committed in the first place because they knowingly crossed the border illegally. We should provide any help to illegal immigrants. If they want to have a better life in America then they should come through the right way. Actually, people can not come and go as the please. Of course we do not rule the earth. The United States is a country of laws, and Illegals taking jobs away from Americans is part of the reason we have the law. Every other country in the world has a wall, and they are a country of laws as well. That does not mean anybody can come and go as they please and does not mean they rule the earth. If someone wants to go in a country, they should do it the right way.", "title": "I'm Against Illegal Immigration: Change my Mind", "pid": "54368a97-2019-04-18T11:36:00Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.57034301757812}, {"text": "Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States I stand in firm affirmation on this bill. I believe that it is unfair, unjust, cheating, and not what the creators of the 14th Amendment originally intended. Contention 1: This law allows illegal immigrants to cheat the system and immediately become US citizens. Birthright citizenship gives illegal immigrants a motive for cheating the system and finding way to become legalized citizens. In a recent study there were approximately 11.2 illegal immigrants in the United States. The 14th Amendment give motives for all immigrants to cheat there way into gaining US citizenship by having children. The process of becoming a United States citizen normally takes between 5 months and 2 years. A person who has a baby on American soil takes one. Because the baby is now a United States citizen the process is sped up immensely for parents. It is almost guaranteed that the parents will get citizenship because the government will not forcibly deport the parents away from the baby or remove a US citizen, this being the baby. Contention 2: It is unfair, unjust, and does not create an equal society. I believe that if we allow this bill to remain it gives people who have a child here illegally an unfair advantage. Think about the thousands of people that have to wait through the process for 2 years. The people who have to pay and study in order to become a US citizen. Also think of the people who were paying taxes and benefiting the US economy while the illegal immigrants were illegally in the country and used a leu poll in order to become a citizen. Does that seem fair. Our country is based on a place where we are all considered equal. Does a person who has no knowledge of our country and became a citizen over night deserve to be a citizen more than the hardworking man who has been struggling to gain citizenship for the past 2 years, or the man who has studied and payed for tests, or the woman who has been doing local jobs everywhere in order so that she can pay for the documents and tests in order to become a citizen? The answer is no. Convention 3: It is not what creators of the constitution originally planned. The 14th Amendment was created in July of 1868. The men who created it would have no idea what would happen 144 years later. It was originally made so that recently freed African Americans would have citizenship if they were born here. Present day this is a means for illegal immigrants to unlawfully sneak past the system and gain citizenship. There have been other countries that have corrected laws similar to this. In Ukraine, they recently got rid of their \"Tourist Baby\" bill. This bill now states that if you have a baby in Ukraine and you are not a citizen of Ukraine you will not be granted citizenship. So now back to us, I believe that if we abolish birthright citizenship we can create a new bill that is geared towards giving citizenship to babies born of legal citizens of the United States. This would create a more fair and just system and would also clear up the controversy that the original founders of the 14th Amendment could not foresee.", "title": "Resolved: Birthright citizenship should be abolished in the United States", "pid": "dd869c53-2019-04-18T18:29:24Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.53016662597656}, {"text": "You stated that \"if you live in a lower state you have to get special shots because of the illegals coming from Mexico.\" I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence that American citizens are required to take additional shots due to the influx of immigrants coming in from Mexico. You also stated that \"plus, all the illegals are taking up the jobs a legal American could have which puts more American citizens into poverty.\" Most economists in America will find this statement utterly ridiculous. The Brooking's Institution's Michael Greenstone, said that, and I quote, \"on average, immigrant workers increase the opportunities and income of Americans.\" Immigrants (whether they are illegal immigrants or not) increase the job opportunity's for Americans, because they start businesses and hire more workers. Our goal shouldn't be to send back the immigrants, but to welcome them. It's our responsibility to give them more chances to become lawful American citizens. It can take years for close relatives of U.S citizens to obtain Immigrant Visas. This difficult immigration process only encourages people to immigrate illegally. You also state that \"also the illegals don't have to pay taxes.\" That's my point exactly! If illegal immigrants are allowed citizenship, then they will pay taxes! Many illegal or undocumented immigrants actually pay income and sales taxes anyhow. On average an immigrant, regardless of status, will pay 80,000 U.S dollars more in taxes than they use in government services over the course of their lifetime.", "title": "should illgle immagrants be allowed citezenship", "pid": "8e58c781-2019-04-18T16:40:22Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.52366638183594}, {"text": "I am unable to watch the video at the moment, but when I get the chance to I will. I am for Trump's immigration policy because it is an extra procedure to make sure we are safe when allowing foreigners to come into our country and become a US citizen. My mom is an immigrant from the Philippines. She was abused and knew nobody, but she managed to come here legally. Why should people just be able to come here whoever they are from wherever. Shouldn't we be allowed to make sure they're safe and don't want to harm us?", "title": "Trump's immigration policy.", "pid": "d8e671d9-2019-04-18T11:50:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.51925659179688}, {"text": "I do think immagrents should come leagly but i dont think it should be very \"user frendly\" i think they should apply or even ahving bidings to enter they should action citizenship to Want to be American Citizens it would clear up a lot i see immagrents here all the time that come leagly and own shops and are super nice people but i dont think illegal immagents shpuld come and i dont think it should be much more easeyer", "title": "Immigration reform is good for the country", "pid": "c2876a88-2019-04-18T17:23:20Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.51866149902344}, {"text": "I am making sure that I don't get a message that I \"forfeited\" this round.", "title": "Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all", "pid": "d82d8111-2019-04-18T12:55:53Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.51760864257812}, {"text": "Well if they came over fairly ,or have came for a better life,and also had worked hard in the US to get the little they can get,why shouldn't they be classified as a US citizen?I know some people from different counteries compared to some Americans. Also I would like to piont out where are your sources?", "title": "Immigration reform should include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.", "pid": "feca27b2-2019-04-18T16:55:14Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.4976043701172}, {"text": "They are also treated very poorly! You see, most immigrants are Mexican or latinoes. People are very racial to those kinds of color. People call them very rude names that all have to do with there color.", "title": "illegal immigrants should have paths of citizenship", "pid": "327c8f25-2019-04-18T18:09:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.48663330078125}, {"text": "The US should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants due to the drain their presence creates on our economy. Never mind the fact that they are \"illegal\" and therefore don't belong here.", "title": "The United States Government should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants.", "pid": "67bd18e2-2019-04-18T18:50:42Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.46292114257812}, {"text": "To clarify the topic is Illegal immigration as defined by section 1325 title 8 of the United states code \"improper entry of an alien. \" I quoted it but in somewhat laymans terms above where I numbered. I'm willing to open the topic to both alien and immigrants in the United States illegally. I don't think that my points are opinionated. My thoughts on the matter mirror either the laws pertaining to Illegal immigration or the closest counterparts I could find in laws pertaining to minors who are U. S citizens. In reference to people going through inspections those people are legally in the united states or are turned around before they enter. The only way the individuals you're referring to can be here illegally is if they overstay their allotted time. Furthermore I don't see in what way the US is being selfish. People who choose to live in our society and granted our benefits are subject to our rules. I don't see how any of these rules are unfair. Finally I really wouldn't like to pay to be taken somewhere illegally. Especially when crossing into the United States border legally is free. Not to mention if an alien is paying 9, 000$ to a coyote to help them cross I think they have enough money to help them start the naturalization process. I'd also like to point out that it isn't the United states responsibility to provide planes boats or buses to people who don't live here. Mainly cause the United States isn't even required to give that to its own citizens. If someone dreams of coming to the US its not illegal. What is Illegal are the things I mentioned.", "title": "Illegal immigration", "pid": "634081e-2019-04-18T11:22:15Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.4495086669922}, {"text": "This allows illegals to masquerade as normal immigrants.", "title": "give illegal immigrants drivers licenses", "pid": "2cf2c469-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.44773864746094}, {"text": "I'd just like to preface my argument by saying that I don't participate on any debate teams. I don't know all of the nuanced rules. I simply want to state my opinion and have someone attempt to prove me wrong. I am for prosecuting Illegal aliens. I believe that we are a nation that abides by our own laws. I think that this extends to illegal aliens. I define Illegal aliens as 1. Someone who crosses the border illegally. 2. Someone who intentionally misleads people in order to enter this country 3. Someone who avoids updates and inspections with authority. Illegal immigrants have a right to a speedy trial in the United states. If immigrants are seeking asylum they need to see a judge to determine the validity of their claims. If Illegal immigrants are minors under 7 years old their parents should be held liable. If they are 8 to 18 they should go to a juvenile court after the parents are tried. If the state doesn't accept the case a federal delinquency proceeding should take place. If the minor immigrants are without parents they should be tried in a juvenile court. If asylum is not granted and the youth has no legal guardians the state should hold custody until their native country can take custody of the minor.", "title": "Illegal immigration", "pid": "634081e-2019-04-18T11:22:15Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.44735717773438}, {"text": "I'll divide this into 3 parts: 1) My Case2) Con's Syllogism3) Con's case 1) My CaseCon ignores my entire case in favor of an absurd assumption that: \"when we offer citizenship to immigrants, we don't need to offer them all rights as well\"The government doesn't grant rights to its citizens in bits and pieces. When immigrants are naturalized, they become American citizens with all the same rights as all other US citizens. The only place the constitution uses the word \"native-born citizen\" in particular is in its presidential eligibility clause. \"US Citizenship is not defined by Pro's ideals; it is defined by the US.\"Con attacks a strawman. I never said it was defined by my ideals. I was using the 14th Amendment which says:All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. [1]With his 2 unsubstantiated claims above, it is Con who is attempting to define citizenship by his own ideals. I don't think Con understands the concept of citizenship. Colonialism & CriminalsCon's case rests on the fact that the law provides security. I have shown that it is misguided and provides no security. Far more dangerous people such as convicted criminals exist in our current pool of presidential candidates. The fact that criminals are allowed to run shows that pre-emptive security is unnecessary in presidential elections. People should decide for themselves who is dangeous and who is not. Con attacks my statements on criminals out of context. My rebuttal to Con's contention about security was that security doesn't increase by allowing criminals but disallowing immigrants to run. It had nothing to do with whether or not criminals should be allowed to run. Con's attempts to differentiate Naturalized US citizens from \"Americans\" are misleading. They are not mutually exclusive terms. 2) Con's syllogismCon makes a syllogism that seems to work at first glance but is deeply flawed becase it relies on the assumption that naturalized US citizens must not be included under the definition of US success. 1. Changes to Pres. requirements .... likelihood of US successCon doesn't address my point that choosing from all citizens gives a greater likelihood of success than choosing from just 7/8 of it's citizens. Con gives no justification for excluding 1/8 of the US population from the definition of \"US success.\" Extend. 2. Success .... decisions to be made based solely on US interests.Con misrepresents my rebuttal. He COMPLETELY ignores my assertion that the interests of all US citizens count as US interests. By saying that \"we agree on the basics\" he claims a false concession whereas it is he who conceded by not addressing my rebuttal. 3. People have a natural loyalty.... Con never shows how caring about a nation is dangerous in and of itself. Bush hates Iraq (Con's admission) and dragged the US into a war. Isn't that more dangerous?4. More likely to include foreign interests Bush example: This negates Con's contention and works for my side because a US-born citizen is just as likely to have a personal connection to a country as a Naturalized citizen. Bush hated Iraq so much because of the conflicts his father started with Iraq. Bush was not born in a country like Iran which is an enemy of Iraq. Bush was born in the US, yet he had this intense, emotional response to Iraq because his father had a conflict. His emotions did not serve US interests. Could this have been any worse if Bush was born in Iran? Why is it that being born in the United States is of any importance at all? Personal conflicts are not exclusive to Naturalized citizens. A Naturalized US citizen may love the country of his birth, but a native-born US citizen is just as likely to hate a country that his father had a conflict with. Con wonders how we would know if a person is exceptional. I already answered this by showing how their previous decisions in a position of power as a senator or governor are public. Extend those as Con dropped them. Con never responds to my contention that Naturalized citizens will be more heavily scrutinized than Native-born citizens because people will be cautious with them to begin with. He concedes. It is less likely that a Naturalized US citizen will be able to convince the people to elect him if his real intentions were dishonorable. \"The US lost over $ 3 tril and 4000 lives over something that didn’t exist.\" We lost this because a US-born citizen couldn't put his emotional hate aside. It completely contradicts Con's assertion that Naturalized citizens are dangerous because they have \"personal connections.\" He says they are more likely but so far, all he proved was that immigrants love their country of birth which by itself does not show that they are any more dangerous. Should we stop people whose fathers had been president because it is more likely that they would hold a grudge? Why not? This fits in perfectly with Con's argument and actually makes more sense than preventing immigrants from running. 5. Will not increase US success. Con ignores my rebuttal. I'd like to remind Con that in a debate, unaddressed points count as concessions [2], and if Con brings any of these conceded points back up in the last round when I can't respond, voters are to disregard it. 3) Con's case(a) \"[Pro] is suggesting here that the constitution has no place enforcing a rule that will protect the country\"- Con appeals to the constitution's right to enforce laws, yet disregards the fact that the law was not written for the reason that he claims. It was written to protect the US from colonization, not from immigrants. - I proved that no protection occurs. It doesn't stop people who are truly dangerous (criminals) nor people with a bundle of confused emotions (Bush). The average risk of the current pool of candidates with criminals and all is the same as, or more than, the average risk with immigrants included. (b) \"decision must be based on having the best leadership possible to lead the country, not fulfilling the desires of those who wish to run\"- The government has no obligation to provide the \"best\" leadership. The voters do that. - The government makes a decision based on assumptions which may or may not be true but depend entirely on possible likelihood. That is inherently unjust to people who are incorrectly denied because of the government's assumptions. (c) Grandma analogy: \"harms caused by the rare instances of the unexpected outweigh the harms caused by the restrictions themselves.\" If that is the case, then restrictions should be placed on all US citizens and no one should run for president. Con already showed that even native-born citizens can be dangerous (he made my case for me) and the risk exists regardless of who is running. For that reason the above logic cannot be applied to elections. ConclusionCon's argument relies on strawmanning my position, claiming concessions when there were none, dropping points, and misrepresenting my rebuttals. He could not find an effective argument so instead he makes up his own definition of citizenship - a charge he ironically lays on me. He also does not include naturalized US citizens in his definition of \"US success\" even though that 1/8 of the population is just as American as the remaining 7/8. I have given considerable reasoning why immigrants are not any more dangerous than the people who are already allowed to run such (criminals and people whose fathers had run before them). There is a certain amount of risk already in our current pool of candidates. Expanding it to include immigrants does not increase the average risk that is inherent in a candidate pool.The voters have the right to vote for who they want. While they may not make the best choice, democracy demands that they make the choice, not the government. For all these reasons, immigrants should be eligible to run for president. The resolution is affirmed. Sources [1] http://bit.ly...[2] http://bit.ly...", "title": "Immigrants should be eligible to run for office of the President of the United States", "pid": "b66a2d6c-2019-04-18T18:39:17Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.44271850585938}, {"text": "Soooo...I guess this debate is over? Haha.", "title": "Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship", "pid": "3cdc63cb-2019-04-18T18:06:59Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.4405059814453}, {"text": "I believe Immigration is key to society and should be allowed, plus some of my best friends are Mexican immigrants.", "title": "Illegal Immigration", "pid": "cac6bf82-2019-04-18T17:37:42Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.4329376220703}]}
{"idx": 28, "qid": "30", "q_text": "Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?", "qrels": {"efbdcc9f-2019-04-15T20:22:41Z-00014-000": 0, "ea8c0370-2019-04-18T13:53:40Z-00005-000": 0, "a3808ba2-2019-04-18T16:39:47Z-00008-000": 0, "a6ba8b64-2019-04-18T19:54:44Z-00004-000": 2, "a8af0abf-2019-04-18T19:34:36Z-00006-000": 0, "be1c3672-2019-04-18T17:22:56Z-00004-000": 2, "c4eaae9b-2019-04-18T15:22:52Z-00003-000": 0, "e34330e5-2019-04-18T18:22:49Z-00007-000": 0, "c633bfbe-2019-04-18T16:54:41Z-00004-000": 0, "ca07a94-2019-04-18T16:25:14Z-00007-000": 0, "e81cbf1f-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00007-000": 0, "d4e0c5b9-2019-04-18T18:54:41Z-00004-000": 0, "e81cbf1f-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00006-000": 0, "d74a3bb0-2019-04-18T16:16:41Z-00005-000": 0, "e81cbf00-2019-04-18T18:44:20Z-00003-000": 2, "e81cbf00-2019-04-18T18:44:20Z-00000-000": 0, "dfe5259a-2019-04-18T11:18:46Z-00006-000": 0, "e81cbf1f-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00004-000": 2, "ea8c004a-2019-04-18T14:05:01Z-00001-000": 1, "dbe0f23e-2019-04-18T14:36:42Z-00004-000": 1, "ea8c1293-2019-04-18T11:41:07Z-00000-000": 2, "579ea609-2019-04-18T19:52:27Z-00002-000": 1, "9f12e0e6-2019-04-18T15:26:02Z-00003-000": 2, "9c362ae5-2019-04-18T16:33:10Z-00006-000": 2, "874f4b2d-2019-04-18T18:37:28Z-00003-000": 2, "80557bae-2019-04-18T18:21:52Z-00003-000": 0, "7f16d4e8-2019-04-18T11:35:37Z-00001-000": 0, "77fb8a5-2019-04-18T17:48:47Z-00004-000": 0, "6e3f713c-2019-04-18T16:02:54Z-00006-000": 0, "6df2669e-2019-04-18T17:53:16Z-00003-000": 0, "67d033c0-2019-04-18T15:39:30Z-00003-000": 0, "6327257c-2019-04-18T18:25:19Z-00002-000": 0, "511dd9e8-2019-04-18T11:38:05Z-00000-000": 0, "4afc1d05-2019-04-18T11:32:41Z-00002-000": 2, "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00002-000": 2, "378af022-2019-04-18T14:06:00Z-00005-000": 0, "369e6fda-2019-04-18T11:12:10Z-00005-000": 1, "35e7fa17-2019-04-18T14:50:38Z-00000-000": 1, "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00031-000": 1, "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00050-000": 1, "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00033-000": 1, "5c976881-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00008-000": 2, "5c976881-2019-04-18T18:22:18Z-00006-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "To start out carrying a concealed handgun in public is permitted in all 50 states as of 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation. Some states require gun owners to obtain permits while others have \"unrestricted carry\" and do not require permits. Proponents of concealed carry say that criminals are less likely to attack someone they believe to be armed. They cite the 2nd Amendment's \"right of the people to keep and bear arms,\" and argue that most adults who legally carry a concealed gun are law-abiding and do not misuse their firearms. Opponents of concealed carry argue that increased gun ownership leads to more gun crime and unintended gun injuries. They contend that concealed handguns increase the chances of arguments becoming lethal, and that society would be safer with fewer guns on the street, not more. The only state/district in the USA that prohibits carrying and concealing firearms (Washington DC) has more than double the highest violent crime rate in the US. This does not include American Samoa and the north Mariana islands. SOURCES:/ http://www.usacarry.com... https://www.census.gov...", "title": "Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm.", "pid": "9f12e0e6-2019-04-18T15:26:02Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.81314086914062}, {"text": "I see what you're saying, but even if they don't have violence related felonies, they could still do damage. They could use that concealed fire arm that they carry, to force someone to do something, to scare someone or even get carried away with that power. Sure criminals might be less likely to attack the person with the gun, if they knew it was there, and even if they don't know that it's there they might take it from the gun owner. And if the gun owner actually got to the point where he had to use it, most likely it would go wrong. Police take weeks, maybe even months to train with their guns, while gun owners usually train for a day or two. Also what would happen if that gun went off accidentally? Someone or some people could be seriously injured or worse killed. Leave the gun handling to the professionals. This is why I believe that Adults, without violence related felonies, should not have the right to carry a concealed firearm. Sources: http://concealedcampus.org...", "title": "Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm.", "pid": "9f12e0e6-2019-04-18T15:26:02Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.585205078125}, {"text": "Honestly you really can't compare gasoline to a firearm. For an arsonist it takes a longer time to kill someone, but for a murderer it's just hit and boom the person's seriously injured or dead. Plus to be an arsonist you have to place the gasoline, which plenty of people can see them while they do it. The fact that we can't prove that something will or will not happen, scares people. When people are scared or worried, we do what seems right and to people, banning firearms is the right thing to do. Washington DC is where the president lives, not everyone likes the president. Which can lead to higher violent crimes, people trying to kill the president, people just showing their hatred, and etc. The .0054% of murderers that were committed by legal gun owners, is a problem. People still have to watch their backs where ever they go, they have to wonder: Does that guy have a gun I can't see? Will he kill people? What if he does? It is a huge problem!", "title": "Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm.", "pid": "9f12e0e6-2019-04-18T15:26:02Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.29782104492188}, {"text": "Dude I am debating to have 18 years allowed to get a handgun with papers legally. So when the cop does pull you over you have the papers to show that you can Own a handgun.", "title": "18 year olds with concealed handguns", "pid": "ead0d54d-2019-04-18T16:54:45Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.92958068847656}, {"text": "Why don't you want a concealed handgun permit so you can carry and be able to protect yourself. There are many cases in which a 18 year old can save their life or somebody else's if they have a concealed handgun. But because of the law they can't have one and said 18 year old dies gets injured or other person dies or gets injured. SO my question is why wouldn't you want 18 year olds to have handguns?", "title": "18 year olds with concealed handguns", "pid": "ead0d54d-2019-04-18T16:54:45Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.73573303222656}, {"text": "There are an infinite amount of scenarios that could go wrong. Just because something can go wrong does not mean that it will. You can not say that something should not happen simply because it could go wrong, unless there is proof that it will go wrong more times than not, which is not the case. 30-34% (70-80 million people) of adult Americans in the USA admitted to owning and regularly carrying a gun at some point. 4,346 murders were committed with a legally owned firearm in 2010. .0054% of the murders were committed by legal gun owners That is not anywhere close to a problem. That is like saying gasoline should be controlled and only kept available to certain qualified people because there are arsonists that will uses the gasoline to start fires potentially killing people. Qualified citizens having guns is not just a right but the opposite of a problem. Taking away the right to keep and bear arms will only cause more crimes to be committed. People will start illegally importing guns at much more of a vast rate and continue selling them to everyone including murderers or people who should not own guns. Statistics show that when gun control is implemented violent crimes increase. Example: Washington DC Sources: http://gunvictimsaction.org... http://www.justfacts.com...", "title": "Adults, without violence related felonies, should have the right to carry a concealed firearm.", "pid": "9f12e0e6-2019-04-18T15:26:02Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.64938354492188}, {"text": "Qualified students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons while on a college campus. There is no good reason to deny capable students with permits the right that they are afforded everywhere else. The issue is about student safety. Needless crimes happen everyday because students are not allowed to defend themselves in the most effective way: with a gun. According to the Department of Education, 25% of crimes that happen on college campuses are rapes and 39% are assaults. These numbers would be significantly lower had these victims been lawfully armed.", "title": "Concealed Carry on College Campuses", "pid": "30ae541c-2019-04-18T15:18:38Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.6379852294922}, {"text": "Carrying concealed handguns are used more for criminal homicides than homicides. According to the violence policy center, For every justifiable homicide (a death caused by someone defending themselves) there were 34 innocent people killed by criminals who obtained a handgun and permit. and in 2014 eighteen states reported no justifiable homicides caused by handguns. People rarely use handguns for protection. And handguns may make someone feel safer but in reality they actually make them less safe. According to a peer reviews study someone carrying a gun for self defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault then an assault victim without a gun.", "title": "I think that concealed carry should not be allowed. Prove me wrong", "pid": "a29a39c-2019-04-18T11:41:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.60604858398438}, {"text": "I, being the pro,am going to affirm the resolution and prove why people should be allowed to carry arms. I will ask that voters cast their vote in this round based on who debates the resolution better and not based on your own personal decisions. Keep in mind that I have no strong views on either side, but want to practise my debating skills. Thanks! In this debate, I am going to prove to you why adult individuals should have the right to carry a concealed handgun. On to my case - I wish to offer 2 points in this round to show that the decision to make carrying arms in the US a legal right was a good one. Firstly, Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed. The deterrent effect of concealed carry benefits the individual carrying a handgun as well as the general public because criminals never know who is armed. With the right to carry arms in place, the general public can move around the country without having to worry about criminals, and areas that generally contain a lot of people who commit crimes. This is further proved by the fact that, according to a study by Dr. John Lott, \"shall-issue\" laws have reduced homicides by 8.5%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. Lott argued that if states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them in 1977, 1570 murders, 60,000 aggravated assaults, and 12,000 robberies would have been prevented between 1977 and 1992. These figures may seem insignificant at first, but when you're part of one the 1,570 families who lost someone they loved, it suddenly matters a WHOLE lot more. Secondly, One of the arguments against giving the right to carry arms to adults is that the public isn't ready to handle the responsibility of a gun, and that they might take to shooting and use the tool made for self-defence to harm other innocent civilians, but, most of the adults who own concealed handguns are law abiding. This is proved by the fact that according to a report by engineering statistician William Sturdevant published on the Texas Concealed Handgun Association website, the general public is now 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses, and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses, in comparison to before. This, therefore, refutes any argument about the public not being able to handle the responsibilities of a gun. I now give the (online)stage to my opponent, and wish him/her good luck.", "title": "Right to carry arms", "pid": "be1c3672-2019-04-18T17:22:56Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.46336364746094}, {"text": "Alright the first thing I notice about 18 year olds is that they can join the army, get their hands in tons of dangerous weapons. But if there not in the army they can still own a rifle and a shotgun which do even more damage so what's so bad about a concealed handgun for self protection? What if some crazy guy attacks them then what shall they do beat them with a stick? well if they had a concealed weapon this would not be a problem.", "title": "18 year olds with concealed handguns", "pid": "ead0d54d-2019-04-18T16:54:45Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.4553985595703}, {"text": "because it is wrong if the 18 yo has it because he cold hurt someone or kill another or himself end of discussion", "title": "18 year olds with concealed handguns", "pid": "ead0d54d-2019-04-18T16:54:45Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.21310424804688}, {"text": "I believe that the right to carry, reduces crime rates and should be made legal in all 50 states, with limitations to who would be able to carry a firearm of U.S citizens above the age of 21 and no prior felonies, or crimes with a firearm. Further more I would also argue that with correct instructions firearms can be very safe and recreational activities.", "title": "Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime", "pid": "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.1378173828125}, {"text": "Carrying a concealed weapon should not be legal. Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. If carrying a concealed weapon was legal, People wouldn't be able to know if someone was telling the truth when they said they had a weapon. This is dangerous because if the other person knew there was no weapon, They could run away. But if carrying a concealed weapon is legal they could never know for certain. People can still defend themselves if the weapon is not concealed.", "title": "I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind", "pid": "81403fde-2019-04-18T11:16:40Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.06167602539062}, {"text": "We will be using the plain dictionary definition of the word \"infringed\". [1]The reason for this debate, is that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting the carrying, or concealed carry of at least some semi-automatic weapons. While the US Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.An armed populace is a free populace. Tyranny cannot gain hold where the people have not only the will but the means to throw off a tyrannical government.In countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower.The United States should readopt the approach our founders took: An absolute liberty to keep and bear arms.References1. http://dictionary.reference.com...", "title": "The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed.", "pid": "dedbd50d-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.9364013671875}, {"text": "In this debate we will begin by talking about open carry. Open carry is the practice of carrying a weapon in plain view, not concealed, for personal safety. I am for this. I feel that if you can pass the background check to buy a firearm legally, you should be able to carry a weapon as the Second Amendment gives us the rights to bear arms to protect ourselves from an oppressive government and those who seek to do us harm. Here is Ky policy on open carry. This statement statement is about what is justified to use deadly force by the Louisville Metro Police. This is basically outlining when someone would need to use their weapon. Also we will talk about what carrying guns in places could have prevented in our nation. 9.1.2 DEFINITIONS (CONTINUED) Deadly force: Force, which the officer knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury. Head, neck, throat or clavicle injuries caused by an impact weapon of any sort can lead to death or serious physical injury. Reasonable belief: When facts or circumstances the officer knows, or should know, are such to cause an ordinary and prudent officer to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances. Active aggression: A threat or overt act of an assault (through physical or verbal means), coupled with the present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which reasonably indicates that an assault or injury to any person is imminent. Serious physical injury: A bodily injury that: =623; Creates a substantial risk of death to the victim. =623; Creates a prolonged impairment of health or prolonged disfigurement. =623; Creates a prolonged loss or impairment of a bodily organ.", "title": "Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free.", "pid": "af69c8f7-2019-04-18T14:28:36Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.93125915527344}, {"text": "I think people over 21 should carry a firearm for protection because many citizens think that it is better taking care of themselves than the police. It may take a long time for the police to respond if someone is assaulting you or any other violation. It won't be that easy to have a firearm of course, they would have to go through the government to have a background check on the person.", "title": "Everyone over 21 has the right to have a firearm.", "pid": "c633bfbe-2019-04-18T16:54:41Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.894287109375}, {"text": "My position is that colleges should determine the rules for carrying weapons on their campuses and the government should not be involved. The government does not have the moral authority to impose its rules on others. I am speaking of private colleges of course, I do not believe public universities should exist at all.", "title": "should the United States government allow concealed guns within campus (college)", "pid": "c6849325-2019-04-18T18:51:30Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.89056396484375}, {"text": "I believe concealed-carry should be legal, And for law-abiding citizens, They should be able to own a gun. This is to protect themselves in public, Home-defense, And protecting against a potential tyrannical government. You have mentioned stricter gun laws and an \"assault weapons\" ban. Feel free to try and change my mind if you have convincing arguments.", "title": "I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind", "pid": "81403fde-2019-04-18T11:16:40Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.88856506347656}, {"text": "I oppose the resolution, \"Resolved: 18 year olds should be able to purchase firearms and have concealed weapons licenses.\" First, an eighteen year-old (or anyone for that matter) can use another means to protect themselves other than firearms, such as pepper spray. This would a.) reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries and b.) prevent firearms from being stolen by others and used for criminal purposes. Second, a firearm in the wrong hands can result in injury and death. Examples of eighteen year-olds killing others with firearms include the Jokela school shooting in which nine people died (including the perpetrator) and the St. Pius X High School shooting, where one person was killed and five others were injured. Due to the number of risks, and other ways for eighteen year-olds to defend themselves, I oppose the resolution that eighteen year-olds should be able to purchase firearms and have concealed weapons licenses.", "title": "Should 18 year olds be able to purchase fire arms and have conceild weapons lcences", "pid": "99185ec1-2019-04-18T18:08:00Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.8759307861328}, {"text": "Ya but what if you dont have the papers and you get pulled over thats what i said yesterday but it is useless if you get it anyways. Why do you want it any ways? Its just to get a holster for the gun, and you have to pay extra for the gun anyways. so my question is why", "title": "18 year olds with concealed handguns", "pid": "ead0d54d-2019-04-18T16:54:45Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.86721801757812}, {"text": "For clarification, we are not talking about inside secured government property, or the right of property owners to disallow weapons on their property.", "title": "The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed.", "pid": "dedbd50d-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.82778930664062}, {"text": "I believe teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons in school because it can lower the risk of casualties of school shootings and can make students and staff feel safer. Yes teachers would need to go through a background check and a fire arm training class before hand, as well as a test for mental stability. In the long run it would help save students lives around the world.", "title": "Should teachers be allowed to carry concealed weapons in school", "pid": "2fc9fc2c-2019-04-18T11:56:34Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.775390625}, {"text": "I am currently an enrolled student, and also have a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. To be more specific about my position on this, I believe that it is wrong for Public Colleges/Universities to not offer any kind of process in which an individual may gain legal rights to carry a concealed handgun on campus when he/she goes to class. Of course, I also welcome faculty/teachers/staff to be allowed that offer as well. It's not just for the students. I do agree that we should not just hand guns to everybody, but there are some select individuals who I believe are deemed trustworthy to handle that kind of responsibility, even though you must be very responsible. As of now, I'm going to say that I believe that if you already have a concealed handgun permit, and are allowed to carry virtually all public places(Stores/Malls/Movie Theaters/ etc.) Then why should campus be any different? Of course if we agree that there should be a process to make it legal for certain people, I understand maybe not everybody agrees that a CCW permit is enough. I'm perfectly open to discussion as to what kind of requirements do you think in individual must pass to make it legal, but that's all details. For now, I wanna say that I am open to the idea that there should be some legal process offered by the public University to allow a certain individual conceal carry rights, so as long as he/she meets the following requirements, x,y, and z. For now, I think we can just take advantage over the system that is already in place to allow people to carry in public places and require a student/faculty to possess a valid CCW permit. It is wrong to deny a person rights just because some other people have abused it in the past. As a person who believes in America the way it was meant to be, a Republic, not a Democracy, then individuals including minorities should have constitutional rights in public places. Private Universities are another story. But Public Universities should abide by constitutional law. To start off with the argument, I'd like to say that criminals and anyone wishing to do harm will probably break the law regardless of the fact that we deny everybody the right to carry. We cannot protect people with just a sign saying that it's illegal to carry a firearm. This leads me to believe that there really is no logical reason to think that Gun Free Zones themselves would have any affect other than disarming the people who abide by the law and have everything to lose(no felons, no misdemeanors, no criminal recored etc.) Of course I'm referring to Gun Free Zones on college campus's. I do however, think that Courthouses are at least smart with that law by setting up preventative measures such as metal detectors and making sure the place is full of armed police officers. Because of the mass shootings and other various forms of gun violence that have appeared on College campus, it is clear that Gun Free Zones don't prevent everybody from coming in with a gun. The Gun free zone clearly does not actually disarm everybody, and it only seems to be the people we should be afraid of the most who are going to still carry anyway. I'll get into stats and facts in the later rounds. For now, this is my position as clear as I can make it with some rational reason why I don't think \"everybody\" should be disarmed. I welcome an opponent, preferably one who completely disagrees because obviously I 'd be preaching to the choir otherwise. So anybody who wants to challenge me, bring it on brother... or sister.", "title": "Gun Free Zone on College Campus", "pid": "fd5562c6-2019-04-18T15:49:12Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.70480346679688}, {"text": "I think that teachers should be able to carry concealed guns at school but not have them loaded. In the case of a actual emergency the teacher then can load the gun for protection . Right after the event they MUST unload it.", "title": "Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School", "pid": "54a0a16c-2019-04-18T16:27:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.67666625976562}, {"text": "I think anyone who carries a firearm whether you are a private purchaser, security guard, military or a Police officer should be subject to strict rules. Firstly anyone wishing to own or carry a firearm should be subject to quarterly drug testing (including alcohol and prescription medication), psychological screening and profiling. Secondly anyone with a serious violent criminal history should undertake even stricter scrutiny and controls but I don't think the carry conceal laws are the problem. Crazy people are generally the problem, people who are violent and officials who are violent and think they are beyond the law. Killing whether by breaking the law or loosely in the name of the law are equally detestable and indictable. In my opinion i genuinely feel that prevention should be more prevalent in gun control. If more scrutiny was given to these areas there would be less gun killings. Thirdly automatic weapons and high calibre spec weapons should only be issued to the armed forces and not the general public or the police its unecessary for home protection. The amount of weapons that anyone individual should also be scrutanised this would also bring down gun killings.", "title": "Conceal carry laws by private citizens", "pid": "5d2a077f-2019-04-18T13:59:07Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.6129913330078}, {"text": "Thats true but theres a slimchance of that happening. What if a cop pulls you over and you don't have the papers for your gun? Jail for you son.", "title": "18 year olds with concealed handguns", "pid": "ead0d54d-2019-04-18T16:54:45Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.60667419433594}, {"text": "Definitions: Handgun -a firearm that is held and fired with one hand[1] Opening Arguments: Many individuals feel the need to purchase a handgun for various purposes such as protecting their families and property, and in the hands of responsible pose no serious threat to the general public, however when handguns fall into the hands of ex-convicts and those who are mentally ill it does. The fact that hand guns could fall into the hands of those who are likely to commit a crime again such as ex-convicts[2] or those who are mentally unqualified to carry a weapon should justify giving local governments the ability to regulate handgun ownership. Thank You. [1] . http://www.google.ca... [2] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...", "title": "States/local municipalities should have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens", "pid": "90cc69d8-2019-04-18T19:09:33Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.5121612548828}, {"text": "I accept, and look forward to this debate. Just so no time is wasted in asking for clarifications in the first and second rounds, could you please be very specific on terms of importance. For instance \"infringed.\" Thank you!", "title": "The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed.", "pid": "dedbd50d-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.4895782470703}, {"text": "\" Whether a police officer let's for argument sake on a night shift approaches old Mrs Jones from the grocery store..... In between discussing the price of a twinkie he suddenly feels threatened by old Mrs Jones who is acting suspiciouslly and he suddenly remembers that she may have a perfectly legal concealed weapon on her person. Mrs Jones later was found by paramedics dead grasping a carrot...please.... Do officers really go into a shift thinking \"oh someone may have a legally concealed weapon\" Really? I'm not so sure.. \" It seems you are arguing my point for me lol If Mrs Jones is carrying a LEGAL concealed weapon she is most likely white and an older women which by virtue of her age and color is most likely not gonna arouse an officers suspicions unless she was clutching at her chest and he suspected she was having a heart attack lol A black person or any minority is less likely to openly carry a weapon much less conceal it even if it is legal and they are the lawful owner cause of the majority white police force who, by training or by belief, have a prejudice against minorities that if they do have a gun, it is most likely illegal and so they are in danger.", "title": "Conceal carry laws by private citizens", "pid": "5d2a077f-2019-04-18T13:59:07Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.45558166503906}, {"text": "Well, I understand everything that you're saying, and it makes sense. I just don't think that allowing more concealed weapons by non-professionals in colleges is the solution. There is definitely a problem with the fact that pointless violence is occurring at campuses, but I believe there's only been about 9 campus shootings in the past 40 years. Every life counts, but I don't think the situation is so severe that concealed weapons should be allowed on colleges. I agree that a vast majority of CC permit holders will be acting defensively and responsibly with their weapon, but there is just too much room for more problems when guns are allowed legally. This whole CC permit business makes guns more available anyways, because people are able to legally buy and sell the guns and carry them. This makes it easier for potential criminals to get a hold of a gun. I know that they could get a hold of one anyways, but the fact that it is easier when there are more guns going around means that someone that may not have gone through the trouble if guns were really rare may be able to obtain one easily and use it. I think there are other solutions that could work alternatively to the CC permit. There could be increased security, so that if a student starts shooting then there will be a trained, professional security guard nearby. Also, there could be metal detectors/x rays or some other precaution before students are able to enter the campus.", "title": "Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses", "pid": "386a0c00-2019-04-18T20:02:17Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.45355224609375}, {"text": "As Robert Cottrol, JD, PhD, Professor of Law and History at George Washington University, wrote in the article \"Gun Control Is Racist, Sexist, and Classist\" published in the Sept. 1999 issue of American Enterprise: \"In recent years a majority of states have passed laws permitting honest citizens to carry concealed weapons, and the results tell us much about self-defense and the responsibility of the average citizen. Once it was passionately argued that such laws would turn minor altercations into bloody shoot-outs; now we know better. Over 1 million Americans have licenses to carry firearms, but firearms misuse by this group has been utterly negligible. Criminologists now debate not how much harm has been caused by concealed-carry laws, but how much good. .. [A right to bear arms] says the individual is not simply a helpless bystander in the difficult and dangerous task of ensuring his or her safety. Instead, the citizen is an active participant, an equal partner with the state in ensuring not only his own safety but that of his community. This is a serious right for serious people. It takes the individual from servile dependency on the state to the status of participating citizen, capable of making intelligent choices in defense of one's life and ultimately one's freedom. This conception of citizenship recognizes that the ultimate civil right is the right to defend one's own life, that without that right all other rights are meaningless, and that without the means of self-defense the right to self-defense is but an empty promise. \" In other words, concealed carry laws are very beneficial to the community. It allows people to protect others. Here are some statistics from Campuscarry. com: 1. At the start of the 2010 fall semester, 14 Colorado community colleges (38 campuses) began allowing licensed concealed carry on campus. 2. Since the fall semester of 2006, Utah state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of Utah's nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses). 3. Concealed carry has been allowed on the two campuses of Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO, and Pueblo, CO) since 2003 and at Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA) since 1995. 4. After allowing concealed carry on campus for an average of more than three years (as of June 2011), none of these 26 colleges (71 campuses) has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides) or a single resulting gun accident. When we look at the concealed carry movement as a whole, from its beginnings in the late 1980s to the present, we see a huge increase in the number of people with carry permits, from around one million in 1987 to around six million today. Now here's the kicker: during this same time frame, violent crime has fallen to record lows in America, hovering nationwide at rates not seen since the early 1960s. Historic numbers of guns in the hands of private citizens, who are increasingly carrying those guns in public, and a dramatic, ongoing drop in violent crime. Now there's something to think about! Tactically speaking, the element of surprise is a great thing. If someone doesn't know you have a firearm, then they can't tactically adjust them selves for that. If they were to try and rob you and you pull a firearm they didn't know about, that surprises most criminals, not all, but most. Something they were not expecting has the potential to rattle cages. Plus when you are out in public I think people are less likely to be jumpy or nervous if they don't see a firearm on your side and no badge on your shirt. Again, not all people would respond that way I wouldn't think, but some might. . http://concealedguns.procon.org... . http://www.campuscarry.com... . http://blog.chegg.com... . http://www.usconcealedcarry.net... . http://www.usacarry.com...", "title": "Concealed Carry Laws Decrease Violent Crime", "pid": "8200d780-2019-04-18T18:16:43Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.41954040527344}, {"text": "Being Side Con, I wish to counter my opponent\"s claim that private citizens should be allowed to carry firearms. I concur with my opponent\"s criterion for judging this debate and ask all voters to not consider any outside information not explicitly brought up in the debate or the sources. That being said, Side Con\"s three contentions are as follows: 1. Concealed firearm use leads to lethal violent crime. 2. Concealed firearms easily find their way into the hands of convicted felons. 3. Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense. Contention 1: Concealed firearms lead to lethal violent crime. The NRA loves telling the public stories of heroic storeowners hiding guns in their desks, successfully taking down thieves and various other assailants with lethal or non-lethal blows. Concealed firearms are thus portrayed as saviors. The NRA, however, does not tell every story. Meet Philip Davis, an Alabama police officer on duty on December 3rd, 2009. Davis pulls over pharmacist Bart Johnson for speeding. As Davis gave Johnson his ticket, Johnson \"fired one shot\" (1) from a concealed firearm, killing Davis instantly. Johnson had \"obtained a concealed weapons permit in 2007,\" a permit he had renewed in 2009. Davis is one of 516 people killed by individuals with concealed weapons, weapons legally concealed (2). Looking at an even broader scale, we find an alarming amount of violence arising from handgun use. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, handguns were the weapons used in 70% to 80% of all homicides committed from 1993 to 2011 (3). Using the lower number, 70%, we can therefore estimate criminals killed 148,676 people with handguns. And this does not include non-lethal shootings, nor the violence of the past year. Considering the weapons themselves, we find a very dangerous prospect: handguns are exceedingly easy to use. This is not to say a knife or a baseball bat cannot be deadly, but a semi-automatic handgun has a greater range and ease of use than either. All one needs to do is pull back a safety and pull the trigger repeatedly. Furthermore, the clip size of handguns can lead to multiple deaths in mere seconds. An AR-24 Armalite 9mm pistol has a 15 magazine; assuming the gun-wielder is a poor marksman, needing two shots to kill someone, he/she could still take out 7 people (4). So how does this link to the resolution? Quite simply, as useful as concealed firearms seem for self-defense, they are definitely used for criminal, homicidal purposes. They are a threat to public safety. And though some lives have been saved by handguns, just as many, if not more, have been lost. Contention 2: Concealed firearms easily find their way into the hands of convicted felons. Most would not have a problem with law-abiding citizens owning a concealed handgun. Yet, often times, the handgun user is NOT a law-abiding citizen, but a convicted criminal regaining his/her gun rights. Several states, such as Washington and Cleveland, allow released felons to regain their gun rights as long as minimal requirements have been met. Since 1995, 3,300 convicted felons in Washington have regained their gun rights (5). 13% of these felons have engaged in further criminal activity with these firearms including first-degree murder, drive-by-shootings, and child rape. The process barring these individuals from acquiring firearms is atrocious. Aside from those felons incarcerated for first-degree murder and other such crimes, \"judges have no discretion to reject petitions\" (5) for criminals regaining their gun rights. The federal government can do little to stop this gun proliferation; due to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, the federal government must leave gun restoration policy to the states. And, as we've seen, many of them are not doing good jobs. Contention 3: Concealed firearms are not adequate self-defense As this contention clashes directly with my opponent\"s first contention, this suffices to rebut his argument. First, we must realize guns are rarely used for self-defense. The NRA claims guns have been used to stop approximately 2.5 million crimes a year; analysis by the National Crime Victimization survey actually finds handguns are used for self-defense a mere 67,470 a year. In 2010 alone, there were 8,275 firearms based homicides, as compared to 230 justifiable self-defense homicides (6). My opponent brings up an alleged deterrent effect, as \"criminals never know who is armed.\" There are a few problems with this analysis. First off, an exposed firearm is far more intimidating than a concealed one. If anyone saw someone with a Glock strapped to his/her ankle, they would likely stay away. Second, this analysis assumes every criminal will make the logical step, assuming anyone might have a gun. This is far from likely. If a criminal is mentally ill, he is not likely to take this logical step. The same applies to a criminal addicted to malevolent substances, such as PCP. This also ignores criminal desperation; if a criminal needs the money to satisfy a drug addiction, or even to put bread on the table, he will disregard the possibility of any random person having a gun. Finally, my opponent cites the research of Dr. John Lott, a \"shall-issue\" law enthusiast whose research is often cited by pro-gun advocates. Yet there are flaws in Lott\"s analysis as well. We must consider the possibility of a conflict of interest, as Lott\"s research was funded by the Olin Foundation, a subsidiary of the Olin Corporation, one of the largest gun manufacturers in the country. Secondly, Lott based his theories on econometric data points, rather than psychological data taken from case studies, surveys, and experiments with criminals; the latter data is far more compelling. Even if we look at the study itself, a revised data set of Lott\"s study indicated the effect of \"right-to-carry laws\" had no statistical significance (7) on violent crime. Thus, this change was due to factors beyond the controls established by Lott\"s analysis. Finally, concealed handguns have limited stopping power and poor accuracy in the hands of an untrained marksman. The entry and exit wound on handguns is smaller than for other weapons. Most don\"t have a scope.. Even gun advocate Chris Bird notes a handgun is \"the least effective fire-arm for self-defense\" (8). Since these weapons are so rarely used for self-defense, rarely deter criminals, and are poor self-defense items in the first place, right to carry laws are not the best way to promote public safety. With this in mind, I would like to refute my opponent\"s other argument, his second contention; Pro Contention 2: The public isn't ready to handle gun responsibility. I will keep this refutation brief for sake of clash in other rounds, but the main issue with my opponent's argument is a false correlation. Not only does correlation not assume causation, but the statistics my opponent asserts may not even have to deal with gun responsibility. The statistics only suggest people are less likely to be arrested for violent crime. This does not mean people are \"better\" or \"more responsible.\" Dozens of other factors come into play. The recent economic crisis (thus limiting funds to purchase guns), the possibility of increased law enforcement, or decreases in drug abuse could all be responsible for this trend. The confounding variables severely hamper the validity of these statistics. With that, I close the first round. Thank you, and good luck. 1. http://www.vpc.org... 2. http://www.vpc.org... 3. http://www.bjs.gov... 4. http://www.armalite.com... 5. http://www.nytimes.com... 6. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com... 7. http://www.nap.edu... 8. http://www.nap.edu...", "title": "Right to carry arms", "pid": "be1c3672-2019-04-18T17:22:56Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.29946899414062}, {"text": "I find it interesting that my opponent has used a Supreme Court case as evidence of the \"individual right\" the Second Amendment affords to American Citizens. The case referred to, District of Columbia v. Heller, does indeed assert the individual right of citizens to possess a handgun for self defense; however, it is equally as important to note that this case was not decided unanimously. In a 5-4 decision, which the Court used textual and historical evidence to decide the original application of the Second Amendment, Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer all applied the same textual and historical examination of the Second Amendment, but came to a very different conclusion than the majority. This case does not prove any conclusive evidence for the original intent of the Second Amendment, it was only the interpretations of the nine Justices on the Supreme Court at the time. I realize that decision by the Supreme Court have the binding ability of law, or the \"correct\" interpretation of the Constitution, but it is also true that the entire Judicial Review power of the Supreme Court is not found in the Constitution; it was a product of the Courts decisions in Marbury v. Madison, and Cooper v. Aaron. I included the chart on the Washington post's website to respond to my opponents argument \"in countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower,\" which shows that there is no higher gun ownership than the United States. The debate to crime differences overall must be omitted, being that the chart only provides information about gun violence and crime. But since my opponent spent a large part of their rebuttal giving examples and comparisons based upon this data, I will respond to it as well. Being that I find a fundamental flaw in the examples and comparisons given, I will address the comparisons as a whole, instead of responding to them individually. The overall objection I have is the incompatibility of the countries that are being compared as examples. I will use the resource \"democracyranking.org\" as evidence of the generally accepted rankings and theoretical approach to calculating the \"quality of Democracy = (freedom & other characteristics of the political system) & (performance of the non-political dimensions).\" The website lays out its ranking system as such \"all indicators are transformed to a value range of 1 to 100, where \"1 represents the weakest (poorest) and 100 the strongest (best) value.\" If you look at the rankings, a few interesting factors arise. First, Sierra Leon is not on the list. This is because this website only uses countries that are categorized by Freedom House as either \"free\" or \"partly free.\" Is this not a telling indication that the comparison of Sierra Leon and the United States may not be the best? The United States is categorized by Freedom house as completely free, with a \"democracy score\" of 76.9; where as Sierra Leon is not even included because it isn't a \"free\" or \"partly free state.\" This has to be taken into account when comparing the gun homicides in each country. The Brazil comparison is indeed a better one, but is still in the \"medium 2/3\" of all countries on the democracy ranking site. Would it not be more advantageous to compare apple with apples? When looking at the top 10 on the democracy rating compared to the United States on the Washington Post website, the U.S. is number one in gun ownership as previously stated, and Switzerland is third. Although Switzerland has a higher total gun homicide rate of 72.2 compared to the U.S. 67.5, the total number of gun homicides in each becomes relevant to examine. This is where the biggest jump in data between the top 10 \"democracies\" and the United States happens. Switzerland had a total of 57 homicides by gun, compared to the United States at 9,960. Of the top 10 \"democracies\" on the democracy ranking website, the next highest number besides the U.S. is Germany with 158. We have to travel over 30 spots on the total homicides by guns to reach our first top 10 \"democracy.\" There is a 9,802 difference between the United States and Germany of total homicides by gun. This cannot be due to nothing. In summary, there is a heck of a lot of data to sift through and attempt to determine what is important and what is not. The statistical significance of these categories would take far to much time and effort to exert for this debate, so I present all this information only to illuminate the inconsistencies in comparisons and other possible factors leading to the numbers presented on the Washington Post. I don't not contest the necessity of citizens protecting themselves by the use of guns, but to say that they are used only for this purpose would be absurd, that is evidenced by the number of homicides by guns in the U.S. on the Washington Post's website. Keeping and bearing arms for the soul purpose to defend against tyrannical governments or over oppressive governments may indeed be necessary, but that would suggest a cynical view of our government, and the assumption that this tyrannical government will arise at some point. There are plenty of people in Congress that share the views of my opponent, and I would highly doubt they would allow for a tyrannical government to take hold of our country. If we have no faith in our government and its ability to protect and provide for its citizens, then we are having the wrong debate. https://freedomhouse.org... http://democracyranking.org... http://www.washingtonpost.com...", "title": "The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed.", "pid": "dedbd50d-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.29441833496094}, {"text": "High school teachers with a concealed weapon license, should be allowed to carry a loaded gun while inside the school in order to provide extra protection for students, and themselves. Security guards are a great for ensuring a comfortable state of security in the hallways, but very seldom are they actually inside the classroom. Teachers however, are.", "title": "High school teachers should be able to be armed inside the school.", "pid": "660f5d92-2019-04-18T19:49:56Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.29025268554688}, {"text": "First of all, thank you for debating me. While we completely disagree on this issue (and evidently many others from a view at your profile), it'll give us each an opportunity to express our beliefs in a fun, educational manner. You mentioned in your post that it would make you very uneasy to know that anybody walking around you might have a concealed firearm. What about when you walk out in public at stores, restaurants, and maybe even work? There's a good chance that you have passed many people who are concealing, and college campuses should not be different from any of these other establishments. The people with the CC permit are responsible and have had much training and extensive background checking to ensure that they are of sound body and mind. Here is a list of what most states require: • The holder being at least 21 years of age • No felony convictions; or Class A or B misdemeanors within 5 years • No domestic violence conviction • Being a legal citizen of the United States • Not chemically dependent (ie. Known alchoholic or drug user) • Not delinquent in child support payments • Is legally allowed to purchase a handgun • Has no court protective order or restraining orders against them • Has not been diagnosed by a physician as suffering from a major psychiatric disorder or hospitalized for psychiatric problems While these requirements do not guarantee anything, they set a very low possibility of the wrong people getting their hands on a permit. I am confident that one clean shot is an attainable goal for a skilled shooter and would not be an issue, regardless of how stressful the situation. The assertion you made about these folks loosing their concentration tells me that you personally have had little or no experience using a firearm. While it is possible that a crazy criminal(and very tricky one at that) could get their hands on a CC permit, why would they go to the trouble. If they're crazy enough to shoot someone, than who cares if they have a permit or not, they're going to shoot someone either way - permit to carry a gun or not. A look at the statistics shows that more guns does equal less crime. While it is simple to say fighting fire with fire won't work, it simply isn't true. Since the fall semester of 2006, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of all public colleges. Also, concealed carry has been allowed for several years at both Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) and Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA). This has yet to result in a single act of violence at any of these schools. Numerous studies, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times LESS likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes. I agree with you that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Right to Bear Arms amendment, they were not thinking about schools. However, these are VERY different times. The thought of a student taking a gun into a school back then never even crossed their minds. The idea that did cross their mind was the right for citizens to protect themselves from danger regardless of their location, and that's exactly what allowing guns on campuses will do.", "title": "Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses", "pid": "386a0c00-2019-04-18T20:02:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.24942016601562}, {"text": "Your second sentence says you would \"feel very unsafe\" should students be allowed to carry their concealed weapons. The problem with this statement is that there is a huge difference in feeling safe and being safe. I'm sure the students at Virginia Tech felt very safe knowing that guns were not allowed on their campus; however, the fact is that no one was able to fight back when that maniac attacked. To clarify my 25% statistic, it is that 25% of all reported crimes on a college campus are rapes, not that 25% of women are raped. Furthermore, your point that rape does not justify murder depends on your moral standards. For example, I would rather a woman shoot and kill an immoral man in self-defense than that immoral man sexually harm her. Prevention of rape is certainly a justified reason for killing. \"There isn't enough crime on college campuses to support gun ownership.\" Any crime that causes harm to an innocent person should be prevented any way possible. Just because someone has a gun doesn't mean that person has to use it. There are strict guidelines as to when a person can be justified for using a weapon. As for your point about college students being shot should campus carry be legalized, since Utah first legalized campus carry in 2004, six states have since followed suit. In all that time on over 150 college campuses, there have been only 3 negligent discharges, all of which could have been prevented. Two occurred because the weapon was being carried without a holster and one was because a teacher was showing her new weapon to a coworker. None of these resulted in serious injuries. Many places require that weapons be holstered or cased to prevent things like this from happening. In Point 3, you fail to realize that the \"8,275 criminal gun-related homicides\" says nothing about cases of unjustified self-defense. Instead, it shows that while 8,275 people committed a criminal act of murder, 230 people were able to defend themselves from harm and put the bad guy six feet under. If you take away concealed carry, you will decrease the number of justified shootings, but would leave those people defenseless in the face of criminals. Now here are some statistics for you. \"At the 2013 homicide rate, roughly one in every 285 Americans will be murdered. A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found: \" 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives \" 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime \" 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once\" [1] How's that for enough crime to justify concealed carry? When you get to talking about college campuses, there is nothing that will lead a logical person to believe that just because he or she walks onto a campus, that person will not be exposed to criminal activity. While college campuses usually have lower crime rates, they are not crime free. A person who is permitted to carry weapons almost anywhere should not be prevented from doing the same on a college campus where crime is still possible. Here are some more statistics: \"A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found: \" 34% had been \"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim\" \" 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they \"knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun\" \" 69% personally knew other criminals who had been \"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim\"\"[1] Responsibly carrying concealed weapons gives people an effective way to defend themselves. The only reason left to deny a person the right to carry is the very small possibility that someone else will be harmed, and it is not permissible to deny someone a right just because it is accompanied with a minor risk that can be reduced with simple preventative measures. [1]http://www.justfacts.com...", "title": "Concealed Carry on College Campuses", "pid": "30ae541c-2019-04-18T15:18:38Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.21401977539062}, {"text": "Recently in Texas, as well as in other states, legislation has been put forward that would allow students and faculty at most public and some private universities to carry a firearm concealed while on campus. This past year the debate arrived at my school in the form of a public lecture and increased my interest in the matter. If anyone has any questions about definitions or any other part of the debate, please feel free to PM me or comment before accepting.", "title": "On Campus Concealed Carry", "pid": "e81cbf00-2019-04-18T18:44:20Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.210693359375}, {"text": "As my opponent forfeited the previous round, the final round of debate, it is my job to formally end this debate. Since this is the final speech of the round, I would like to condense all the issues in this debate into two central questions. 1. Do concealed handguns deter criminals from crime? 2. Do concealed handguns save more people than they kill? On Side Con, I proudly believe the answer to both questions is NO; Side Con has a clear COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE on both of these issues. With that in mind, let\"s examine the first question: 1. Do concealed handguns deter criminals from crime? As my opponent brought up in his first speech, \"Criminals are less likely to attack someone that they believe might be armed.\" The logic is simple: \"if anyone could have a gun, then I shouldn\"t attack anyone for fear he/she might pull a gun on me.\" The Instigator then defended this point with studies from Dr. John Lott. Yet, as we saw in my previous two speeches, my opponent\"s logic does not hold up. First and foremost, Dr. John Lott\"s studies have been found invalid due to a lack of statistical significance. The findings he had could have just as easily arisen from pure luck due to a large number of confounding variables in his study. The controversy behind the funding of his research is only a cherry on top. Furthermore, my opponent did not adequately respond to arguments put forth in the 1st and 2nd Con speech: openly shown firearms are a far more effective deterrent. Once again, whom would you rather rob? The old lady who might have a gun or the old lady who has a gun? The answer is clear. My opponent also ignores the psychological elements of crime, such as criminal desperation and drug addiction. Many won\"t make the logical leaps my opponent assumes they will. The conclusion is simple. In a shall-issue law world, there will still be muggings, rapes, and murders. There are better, safer alternatives to this scenario my opponent failed to refute. With this in mind, we can safely say the answer to this first question is NO, favoring Side Con. 2. Do concealed handguns save more people than they kill? There has been a slight back-and-forth over this issue over the course of debate. Yet, looking over the previous two speeches, Con definitively emerged triumphant. The comparisons Side Pro made in Round 2 between the VPC and David Burnett were not \"apples-to-apples\" comparisons, as noted in Side Con\"s Round 2 speech. To this day, individuals with legal concealed weapons permits kill citizens across the country. Such records are often incomplete, as not all crimes are reported. People such as Philip Davis have no chance to flee, giving the ease of use of a concealed handgun. My opponent claims \"citizens should have the same advantages as the criminals who attack them.\" While, ideally, neither the criminal nor the average citizen should have a gun in the first place, a concealed weapons permit makes it far easier to kill a person with malicious intent than to defend oneself from an attacker. As discussed in Con\"s Round 1 speech, the most common concealed handguns, namely the 9mm, are horrendous for self-defense. While they are rapid fire, the stopping power is minimal, especially when put in the hands of an untrained marksman. A criminal, on the other hand, is more likely to use the handgun as a threat, holding someone up for valuables. Or, if murder is the design, the criminal is far more likely to have practiced using the gun than the everyday citizen. These handguns are far more practical as murder weapons than self-defense. This point was not questioned at ALL by Side Pro. Side Pro also failed to properly refute Con\"s second contention: convicted felons do regain their gun rights, and do kill again. In Washington ALONE, 429 felons have engaged in crime after regaining their gun rights, using their weapons as either leverage or as murder weapons. Even if denying these people of their gun rights would prevent practically the population of Nebraska from owning concealed handguns, this is still a step towards the safety of the American citizenry. If we look at the deaths and the nature of concealed firearms, we overwhelmingly find the answer to the second question is NO. Thus, who has the comparative advantage? Side Con. Side Pro may like the theory behind \"shall-issue\" laws, but, in practice, these laws have not markedly improved pubic safety. If anything, they make our world LESS safe. As Side Con has repeatedly shown you, voters, concealed firearms should be illegal for US private citizens. So, for the good of restricting gun proliferation, vote Con. For the safety of the American people, vote Con. For the family of Philip Davis, vote Con. Thank you.", "title": "Right to carry arms", "pid": "be1c3672-2019-04-18T17:22:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.200927734375}, {"text": "I believe that properly trained students with a concealed carry license should be able to carry on their college campus. Currently, college campuses are Gun-Free Zones. That means that even if you have the concealed carry permit, you may not bring the gun on to campus. My question is: who does this law hurt? The last few years has seen a rapid increase in the number of school shootings and other school violence. It seems every week or two you hear about a high-school or college age kid amassing a smorgasbord of weaponry, bringing a gun(or guns) to school, shooting people, and then committing suicide. It happens so frequently now that people non-chalantly hear it on the news as they flip the TV channel - they don't think twice about it anymore. The kids that are doing this are disturbed and once these nuts get it into their heads that they're going to go on a shooting rampage, nothing short of their plan being exposed will stop them. Now back to my question - who does the ban on concealed carry on campus hurt? I will tell you who it hurts, it hurts the innocent, law-abiding students of the school who are going to school to learn and get an education. It impedes on their ability to be as safe as they can possibly be. This is an important thing to remember: the nuts who are planning the attack DO NOT CARE if it is a 'Gun-Free Zone', they're packing heat either way, with the intent to kill. The people who are restricted by the Gun-Free Zone are the law-abiding, responsible citizens with CC permits. The aren't going to break the rule that says they can't carry, then when the wacko with a shotgun and a book bag full of ammo charges through the doors, they are left defenseless. My argument is that allowing the CC permit holders to carry on campus will ensure a safer campus if the unthinkable happens and the school comes under attack from a degenerate madman. Within a few minutes of the attack, concealed carriers would be able to draw their weapons and take out the assailant with one clean shot to the head, stopping the tragedy from becoming much, much worse, saving many lives. The people with CC permits are smart, responsible people who are able to make educated decisions to protect themselves and their peers from an undeserved catastrophe. If this ban were lifted, we would have much safer campuses around America, and many potential tragedies will be stopped short, all because people are allowed to fully employ their Right to Bear Arms, as granted to them by the Constitution.", "title": "Allow Concealed Carry on College Campuses", "pid": "386a0c00-2019-04-18T20:02:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.18655395507812}, {"text": "I stand in negation of this act, taking in mind that the safety and well being of students will be unbalanced. Rather than a protective figure the teachers will become an overpower and feared figure to students. Not to say that as many cases before unexpected teachers might use the weapon to intimidate, and impose power over a student. My second argument is the economic aspect of this act. Allowing school teachers to carry guns, will lead tot he School Board having to pay for the license, ammunition, and the gun. Asides form that will have to reenforce safety like where to store the gun and high explosive ammunitions.", "title": "Resolved: certified teachers must have the right to carry handgun to school.", "pid": "ba45b4c3-2019-04-18T19:26:12Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.17405700683594}, {"text": "\"The case AGAINST open carry firearms.\" OMFG Alaska. April 27th, 2010: \"I support our second amendment, but I am against people feeling empowered to carry their legally permitted weapons openly and here is why: many aren't trained to retain total control of their own weapons and there may come a time when somebody is able to grab it away from them and use it against innocent bystanders. Americans are used to seeing police openly carrying firearms. But because they are uniformed and easily identifiable and their position in society still commands some level of respect from most of society, most would never dream of overpowering or subduing a police officer in an attempt to grab their weapon away from them and then use it against innocents. Not so for some schlub picking his nose in a Def Leppard t-shirt, who may or may not have had the proper training in order to maintain control of their own weapon. Some crazy asshole may get it in his head that Mr. Nose Picker doesn't look all that tough and that he could probably wrest Mr. N. P.'s crappy little 9mm away from him and then use it to cause some righteous anarchy. And that is it in a nutshell. Gun control in this case means maintaining control of who is in possession of ones own weapon. I am not convinced that the majority of Americans are wholly prepared to do exactly that, which is why I'd prefer that those who choose to carry a legally registered firearm keep it concealed.\"", "title": "Open carry is vulnerable to attacker trying to take weapon", "pid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00045-000", "bm25_score": 216.1676788330078}, {"text": "I don't believe teachers should not carry concealed weapons (I'm assuming you're talking about guns as you said teachers would need to go through fire arm training class) because not everyone has the nerve and skill to shoot accurately even with a training class. How many years do the police spend training for shooting guns? Certainly not a short class. Guns may also be used in inappropriate circumstances if the teacher isn't fully stable as even with mental checks not all murderers have a previous record. If a student got their hands on a weapon the results could be disastrous the shootings at Columbine High School in April 1999 and Virginia Tech University in April 2007 were both caused by armed students shooting other students. With easier access to these weapons due to staff carrying them these cases could go up. Guns may also go off accidentally as it already happened in 2014 http://archive.sltrib.com... With guns, students may not trust the teachers as much as they are dangerous. I, as a student certainly wouldn't trust a teacher with a gun and I'm sure other students would agree.", "title": "Should teachers be allowed to carry concealed weapons in school", "pid": "2fc9fc2c-2019-04-18T11:56:34Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.15927124023438}, {"text": "Paul Hager. \"Why I Carry. Concealed versus open carry.\" November 19th, 2000: \"One concern I have about concealed versus open carry is a purely political and psychological one. Given all of the anti-gun propaganda, coupled with the fact that the average person is unaware of how many friends and neighbors carry a concealed handgun, the right to carry for self-defense becomes ripe for a \"counter-reformation\" to roll back the gains that have been made. [...] Prejudice is based upon ignorance and fear, and stereotypes are impervious to everything except confrontation with reality.\"", "title": "Open carry helps educate public about guns", "pid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00062-000", "bm25_score": 216.13885498046875}, {"text": "There are many, many school shootings nowadays and I believe that students attending these schools should have some sort of protection. Sometimes these shootings are carried out by more than one person and students will need more protection than the helpless, defenseless teachers and faculty. A lot of schools are out of the way and far from the nearest police station. For example, my school is a good 20 minutes away from the nearest station. If someone shot up our school, I'd like to know that there were some students certified and licensed to have a firearm on campus to protect fellow peers. The certification will include a two-week course with local tactical defense specialists (Police). The process will be very thorough and will be tedious, but worth it. The course will be like a CHL Course (Concealed Handgun License) (1). In 31 states, it is legal to carry a concealed handgun on your person. Although, you cannot carry on school grounds. This license will allow students to carry a small HANDGUN on campus, if it is concealed properly. All students in the school (even non-carriers) will have to wear a name badge while on the campus and the licensed kids will have a special \"carrier\" emblem on the badge. The students will not be allowed to interact with the weapons unless the school goes under actual lock-down. Only then will the students be able to interact with the weapon.", "title": "Possessing small, compact firearms on school grounds with a license.", "pid": "8e2fdd07-2019-04-18T15:40:20Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.09530639648438}, {"text": "First off, my opponent offers a definition of right to carry: \"mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas. \" I concede to this definition and would like to have it now noted that the affirmation has to abide in this definition in evidence and arguements. Example of Campus allowing concealed carry, and then not allowing concealed carry. Board Chairman Patrick McConathy explained the board's decision to disarm all law abiding adults on campus by stating that the \"members of the CSU system board believe this is a reasonable, rational and responsible decision for our system. \" The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators agreed, stating \"there is no credible statistical evidence demonstrating that laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms reduce crime. \" My opponent suggests that if, in referrence to the Columbine Shooting, people were armed there could have been a halt to the shootings. We actually do not know this. In an experiment by 20/20, selected students from a college were chosen to take part. The students, varying from age, fire-arm training, and ethnicity were given a pistol loaded with paintballs and told to sit in a lecture hall with other students listening to a class session. (Note, one at a time these students were tested). The subjects were told that they would need to use a gun to defend themselves, but not when. When the attackers barged through the door, none of the subjects could kill or even down the intruder before being shot and killed. This experiment suggests that even if people were armed at the Columbine Shooting, they could never recieve the training needed to act accordingly in a life or death situation. My opponent mentions earlier that I neglected that he stated, \"with correct instruction\". However, as I have shown, one can never fully prepare themselves in life or death cases such as this. Even then, you can't expect the instructee to pay full attention. Example, driver liscenses. Teenagers are required to take a test and go through training, but why do teenagers make up the most of the car crashes that are reported in the United States? Because you can not fully know what the intentions are of a person when they want to get something. My opponent provides this as evidence. \"Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997 Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole. Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. 1998 NRA Fact Card. \" Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, . http://www.nra.org...; I would like to ask first off, is this a concealed carry law? I can't affirm that because the source my opponent provided is blocked on my webbrowser. Second off, in order for this to work in favor of my opponents case, it must be assumed that every number in this piece of evidence is in direct correllation with the Right to Carry Law enacted by Florida in 1987. With that aside, notice these pieces of statistics that contradict my opponents case: \"Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. \" As a result of the Right to Carry Law, Firearm Homicide went up 15% as a nation? Handgun Homicide up 24%? The increase of homicides in these areas, which relate to the resolution, show that because of this Law, homicides went up. The increase of homicides in 49 states, far outweighs the decrease in 1. \"If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. \" (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. \"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. \" University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96. ) I would like to note that there is a fallacy within this piece of evidence listed above. If this evidence came from the source posted after it, then it is not credible. The book was written in 7/26/96, so the year 1996. The evidence notes that it incorporates statistics from 1987 to 1999. Because this is an obvious contradiction, unless I am mistaken, this piece of evidence is not credible and can not be used. I will now state my opinion. It is the job of the government to protect our rights. To protect our natural rights. How is this justified if the government allows all of the nation to carry weapons? How safe will our society feel then? It is the obligation of the people to give up a portion of their freedom so that they can have the government protect their rights. Examples of this are the United States Navy, Army, Airforce, State Police, and County Police. By advocating for concealed weapon carry, one is saying that the government is not doing their job in protecting the rights of America. What would the need of a sheriff be, if every person in town carried a weapon. It would not turn our country into a safe haven. Likewise, concealed carry laws would create tension among everyone. My opponent advocates concealed carry. It can be the will of the negation to propose a better fitting solution. Since concealed carry is extremely unreasonable, I advocate for the allowing of weapons to be allowed in houses, but not concealed carry. I believe that in this respect, no one feels tension of being shot in public, because the guns are in the houses. I believe that this is a more suitable explanation of how it can reduce crime better than concealed carry. =Experiment= 20/20 provided another experiment. They sent one of their correspondents into a gun show, with no gun liscence and a set budget. Within a few hours, the man had purchased several firearms, without ever being asked for his liscence. This shows that if someone wanted a gun, they could get a gun. Concealed carry will inevitably create a negative effect and cause tension among people, it will also allow people with hurtful intentions to easily aquire a firearm. I understand that I have not posted any sources, aside from 20/20. That is because my computer has blocked every website that has to do with guns. I have disproved one of my opponents sources, which should hurt his credibility somewhat. For these reasons and many others, I still stand in firm negation of the resolution.", "title": "Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime", "pid": "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.068115234375}, {"text": "Attacks such as the one at Virginia Tech in 2007 would have ended more quickly, or even been thwarted, had Cho's fellow students been armed with and trained to handle handguns. If a prospective gunman (or woman) knew beforehand that a large portion of the population they are considering attacking is armed, it reasons to believe that they might reconsider their anticipated actions. Most university students are old enough to carry and should be permitted to do so. http://opencarry.com...", "title": "Permitting university students to carry handguns on campus would reduce campus violence.", "pid": "b8b9a6ab-2019-04-18T18:43:27Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.0563201904297}, {"text": "Individuals Should Not Have the Right to Bear Arms in DC", "title": "ban handguns in Washington D.C.", "pid": "d66b8937-2019-04-15T20:22:46Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.0284881591797}, {"text": "Teachers will have the guns locked up i don't think the kids will be able to steal the gun and use it. ESPECIALLY when the gun is not loaded when it is locked up. The can be anywhere else like the teachers coat, or there bags or there locked drawers. They cant take a gun if they don't know the key code to the cabinet. You say there should not be killings at schools. Gun's aren't going to shoot on their own. Also its not like the teachers are going to shoot the students. Its for like lock downs, where a actual person who is considered a threat comes into the school and attacks. The gun also does not need to be used for shooting it can be used as intimidation against the threat. Intimidating the threat makes it put its weapons down if it has one. Also if you are distracting the threat with a gun it helps officials get to your location and while the gun is being a distraction the kids can attack the threat from behind and pin it to the ground. Go Kindergarten Kids you just Pinned Down the Bad Guys. :)", "title": "Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School", "pid": "54a0a16c-2019-04-18T16:27:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.0041961669922}, {"text": "I believe that you have the right to conceal and carry if you please. If they go through the paper work and all the back ground checks they should be able to without anyone harassing them about it. If they have any type of criminal records at all they shouldn't be able to have one. People make it a big deal when someone carry's a gun into somewhere and people see it. Like if they got permission from the government to carry ii they have a right to bring it wherever they go. Lot of people usually us it when they go on trips or something. When they go to place there not usually from they may liker to have it or when ever traveling down the road and break down you never know if what someone might do to you. If they stop somewhere and people that have kids see it they make a big deal about and how there kids shouldn't be seeing that kind of stuff. You never know what kind of people you may run into when you are out on the road and now a days I would be scared at times and places I go. That is why I think that they should not be harassed about carrying a gun into public places.", "title": "Conceal to carry", "pid": "f35758f7-2019-04-18T12:59:35Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.00343322753906}, {"text": "Well, I do not know of an instance where a concealed handgun stopped a shooter either. However, I do know of mass killings where a concealed handgun would have stopped a shooter, if they had one. It's not only that, but it is also that the criminal knows no one will have a gun, which means he can do it wherever, whenever he wants (if no one could conceal a handgun). He knows no one could stop him. However, if we are allowed to have handguns, then he does not know who could or couldn't have a handgun.", "title": "Citizens should have guns", "pid": "93e5aabc-2019-04-18T17:54:56Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.00152587890625}, {"text": "There is still no reason to use guns instead of tasers or a police officer even if a student cannot reach the gun. I have a few reasons as to why. 1. Pulling a taser off of a belt is way easier and faster than trying to find the key that unlocks the cabinet and loading the gun I gtg but I will post the rest in the comments when i get back.", "title": "Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School", "pid": "54a0a16c-2019-04-18T16:27:17Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.00082397460938}, {"text": "My opponent appears to have forgotten his own resolution. \"We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed\". What this means is that he believes, that a society in which every adult( I'm assuming adult. He didn't specify but semantics aren't really my thing) is legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon on them at all times would be a safer society. I am not arguing against the right to carry a gun. I myself have two. I just don't believe a fully armed society is better for anyone. My opponent has not addressed any of my points so extend my argument into the next round. My opponent did not post the source of his information, but nevertheless I've found it. http://gunowners.org... Let the record show that I do NOT argue against most of his facts as they make my case for me. Our current stance on gun control is working. Like I stated before 10% of violent crimes don't involve guns. My opponent thinks the world operates like Grand Theft Auto and every criminal has a gun. The truth is 90% of them can't afford it. But see if you're arming everyone, that number goes through the roof. Even if you make the case to say that ex-cons won't be issued firearms, every murderer has a first kill.", "title": "We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed", "pid": "874f4b2d-2019-04-18T18:37:28Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.9818878173828}, {"text": "Conceal-Carry is already legal in some places. Mentally ill people probably would not be able to pass a background check. There has been no increase of violent crime. Since 1990, As concealed-carry goes up by tens of thousands per year, Violent crime has gone down 50%. This includes murders and rapes. 90% of cases criminals get their guns illegally, Probably through a friend or the black market.", "title": "I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind", "pid": "8ef0695e-2019-04-18T11:19:55Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.9667205810547}, {"text": "Why shouldn't I get to know if someone is carrying?If someone is acting like a lunatic I might tolerate that behavior if they are unarmed, but if they are armed I want to be able to get away.Instead of allowing concealed carry, only open carry should be allowed. The individual is more advantaged by open carry than concealed anyways. If you are openly carrying the criminal will know and avoid you. With concealed carry since most citizens aren't carrying criminals are unlikely to suspect that you are carrying. You want to avoid trouble in the first place if you can. That's why open carry makes more sense than concealed carry in deterring crime.Furthermore there is the risk of accidents and the right for citizens to know you are carrying so they can avoid you to avoid accidents.", "title": "Conceal Carry Laws reduce violent crime", "pid": "78eb6d97-2019-04-18T18:16:29Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.96484375}, {"text": "First, thanks for accepting, and sorry this is a little short; I don't have a lot of time. :) I'd first like to address the contention of my opponent, who states that state and local governments should have the ability to regulate handgun ownership because if not, hand guns are likely to fall into the hands of someone who will commit a crime (i.e. ex-cons) or those who are mentally unqualified to carry a weapon. In response to this I'd like to ask my opponent, would giving the power to the federal government allow people who are mentally ill or an ex-convict to purchase a hand gun? Of course not; in fact, our government would ensure this would not happen. I'd also like to point out my opponent has provided no evidence to back up this claim. I'd now like to go on to my own arguments. -First, states should not have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens because this would restrict the liberties of only certain people, which violates the Constitution, whose Second Amendment clearly states, \"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.\" Next, it would be easier for the federal government to regulate hand guns, as everything would be uniform; there would be no uncertainty as to what is allowed where.", "title": "States/local municipalities should have the right to restrict handgun ownership to eligible citizens", "pid": "90cc69d8-2019-04-18T19:09:33Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.96371459960938}, {"text": "I will start my this round by saying that obtaining a firearm is different in every state, it would be unwise to assume that the gun control laws are the same for every state. For instance, in Illinois you must be 18, to legally purchase a long gun (any gun with a barrel longer than 12 inches), and 21 to purchase a pistol. You must also have a FOID (Firearm Owner Identification) card, obtaining a FOID card requires an application to the IL state police where they perform a back ground check, after you have a FOID car you must wait 24 hours after purchasing a gun to pick it up. Logic would presume that this is not an easy way to obtain a firearm. Granted my opening statement was short and open to debate on the argument it would ensue, right to carry has nothing to do with obtaining firearms, that is not what is discussion is about. It is about whether or not right to carry reduces crim my opponent provided no evidence that people who own fire arms that carry them in on them would not reduce crime. Has I am now realizing this being my first debate I should have defined Right to carry, but I believe my opponent to mistaken in his definition, Right to carry mean the ability to have a concealed firearm on said persons in public areas. Housing firearms is merely owning firearms, and due to the fact that in 1993 49% of homes had at least one firearm in them (Study: \"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun. \" By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), 1995. Accessed at . http://www.saf.org....) I do not believe that 13 year old are the main issue when it comes to Right to carry. My opponent also neglected the fact that I stated \"with correct instruction\", I do not have enough time to provide detailed information about gun safety this link should be detailed enough (. http://www.nrahq.org...). As for the columbine school shooting, those firearms where obtained by adults and given to young adults who had the intent to cause arm to people, if some one is that determined to cause harm, will have a gun really stop them. Think of any public shooting, however sad they are, could each one have not been stopped if a trained person carried a firearm, could many of lives have not been saved? The argument could be made that couldn't the lives be saved if guns where band, and I would like the audience know that this is not the issue at hand. If my opponent would like to argue that I would be more than happy to right after this. My opponent asked for evidence that crime would actually be reduced well Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987, these are the statistics of crimes rates in Florida to the rest of United States from 1987 to 1997 Homicide rate dropped 36% in Florida and went down .4% as United states as a whole. Firearm Homicide rate dropped 37% and went up 15% as a nation. Handgun Homicide rate dropped 41 & and went up 24% as a nation. 1998 NRA Fact Card. \" Viewed in January of 1999 on the National Rifle Association web site, . http://www.nra.org... If you believe that giving a gun to some one to carry might cause crime rates to go up then, from 1987 to 1999 221443 right to carry permits where given out, out of those 220000 plus people only 18 crimes where committed by these persons. (Lott, John R. Jr. and Mustard, David B. \"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns. \" University of Chicago School of Law, 7/26/96. ) \"As of 1999 no permit holder has ever shot a cop and, in many cases permit holders have protected polices officers life. \" Lott, John R. Jr. More Guns, Less Crime. The University of Chicago Press, 1998. Pages 1, 11, 43 I will hold further arguments for now I apologize for the opening argument, due to the fact that I haven't spent much time reading debates, I viewed it as more of a opening statement to purpose a debate and not an opening argument. But thank you for providing a formidable opponent for this debate.", "title": "Right to carry a firearm should be allowed in all 50 states because it reduces crime", "pid": "45d4a2d5-2019-04-18T19:14:31Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.96173095703125}, {"text": "Firstly I would like to respond directly to some of Con's claims and statistics, which I believe are misleading, to put it kindly. To begin with, I have to immediately counter Con's claim that the 31 states that allow concealed carry on firearms have a 24% lower violent crime rate etc. There are actually 48 states which have laws which allow the concealed carrying of firearms of one sort or another. Con also claims that the homicide rate increased once laws against handguns came into effect. This is being extremely selective with the figures he chooses to publish to support his argument. Homicide actually decreased equally in a number of areas which had no lifting of any bans (maryland, fairfax VA to give but two examples). http://www.texasguntalk.com... I put forward that there was no relation between the lifting of the band and the decrease in homicides. This is merely con being selective with figures. The example of EnglandYou have given example of England where you say an increasin gun control has constantly led to an increase in crimes. I refute this as being untrue. However if you look at the difference in gun crime statistics, you will find that gun crime in the USA is several times more common than England and the UK in general (as an example I gave in my opening argument demonstrates). Guns laws deprive citizens of guns for self-defenceGun laws also provide potential criminals with arms. They make potential murderers of people. Con is defending the right to bear firearms in general, not merely handguns. The idea that a citizen has the need for an AK47 or a Sweeper (which are both legal in many states) is simply ridiculous. AccidentsI can't criticise the supposed 'security' the legality of private ownership of guns is supposed to bring without drawing on another statistic. Each year 10,000 people in the USA alone are involved in 'gun accidents'. http://www.buzzle.com... When you consider guns are only used in approx 60,000 of 'defense' incidents each year added with the many crimes committed as a result of being able to access guns (which number in the 10's of thousands also per annum), it strikes me as obvious that guns result in more danger for the individual than security. Finally, I would like to contest that 'guns are used for protection annually 5 timesore than they are to commit crimes. Con hasn't provided a source to base this claim that I can scrutinise, but this strikes me as most probably nonsense.", "title": "The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm.", "pid": "8dfe56c7-2019-04-18T18:49:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.9572296142578}, {"text": "Apparently you listened to nothing I said, first of all the idea that a homicidal man purchasing a weapon legally is absurd no one with a misdemeanor or any type of mental history or illness is capable of such a purchase. My argument is that we should tighten the gun purchasing and licensing like a better background search including yourself and family members, but those able to purchase one should have little to no restrictions. You give me one individual who went threw a background search and then used a concealed weapon illegally and your point will be valid until then your just spewing opinions. The problem with firearms is that guns are able to be purchased illegally easily. Tighten the gun selling but those able to buy one should have no restrictions on carrying it as long as its concealed. Also your point about the constitution being written in \"different\" times is also stupidity. The times we live in now are much much more violent and dangerous than when the declaration was written. Crime is so high in the United States because there is no capital punishment anymore. It is more important than ever for citizens (women especially) to be carrying a concealed weapon, with the Bush administration out of the white house soon and the democratic party taking over the threat of another terrorist attack is almost a probability. The truth is these times are much more dangerous to the citizen and the right to bear arms is a right that should and must be implied today.", "title": "Loosen gun control", "pid": "4b3ceaeb-2019-04-18T19:55:22Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.95419311523438}, {"text": "Concealed Carry owners are 6% more law abiding than police, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. They can shoot the shooter, and stop the massacre. States that implemented \"shall-issue\" concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent, according to an analysis of FBI crime data by economist and political commentator John R. Lott Jr., PhD. Conversely, states with more restrictive concealed-carry laws have gun-related murder rates that are 10 percent higher, according to a 2013 study in Applied Economic Letters. Statistically, guns save more lives than take them. Guns are for self-defense, but mainly to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, like the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. If the government takes away our guns, we won't have any self-defense against a tyrannical government.", "title": "I'm Pro Second Amendment: Change my Mind", "pid": "e5109f37-2019-04-18T11:35:57Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.94935607910156}, {"text": "Concealed Carry owners are 6% more law abiding than police, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. They can shoot the shooter, and stop the massacre. States that implemented \"shall-issue\" concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent, according to an analysis of FBI crime data by economist and political commentator John R. Lott Jr., PhD. Conversely, states with more restrictive concealed-carry laws have gun-related murder rates that are 10 percent higher, according to a 2013 study in Applied Economic Letters. Statistically, guns save more lives than take them. Guns are for self-defense, but mainly to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, like the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. If the government takes away our guns, we won't have any self-defense against a tyrannical government.", "title": "Im Pro-Second Amendment: Change my Mind", "pid": "e5109f18-2019-04-18T11:36:01Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.9402313232422}, {"text": "Conceal carry laws exacerbates cop violence particularly against black and minorities. By private citizen being allows to conceal their lethal firearms, cops are forced to assume that ANY ONE could be carrying a gun, be they man, women, adult or child. Therefor they are naturally inclined to shot first in order to protect their lives if they feel threatened in the slightest which does not take much because of their own prejudice and police training teaching them to value THEIR lives over citizens. Minorities are greatly affected because even if they are a lawful gun owner in a open carry state or have a conceal carry permit, the majority do not exercise this right cause the majority of cops racial profile and shot first before asking questions so they do not want to take the chance. Criminals on the other hand are forced to conceal because they are acting in a criminal manner and add to the racial prejudice and skewed thinking, even against whites if they are judge to be poor due to their dress, appearance, or speech. Therefor if an officer happens to see a person with a concealed weapon or believes they have a concealed weapon, they are most likely to shot without warning or while warning cause they assume the person is a criminal. Though I don't think private citizens need to go around carrying guns for their protection, as that there are non lethal means available and you are more likely to be shot by friendly fire from another citizen or the cops mistaking you for a criminal or from an angry ex or shooting yourself while cleaning the gun rather then from an ACTUAL CRIMINAL IN THE PROCESS OF A CRIME, and there is the police which we are paying for in the first place, I don't think we need to carry guns at all unlessl for hunting food but I would rather it be open carry instead of conceal if anything at all.", "title": "Conceal carry laws by private citizens", "pid": "5d2a077f-2019-04-18T13:59:07Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 215.93914794921875}, {"text": "I am fairly new to this site, i am not quite sure if i picked the right side so read this first, i believe teachers and/or students should be allowed to lawfully carry concealed weapons.", "title": "School's should arm and train teachers to use firearms", "pid": "8a10581b-2019-04-18T14:18:44Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.92678833007812}, {"text": "Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited his round. I wish to remind everyone of the Fort Hood shooting that just occurred. How did it end? The shooter met armed resistance and killed himself. Unfortunately, since the armed resistance was from a police officer, the shooter had 15 minutes uncontested. Point being, the shooter could have been stopped much sooner if the military retained the right to keep and bear arms.", "title": "Lawful concealed carry is a good thing", "pid": "ca07a94-2019-04-18T16:25:14Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.90365600585938}, {"text": "Concealed Carry owners are 6% more law abiding than police, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. They can shoot the shooter, and stop the massacre. States that implemented \"shall-issue\" concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent, according to an analysis of FBI crime data by economist and political commentator John R. Lott Jr., PhD. Conversely, states with more restrictive concealed-carry laws have gun-related murder rates that are 10 percent higher, according to a 2013 study in Applied Economic Letters. Statistically, guns save more lives than take them. Guns are for self-defense, but mainly to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, like the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. If the government takes away our guns, we won't have any self-defense against a tyrannical government.", "title": "Im Pro-Gun: Change my Mind", "pid": "1cf18e50-2019-04-18T11:36:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.90115356445312}, {"text": "OK. Let's unpack some of the things you mentioned. You said longer waiting periods for certain assault rifles. Can you define assault rifle for me? Also, when you said 3-5 days for high-powered weapons- Can you define what a high powered weapon is? When you use the example of the fingerprint scanner- I think you have the right idea. I have not looked into the security of the guns too much but my first thoughts are the expensiveness to produce such things. I do agree about generally increasing security though-yes. For instance, I would like to see much better background checks. When you say America has an increase in mass shootings- that is what concealed carry is for. For example, in the Texas church shooting, the shooter got killed with an assault rifle by a civilian. This is also why teachers should have guns to prevent mass shootings in schools. But all in all, I completely agree with your premise. Guns should be allowed by law-abiding citizens, but there should restrictions to stop them from falling into he wrong hands. However, there will be some instances in which the shooter has not had any prior history or family history- so you simply can not prevent that, which is why i believe in teachers having guns and in concealed carry laws. I think we agree on the basic premise of your argument though-thoughts?", "title": "Im Pro-Second Amendment: Change my Mind", "pid": "e5109f18-2019-04-18T11:36:01Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.88278198242188}, {"text": "Throughout this posting, I will state three contentions in favor of the motion. I will also define the terms within the motion now: Teachers will be any certified instructor within a school system. Concealed weapon will be a lisceneced weapon that is concealed appropriately, without any necessary training. Classroom will be anywhere on the school campus. FIRST ARGUMENT It is understood that school shootings are a rising threat. Yet is this the correct way to combat violence? With more violence? Essentially, to arm a teacher is to add more bullets, more violence, and more death to the scene. Already, policemen have trouble hitting a target, yet what of an untrained, nervous teacher tasked with saving his/her students? What should we do in response to violence? Add more violence? perhaps arm the whole school to the teeth? which leads into my SECOND CONTENTION What about the teachers that sexualy harass students, or feel agression towards them? Although these are extreme cases, think of all of the stressed-out teachers. When armed with a tool with the ability to end multiple lives, a certain physcological effect takes place. Although it would be egregious to say that if a student is upsetting a teacher the teacher will immediately pull a gun on the student in question, possesing a gun in stressful situations makes the user more confident, and endows the posessor with a misleading sense of power. Let us discuss an extreme (but too common) circumstance. If a shooter invades a school and takes a student hostage. A teacher without a gun will call for backup. A teacher with a gun will be much more likely to use it to save the student, although a violent response to a person with violent intent will certainly trigger a chain of events, for hit rates against live targets are low even among policemen, and kill rates low as well, perhaps leading to even more unessecary deaths. Again, fighting violence with more violence simply adds fuel to the flame. Perhaps a different approach is called for. THIRD POINT Already, policemen are seen on campus of many schools. At least these policemen are trained, more detatched, and have more tools at their disposal. Policemen also carry exposed weapons, which may serve as a detterent to any potential shooter. Instead of funding weapons for teachers, enforce security such as gates more closely, or hire more professional policemen. 3 in 4 gunmen (TIMES magazine) turn on their own community. This shows that the problem comes from within. Instead of tearing ourselves apart with the accumulation of even more weapons, more effective ways and programs to rehabilitate the person in question before the violent act is commited would be the most effective in stopping these unessesary deaths. In conclusion, granting gun rights to teachers worsens the situation by adding another aspect of violence to the scene. Also, already-pressured teachers who are granted a gun are more likely to use it. And finally, more peaceful and efffective methods are available.", "title": "THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom.", "pid": "77fb8a5-2019-04-18T17:48:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.87745666503906}, {"text": "Hi! This is my first debate, and I am looking forward to either being convinced by good counterpoints, or convincing someone else of my side. I will start off by saying how counter-intuitive the right is to any cohesive system. Why do you need to have a open carry license(to buy guns, yes, but you can also acquire these illegally) when the fact if you actually have said license or not can not be checked by any authority without your consent? Essentially this means that if you are a convicted felon for instance, and you have acquired a firearm, you are free to carry it openly as the fact that you are a convicted felon can not be uncovered without your consent, as they have no legal right to seize your weapon for check nor can they demand you to show identification. This seems like a god-awful flaw in the system to me. I can not find it in me to see this as reasonable on my own, and need help to see the other side so I can draw a conclusion on the matter.", "title": "Constitutional right to carry arms in the U.S", "pid": "fc158b5c-2019-04-18T17:22:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.87429809570312}, {"text": ">>> The problem with your argument is if the goverment allowed all citizens to carry guns mentally handicapped unstable people and murderers would all have guns, a citizen is a member of a state or community. +++ This is untrue. A gun concealment law bans minors and mentally handicapped from carrying guns. +++ Mentally handicapped individuals pose less of a threat to society than an unarmed citizenry. A defenseless citizenry will be threatened by criminals constantly. A criminal's biggest fear is an armed victim. Criminals advantage from a defenseless citizenry. +++ You already conceded that gun control is uneffective. We are in concession. You can't rescind your statement. >>> laws are made by the state to protect those from dangers no state has banned everyone from holding guns so you say all citizens regardless of mental or physical health. +++ Alaska bans arms in bars, D.C. bans arms, Illinois bans concealment, etc. Gun control does not work and my opponent NEVER REBUTTED CONSTITUTIONALITY. I win this debate because my opponent dropped the 2nd Amendment argument.", "title": "The United States federal government should force states to allow citizens to carry guns.", "pid": "42af831b-2019-04-18T19:42:13Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.86575317382812}, {"text": "I appreciate the clarification. First, the United States Constitution does state \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,\" however, this is not the only statement made in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment actually beings with \"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,\" and then follows \"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.\" The interpretation of this Amendment is in no way settled, and it may in fact be more telling of what the framers intention was by the first half of the sentence and not the last. I don't find it necessary to address the second claim, as it is completely subjective. The next claim, \"in countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower,\" is simply incorrect. First, because the United States is has the highest gun ownership rate in the world by 34 % (http://www.washingtonpost.com...). Also, I find it worth noting that it seems my opponent is implying that the United States is a Tyranny, otherwise I don't see this statement to have any necessity. The United States is not a Tyranny. The utterance of this phrase in the last four years is nothing more than propaganda.", "title": "The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed.", "pid": "dedbd50d-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.86285400390625}, {"text": "This is for friendly debate practice and constructive criticism is much appreciated.", "title": "THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom.", "pid": "77fb8a5-2019-04-18T17:48:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.8605499267578}, {"text": "Sadly, the only argument you can tell is that carrying a gun is like having a power that prevents crime automatically, you didn't mentioned the danger posed by having one. The death and injury you can also get by defending yourself and your family. You also assumed that killing a criminal benefits the society because it will lessen the burden of a state to prosecute and jail someone. How about the injuries caused by using a gun? do you know that it is much expensive to treat someone than to bury a dead person? Moreover, in a democratic country where due process of law is observed, the cost of justice is nothing compared to the liberty you can get from it. Furthermore, having a gun close at hand can turn ordinary disputes and arguments fatal. Even legal gun owners can be involved in a crime. Crime of passion mostly involves gun that is legally acquired. No one really excuses someone to commit a crime even you are carrying a gun legally. To conclude, the issue here is not weather guns are beneficial or not. Anyone can exercise their rights to have one, but please do not be blinded by media or any pro gun group that it is all pros and no cons. Having one entails responsibility and precaution. To think that it will magically help your problem from the ills of society is absolutely crazy. Go get a gun, it is your right but always remember the responsibilities attached onto it.", "title": "Lawful concealed carry is a good thing", "pid": "ca07a94-2019-04-18T16:25:14Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.84649658203125}, {"text": "Yes but right now it is not legal so it scares some people from doing it since if they are caught they can be prosecuted. But if it's legal they have nothing to fear. And being the mentally I'll people they are we cannot trust them with the metal responsibility of carrying a concealed gun. Like you said they will take it off the black market and no one will question then on it.", "title": "I'm Pro Gun: Try to Change my Mind", "pid": "8ef0695e-2019-04-18T11:19:55Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.83714294433594}, {"text": "You finally decided to take this 15 year old up on a debate. We do have SWAT, State Police, Local police, ATF, FBI, And US Marshalls. We do. The citizens who conceal carry in this country don't enforce the laws. They protect themselves. In 2016, Roughly 11 thousand people died to criminal use of guns. I don't have statistics from the same year, But nearly every national estimate states that anywhere from 500 thousand to 3 million lives are saved by concealed carriers in the US each year. Of course thorough background checks are necessary, But the outright ban of guns is foolish. You can make guns illegal, But crack is illegal and people still find a way around that. Cannabis is illegal, And people still find a way to get that. Prostitution is illegal, But people still do that. Moral of the story is, Regardless of whether guns are legal or not, People will get them. And with no citizens to defend against that, More innocent people will die at the hands of criminals with guns. You may say, \"guns kill innocent people\". Saying that guns kill people is like me blaming my pencil for failing my math test. It's all about the person carrying the gun.", "title": "Th 2'nd amendment should be abolished, Change my mind", "pid": "711ec30a-2019-04-18T11:19:31Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.83609008789062}, {"text": "So, people are paranoid because it's incredibly likely something will go down? I agree that not everyone should carry a weapon, and I think that if you do, you should know how to use it. The people with guns that aren't idiots aren't just paranoid morons, they're just ready to defend themselves. Now, having said that, your extreme example is still bad. People should be carrying a handgun as a weapon, not something so big they could use it as a weapon if it ran out of ammo. People should be allowed to carry guns, and they should be required to know how to use them if they do. But they should also be able to without being judged as \"weak\" by people that don't agree with them. How would you know how Ted Cruz is with a gun? My bets are pretty high you haven't seen him use one. And nothing against Bob Dole, but I think Cruz would be able to take the old man if(for some reason) it came to blows.", "title": "Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod.", "pid": "3c17bcad-2019-04-18T15:29:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.82635498046875}, {"text": "The right to bear arms is fully protected with concealed carry laws. The US Constitution does not specify what guns and what types of carrying methods should be lawful. It specifies only that \"bearing\" is a right. A restriction that disallows open carrying and allows concealed carrying is, therefore, fully consistent with the US Constitution's right to bear arms.", "title": "Concealed carry adequately protects right to bear arms.", "pid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00050-000", "bm25_score": 215.8219451904297}, {"text": "I'm going to expound on my first argument a bit. All sources here : http://nation.time.com... Failing to require a permit to showing competence and ability with a firearm(s) is grossly irresponsible because the lack of said carrier's abilities can be an enormous public health concern. \"According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department\"s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.\" This is coming from a demographic that is REQUIRED to show ability with a gun on a regular basis in order to carry it. Allowing citizens to carry with no training is undoubtedly going to cause a higher rate of civilian casualties. These reasons alone should be enough to require a permit that shows competence of the carrier.", "title": "Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free.", "pid": "af69c8f7-2019-04-18T14:28:36Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.80027770996094}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "THBT teachers should not have the right to carry concealed weapons in the classroom.", "pid": "77fb8a5-2019-04-18T17:48:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.79876708984375}, {"text": "True, the teachers could sneak a gun into the school, but they shouldn't have to. They should be allowed to have them there, and i'm not talking about all the teachers, only the ones with a concealed weapon license. In order to obtain this license, you have to pay(in Dallas at least), a $200 charge for the class, be a minimal age of 21, and be responsible enough to handle a gun. It won't be an irresponsible, trigger happy, murderer who is handling these weapons, they will be educated, responsible, educators who have an extra security for the worst of situations. If teachers were allowed to carry weapons inside the school, there would be no doubt that there would still be students that would have them as well, but there would probably be less if they knew that if they pulled a gun, there will be teachers that would defend the other students, as well as themselves. It wouldn't create a \"wild west\" scenario, it would create an area of increased safety precautions to make a better learning environment for students", "title": "High school teachers should be able to be armed inside the school.", "pid": "660f5d92-2019-04-18T19:49:56Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.79595947265625}, {"text": "Private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. In the United States, people are able to carry handguns. This is because handguns are there to protect the owner from danger. However, there are lots of crimes that involve guns. The first reason why people should not be allowed to carry guns is because nobody can tell who is going to kill someone with his or her gun. There is no guarentee that you will not get shot. To reduce the number of crimes, private ownership of handguns ought be banned.", "title": "In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.", "pid": "717c0448-2019-04-18T14:29:15Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.7946014404297}, {"text": "Garry E. Harvey. \"Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry.\" Pennsylvania Open Carry.: \"The second of the two concerns the CRIMINAL successfully taking the weapon from the holster before the ARMED CITIZEN can react. This has happened to police officers and so it could happen to the ARMED CITIZEN as well but consider this following difference. In all but a minority of cases, the CRIMINAL took the officer's weapon once being confronted by the officer or while being placed under arrest. The act was one of desperation as the reward of escape outweighed the risk of taking the weapon from the officer. Assuming the weapon is properly holstered in a professional manner, the ARMED CITIZEN would only pose a threat to the CRIMINAL within a self-defense situation; the risk to the CRIMINAL would be overwhelming in attempting to steal the weapon as this act would trigger the self defense reaction from the ARMED CITIZEN.\"", "title": "Attacker is unlikely to try to take openly carried gun", "pid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00048-000", "bm25_score": 215.78468322753906}, {"text": "The idea that openly carrying a weapon is about brandishing it and intimidating other people is misinformed. It relies on a prejudiced view of the intent of gun owners and those that choose to carry weapons openly, ignoring the fact that they are probably attempting to a. deter and prevent crimes against themselves and other citizens, b. carry their weapon comfortably if they are intent on carrying, c. offer easier access to a weapon in case of need, d. express one's second amendment rights, along with other reasons offered in this article. If people take the time to try to understand these reasons, instead of passing judgment, then they should not feel intimidated.", "title": "Open carrying need not be seen as intimidating.", "pid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00056-000", "bm25_score": 215.76419067382812}, {"text": "Before I begin, I wish to remind con and the voters that the right to keep and bear arms does protect some form of publicly carrying a weapon. A state may not excessively prohibit concealed carry and open carry. One or both MUST be allowed. As that is not the topic, that is all I have to say on that (for proof of that statement, look up Peruta V. San Diego). My aim throughout this debate is to demonstrate that: -Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals -Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings -As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes. --Lawful concealed carry is a deterrent to criminals \"Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been \"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim\"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either \"often\" or \"regularly\" worried that they \"[m]ight get shot at by the victim\"; and 57% agreed with the statement, \"Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.\" James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994].\" --Concealed carry permit (CCW) holders can/have saved lives during mass shootings I had 8 links to incidents where armed resistance ended a shooting but they would not work in this format unfortunately. See the bottom of this page for a few URLS. According to FBI statistics: When civilians stopped a shooting event there was an average of 2.3 deaths. When law enforcement responded, at an average time of 3 minutes, 14.3 deaths occurred. --As a group, those with a CCW permit commit a disproportionately low number of crimes My apologies that this is a copy and paste. I have to wake up for work in 5 hours. \"A front-page story in today's New York Times tries to stir up alarm about liberalized carry permit laws, which let people carry concealed handguns if they meet a short list of objective criteria. To illustrate the hazards of that policy, the Times cites crimes committed by permit holders in North Carolina. How many crimes? Excluding traffic offenses, the Times counts 2,400 over five years, of which 200 were felonies. More relevant (since critics of nondiscretionary permit laws worry that they contribute to gun violence), \"More than 200 permit holders were also convicted of gun- or weapon-related felonies or misdemeanors, including roughly 60 who committed weapon-related assaults.\" That's a dozen gun assaults a year. How many permit holders are there in North Carolina? According to the story, \"more than 240,000.\" So 0.2 percent of them are convicted of a non-traffic-related offense each year, about 0.017 percent are convicted of a felony, and only 0.005 percent are convicted of a gun assault. The Times concedes that the number of permit holders convicted of crimes \"represents a small percentage of those with permits.\" More like \"tiny.\" By comparison, about 0.35 percent of all Americans are convicted of a felony each year--more than 20 times the rate among North Carolina permit holders. It seems clear these people are far more law-abiding than the general population, a finding consistent with data from other states. Such data are not surprising, since law-abidingness, as measured by a clean criminal record, is one requirement for a carry permit.\" http://www.kgw.com... http://www.frontpagemag.com... http://www.theblaze.com... http://www.buzzfeed.com...", "title": "Lawful concealed carry is a good thing", "pid": "ca07a94-2019-04-18T16:25:14Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.75625610351562}, {"text": "I am certainly not saying that everyone will be required to carry a fire arms. However, I am saying that we would be safer if all people of sound mind was armed. sound mind clarification- any person having any mental problem that threatens or might threaten their ability to make sound reasoned decisions should be banned from carrying a gun. criminals will buy and carry guns whether its legal or illegal We would all be safer if everyone has a gun, because the bad guy will always be out numbered. There are always more law abiding citizens than there are criminals. The criminal will be less likely to pull out a gun if he knows that the other person is armed as well. The criminal will be less likely to strike in broad day light, any place where there are a great number of people located at or anytime that it is two or more people. Even if its a gang of criminals, there would be nothing stopping average citizens from stopping their cars and pulling out their fire arms. The criminals have the advantage right now. They don't care about the law so that carry concealed weapons that might be used against any of us law abiding citizens. I want that advantage taken from them immediately.", "title": "We would all be safer if everyone of sound mind was armed", "pid": "874f4b2d-2019-04-18T18:37:28Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.75567626953125}, {"text": "I think that guns should not be outlawed, but outlawed for certain people. People who don't have an criminal records shouldn't be allowed to have a gun AT ALL, but civilians who don't have anything on their record should be able to. People who don't have any criminal records may need to protect themselves; possibly if another posses a weapon, they might need to defend themselves and their family from the attacker, and without a gun they could have possibly been hurt, sent to the hospital, or in the worst case, killed.", "title": "Handguns and Automatic Guns Should be Outlawed for Civilian Use in the US", "pid": "5895f373-2019-04-18T13:12:52Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.75497436523438}, {"text": "concealed carry is only legal in some places/states. It is concealed on their body, So people wouldn't know that they had it in the first place, And you can generally tell someone who is suspicious. \"Sure, There are some citizens that would use it correctly. But there are also a lot who wouldn't. \" Concealed-carry holders are the most law-abiding group in the country. So much that they actually commit crimes 16% less than POLICE OFFICERS! This shows how law-abiding they are. They frequently go to ranges and safety classes and know how to properly operate and when to use their gun. So let me get your position straight: You think concealed-carry shouldn't be legal, But do you think owning a gun should be legal, Or what further procedures/restrictions/bans would you like on certain guns? Please explain your position.", "title": "I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind", "pid": "81403fde-2019-04-18T11:16:40Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.7489776611328}, {"text": "My stance is that allowing citizens to carry handguns on their person reduces crime rates. The first round is for acceptance, and I will begin with my initial arguments during the second round.For this debate, the following is assumed: Citizens are allowed to open carry and/or concealed carry registered handguns. Citizens must apply for a permit to carry handguns. Precautionary measures such as background checks are used to prevent criminals obtaining handguns, and safety classes taught as part of the application. All handguns will be registered upon purchase. All handgunsare to be carried in secure holsters. Owners of private property are allowed to restrict handguns on their premises.", "title": "Allowing Citizens to Carry Handguns Reduces Crime Rates", "pid": "711f3f19-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.7458038330078}, {"text": "Nikil Arora. \"If US states allow open-carry of guns, why not Britain?\" Christian Science Monitor. March 16th, 2010: \"The BBC news on Thursday night featured a report on the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Chicago gun ban; litigation launched after the successful case of DC v Heller, which overturned a similar outright prohibition on handguns in Washington DC. [...] the BBC’s report was worth watching. It largely focussed on the effect of laws already in force in Wisconsin, which allow the open-carry, but not concealed-carry, of handguns. It showed how responsible, law-abiding citizens carrying guns openly leads to people both feeling and being safer.\"", "title": "Law-abiding citizens carrying openly makes people feel safer.", "pid": "219f521f-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00057-000", "bm25_score": 215.74240112304688}, {"text": "but we do not need to possess these weapons security checks and insanity checks to get your right to bear arms are never perfect for example if a 20 year old buys a powerful weapon who is to say he wont go insane three years later mental illnesses usually show up in late teen early adulthood so it can happen anytime .22 isn't a combat round. why would we need a combat round for SELF DEFENSE what else would you need a weapon for? combat≠ defense", "title": "should weapons stronger than a standard handgun be available to the public", "pid": "b5a3ebc8-2019-04-18T17:51:56Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.73623657226562}, {"text": "definitions: Conceal carry: Being allowed to carry a weapon hidden. \"Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... Requirements for the permit: \"is at least 21 years of age; � is a resident of the state; � provides fingerprints and submits to a criminal and mental health background check; � has not been convicted of a felony or any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; � is not a fugitive from justice; � is not an illegal alien; � is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; � has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent or been committed to a mental institution; � has not been dishonorably discharged from the armed services; � is not subject to a restraining or protection order; � has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; � is not awaiting trial for, and does not have any charges pending for, a crime punishable by more thanone year imprisonment; � has completed a firearms safety or training course; and � pays a licensing fee.\" [1] __________ Round 1 acceptance clarifications and definitions. Good luck [1] Snyder, Jeffery R. \"Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun.\" CATO, 22 Oct. 1997", "title": "Concealed carry laws decrease crime", "pid": "80557bae-2019-04-18T18:21:52Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.7337646484375}, {"text": "I think that they should bring tasers that must only be able to charge if the teacher enters a code or uses a key or something. A gun can be taken by a student if left for only a second and students would be capable of using it. A gun can KILL people. A taser can STUN people. There should not be killings at schools. We dont even need tasers! We just need ONE police officer with guns AND tasers and your fine! If that is not enough protection we can give the teachers devices that can page the police officer silently. Then the police officer(s) can come to where they are at. We could also have multiple police officers if that is not enough. Boom.", "title": "Teachers should be able to carry concealed Guns at School", "pid": "54a0a16c-2019-04-18T16:27:17Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.72984313964844}, {"text": "For organization's sake, I will break my argument down into numbered points. 1) Everyone remembers the tragic school shootings that have plagued the U.S. in recent years. Columbine and Virginia Tech are only two among multiple other shooting rampages that took place on school campuses. While police responded as quickly as they could, they were unable to stop the shooter(s) before they could kill dozens of students and teachers. Had there been a student or teacher on the school's grounds however, there is a very real possibility that the shooter(s) would have been stopped in the very early stages of their tirade. 2) Utah was the first (and I believe only so far) state to universally allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry while on college campuses. Thusfar they have had no major incidents that have resulted from CHL holders on college campuses. Other individual college campuses around the U.S. (Ex: Colorado State University) allow concealed carry and have similarly suffered no major incidents from CHL carriers. 3) The only people who would be allowed to carry concealed while on college campuses would be (based on proposed states' legislation) the same people who could normally own and carry a gun everywhere else. To conclude my argument this round, adding concealed carry to college campuses has yet to cause a problem, and therefore, the state has no right to not allow people who already carry concealed elsewhere to carry on campus.", "title": "On Campus Concealed Carry", "pid": "e81cbf1f-2019-04-18T18:43:01Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.7297821044922}, {"text": "For organization's sake, I will break my argument down into numbered points. 1) Everyone remembers the tragic school shootings that have plagued the U.S. in recent years. Columbine and Virginia Tech are only two among multiple other shooting rampages that took place on school campuses. While police responded as quickly as they could, they were unable to stop the shooter(s) before they could kill dozens of students and teachers. Had there been a student or teacher on the school's grounds however, there is a very real possibility that the shooter(s) would have been stopped in the very early stages of their tirade. 2) Utah was the first (and I believe only so far) state to universally allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry while on college campuses. Thusfar they have had no major incidents that have resulted from CHL holders on college campuses. Other individual college campuses around the U.S. (Ex: Colorado State University) allow concealed carry and have similarly suffered no major incidents from CHL carriers. 3) The only people who would be allowed to carry concealed while on college campuses would be (based on proposed states' legislation) the same people who could normally own and carry a gun everywhere else. To conclude my argument this round, adding concealed carry to college campuses has yet to cause a problem, and therefore, the state has no right to not allow people who already carry concealed elsewhere to carry on campus.", "title": "On Campus Concealed Carry", "pid": "e81cbf00-2019-04-18T18:44:20Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.7297821044922}, {"text": "Schools such as those in the county of Harrold, TX [1] have already introduced laws allowing teachers to carry pistols, but largely in a concealed fashion. This therefore leaves children unawares and thus not distracted by seeing teachers prominently carrying guns. Furthermore, with teachers carrying concealed arms, any would-be attackers would be thrown by not knowing who to shoot first, which would not be the case if police officers were the first on the scene. [1] McKinley, James C., ‘In Texas School, Teachers Carry Books and Guns’, The New York Times, 28 August 2008,  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/us/29texas.html?_r=2", "title": "Children are impressionable", "pid": "f7c81d18-2019-04-15T20:22:46Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 215.7228546142578}, {"text": "Well, here is my letter of acceptance. Very eager to hear your arguments on the subject.", "title": "Faculty and Staff of schools should not be allowed to conceal carry a firearm in any US state.", "pid": "24b1c879-2019-04-18T11:34:11Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.7149658203125}, {"text": "My goal with this argument has been to show that violent crimes occur on college campuses and that allowing permit holding students to carry firearms while on campus, just like they do elsewhere, can help prevent those crimes from happening. Throughout this argument, my opponent has twisted facts in an attempt to win this argument, and to take his words at face value may prove to be a dangerous mistake. In Point 3 of Round 1, my opponent gives this statistic: \"Compared to criminal homicides using guns, the VPC data shows justifiable homicide with a gun in 2010 was a tiny fraction: 230 of them compared to 8,275 criminal gun-related homicides.\" He tries to twist these words to say that the 8,275 criminal homicides were committed by concealed carry permit holders when the statistic says no such thing. In 2010, there were 8275 criminal murders that involved a gun. In that same year, 230 people defended themselves with a gun. This statistic says absolutely nothing about concealed carry. CON claims that I believe the consequence of sexual assault should be death. I simply believe that if a woman is being attacked, she should be able to defend herself with a gun. That does not mean that she has to shoot anyone. In fact, simply seeing a gun will scare away many criminals as seen from my statistic in Round 2. If it comes down to the woman having to shoot her attacker, I believe that she has the right to do so in defense of herself and the law would agree with me. \"To be legally justified in killing an attacker, a rape victim must reasonably believe that the rapist intends to kill or grievously injure her. In many rape situations, the threat of severe physical harm is clear; the rapist is armed or threatens death or grievous injury. Situations where a rapist does not explicitly or implicitly threaten physical harm beyond forcible intercourse are less clear regarding the victim's right to use deadly force against the rapist. Current law does not clearly articulate a basis for the right to use deadly self-defense when a person reasonably believes that harm will be limited to forcible intercourse. One factor which can justify the use of deadly force against a rapist who does not threaten the victim with death or grievous physical harm is the high frequency of murder and serious injury incident to rape. This could properly lead any rape victim to assume that her life and health are in serious danger. A second factor that could justify the use of deadly force is the high rate of physical injury and psychological trauma attending rape. The threat of venereal disease, an unwanted pregnancy, and psychological debilitation can be taken together as a threat of serious harm. Overall, rape can be viewed as a grievous physical and psychological attack that may be resisted by any and all means\"[1] While the citation for CON's argument against the validity of rape statistics leads nowhere, I would still like to address his idea that one woman being able to defend herself against a rapist should be prohibited due to his fear of guns. My 25% statistic was a completely different statistic than the one he tried to disprove. My statistic said nothing about 1 in 4 women being raped throughout her lifetime and did not come from a feminist. My source was the US Department of Education and it said that if there are 100 crimes on a college campus, it is likely that 25 of them will be rapes. He is trying to discredit a statistic that I did not provide. Now let's look at violent crimes on college campuses. College campuses are not immune to crime. Just last year, Florida State University was attacked by an armed man. Here are some numbers provided by the FBI about crimes in schools (not just colleges). Between 2000 and 2005, there were 67,597 violent \"crimes against persons\" to include assault, rape, and murder. [2] According to collegeparents.org, \"Students aged 18 to 24 report about 526,000 violent crimes each year, according to the Violent Victimization of College Students report. Of those, 128,000 'involved a weapon or serious injury to the victim.'\" The same site provides that 5.8% of female students had reported being raped between 2003 and 2004.[3] It is clear that violent crimes do occur on college campuses, but can concealed carry stop them? \"Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.\" \"States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%.\" [4] Here are some instances of concealed carry permit holders defending themselves: \"Arizona, October 16, 2008 A University of Arizona student shoots two intruders in self-defense. South Carolina, August 9, 2008 A Citadel military school student successfully scares off a bat-wielding road rage driver by brandishing a handgun in self-defense. Michigan, January 20, 2008 A University of Michigan student shoots and kills two intruders in self-defense. Utah, September 18, 2007 A Utah Valley State College licensed to carry a concealed weapon shot a pit bull that was attacking him. The animal survived the shooting, and at the student\"s request, no charges were filed against the dog\"s owner. California, April 25, 2007 University of Southern California students overpowered a man, taking away his firearm and holding him at gunpoint for police. The man had become violent and threatening towards a female at a student party and refused to leave. Ohio, April 24, 2007 After a man demanded entry to a University of Akron student\"s apartment and threatened him with a gun, the student returned fire with a roommate\"s gun. The suspect then fled the scene. Texas, January 25, 2007 A Texas Tech student with a concealed carry permit grabbed his gun and hid when he heard someone trying to break in to his house. When the perpetrators successfully gained entry, the student took aim at the intruders. One fled, the other was detained for police. Texas, January 24, 2007 A Texas Tech student with a concealed carry permit returned home to find his car and home broken into, with the perpetrators still inside the house. The student fired two warning shots, causing the would-be thieves to flee. Florida, September 8, 2006 Two South Florida Community College students were attacked outside their apartment, but one used a .45 handgun to shoot one of the attackers in the chest. The other fled. Virginia, December 10, 2005 A Virginia Commonwealth University student was initially charged with murder after shooting an armed gang member in a confrontation outside a coin laundry business, but was cleared by authorities two months later when it was learned he acted in self-defense. Georgia, September 19, 2005 After dialing 911, a Mercer University School of Law student shot and killed a man that had broken into his home. Kentucky, May 2, 2005 A University of Kentucky student was cleared of wrongdoing after shooting a Louisville man who was robbing him outside a Lexington apartment complex.\" [5] If any doubt still exists, examine this article from Students for Concealed Carry http://concealedcampus.org... I hope that I have been able to accurately present the need to allow students to carry concealed weapons while on campus. This is truly an important concept to consider. Will concealed carry allow students to defend themselves in the face of a violent criminal? [1]https://www.ncjrs.gov... [2]http://www.fbi.gov... [3]http://www.collegeparents.org... [4]http://www.gunowners.org... [5]http://concealedcampus.org...", "title": "Concealed Carry on College Campuses", "pid": "30ae541c-2019-04-18T15:18:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.71420288085938}, {"text": "1. b. The Reductio ad Absurdum still stands as a conduct voter, and calling this out is not an attack on Con's person; it is a critique of his conduct. If calling out poor conduct wasn't acceptable than it wouldn't be a voting issue on the ballots. 2. Rebuttals- a. People kill people- i. It needs to be clarified that con never addresses that concealed handguns are legal in every state but Illinois. The irrational fear Con posits does not exist in the status quo, the only exception would be sensationalism resulting from the recent shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin. ii. The chart provided is skewed evidence. It only reflects the beliefs of Gallup's users who took the time to fill out a survey. The voters may not even be American! If this evidence is good, then asking a friend their opinion and using it as evidence fine too; we know that isn't true, don't accept the Gallup poll either. b. Guns are pretty scary i. When you negate a proposition on the grounds that something bad may happen, but have no real evidence that it will happen, you're appealing to fear. Not being wary of the consequences. I could just as easily assert that something bad may happen if you're not carrying a gun; you may get raped by some-one who weighs 200 pounds more than you and have no means to protect yourself. ii. If you accept the rape argument, I nullify all of Con's impacts. If not, than all of Con's hypothetical arguments are out the window as well. c Slippery slope fallacy i. The major premise is an assumption, the minor premise is irrelevant as ownership is guaranteed to all 18 year old American citizens who are not felons and the conclusion Isn't the case as I show several times that owning a concealed handgun is already legal in the status quo. ii. Even in this format, this point is a slippery slope fallacy. There isn't any clause within the minor premise to legitimize the argument, it's just refers to what could happen. 3. Rebuttals- a. Second Amendment Rights i. This attack is Reductio ad Absurdum, and here's why; Con could have easily argued that one does not need to carry a gun in public, but instead chocked my argument up to absurdity by comparing it to jumping off a cliff. Maintaining the constitutional right to bear arms is important, and to reject that premise without warrant is completely abusive. ii. The argument that when one doesn't practice their rights, they illegitimatize them still stands. As I've said prior there is a push for stronger gun control which naturally follows tragedies like the shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin. We can't give ground on our rights based on this sensationalist fear, and practicing the right to carry a weapon is a fantastic way to maintain them. b. Security i. I never dropped my argument on gun operation, an initial tenet of this argument in round one was the fact that gun safety classes are at an all time high. ii. Follow the initial link, read the article and you will see the author explicitly writes on gun ownership deterring crime and making communities safer. My opponent cannot put further burden on me to prove something I've already proven, especially since they never even made this argument until their previous speech. c. Legality i. If failing to attack my argument (and accordingly the concealed handgun evidence) by claiming it was redundant is legitimate, then there's not much I can say here is there. I hope the voters will use their common sense to understand this is not a legitimate refutation and vote pro. This second amendment argument served to focus on the urgency of maintaining and practicing rights, while this one served to preempt the kinds of arguments my opponent makes in his 'guns are pretty scary' argument. 5. Conclusions- a. Overall I ask for a Pro ballot for the following reasons: Backing, Consistency and Conduct.", "title": "Private Citizens should be armed in public", "pid": "cab6587-2019-04-18T17:58:32Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.707763671875}, {"text": "I am in favor of gun rights for law abiding citizens. The constitution of the United States protects our right to carry firearms. Citizens of the US should be allowed to own and carry guns, for the following reasons: a) A situation where the government is armed and the people are not can lead to frightening abuses of power. b) Criminals will obtain guns whether they are legal or not. If guns were illegal, criminals would know this, and take advantage of unarmed civilians. finally, and most importantly, c) The constitution of the United States says, \"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\" Therefore, people must be allowed to own and carry guns NO MATTER WHAT, as the constitution is the \"supreme law of the land.\"", "title": "Gun Rights for law abiding citizens should be protected.", "pid": "8cca124b-2019-04-18T19:59:14Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.70127868652344}, {"text": "1. Carriers that are required to obtain a permit only have to show BASIC levels of competence. Just because you know how to use and maintain your firearm properly doesn't mean that you are mentally stable. The most psychotic individuals seem sane until the light is upon them. 2. Lack of permits do not make it more time-consuming. Even with permits people still shoot people unlawfully and most LEO's still have to define a motive that the individual has for carrying a gun. Without a permit it would actually reduce time because they are cutting out the checking of the permit for authenticity and validation. It might take seconds to show a permit, but all LEO's ask why the suspect is carrying the gun, usually where they are going, and if they can examine the firearm. *In states like Kentucky, which doesn't require a permit to open carry, there was 47% ownership of fire arms in 2010. In that year they only had 116 gun murders. In California, a state that prohibits open carrying of a loaded firearm, they had 21% gun ownership with 1,257 gun murders. Regardless of population that is still a large number in and of itself. This statistic shows a basic correlation to: more guns=less gun murders. Also lets use scenarios that carrying firearms could have prevented tragedies. 1. Columbine- One student on campus carrying a firearm, concealed or not, could have stopped the perpetrators. 2. Sandy Hook- One armed teacher or security guard could have stopped him. 3. Aurora theater- one armed movie go-er could have hit him with at least one of his 10-16 rounds. These are three instances that people's lives could have been saved by just ONE person carrying a firearm. If five people had a firearm, they individually would have only gotten of a few rounds. Not the massive amounts they did. Also people forget that guns are the only thing that can stop a gun. There was an incident on a train a few days ago where three men subdued a man wielding an AK-47. The only way the subdued him was because his gun jammed. If it hadn't, they, along with the many others on the train wouldn't have survived. You cannot stop a gun with a knife, frisby, brass knuckles, ink pen, or even martial arts. If someone is firing a weapon, you are at the discretion of their aim. If more people carried guns, people would be less likely to try and commit these acts of violence.", "title": "Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free.", "pid": "af69c8f7-2019-04-18T14:28:36Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.6988525390625}, {"text": "Handguns should be banned due to their uniquely dangerous concealability.", "title": "DC handgun ban", "pid": "f89bdc44-2019-04-17T11:47:43Z-00035-000", "bm25_score": 215.69090270996094}, {"text": "You finally decided to take this 15 year old up on a debate. We do have SWAT, State Police, Local police, ATF, FBI, And US Marshalls. We do. The citizens who conceal carry in this country don't enforce the laws. They protect themselves. In 2016, Roughly 11 thousand people died to criminal use of guns. I don't have statistics from the same year, But nearly every national estimate states that anywhere from 500 thousand to 3 million lives are saved by concealed carriers in the US each year. Of course thorough background checks are necessary, But the outright ban of guns is foolish. You can make guns illegal, But crack is illegal and people still find a way around that. Cannabis is illegal, And people still find a way to get that. Prostitution is illegal, But people still do that. Moral of the story is, Regardless of whether guns are legal or not, People will get them. And with no citizens to defend against that, More innocent people will die at the hands of criminals with guns. You may say, \"guns kill innocent people\". Saying that guns kill people is like me blaming my pencil for failing my math test. It's all about the person carrying the gun.", "title": "The 2'nd amendment needs to be abolished, Here is why", "pid": "d441ceb1-2019-04-18T11:19:26Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.66253662109375}]}
{"idx": 29, "qid": "31", "q_text": "Is obesity a disease?", "qrels": {"6053928e-2019-04-18T18:09:46Z-00004-000": 0, "64d11066-2019-04-19T12:46:17Z-00000-000": 0, "7064c844-2019-04-18T15:41:56Z-00007-000": 1, "636669d7-2019-04-18T19:49:10Z-00006-000": 1, "6053928e-2019-04-18T18:09:46Z-00001-000": 2, "fbd3b59c-2019-04-18T16:29:11Z-00003-000": 0, "efbdcc9f-2019-04-15T20:22:41Z-00014-000": 0, "86362978-2019-04-19T12:46:42Z-00009-000": 1, "ab908431-2019-04-18T13:57:08Z-00006-000": 1, "adee5bf1-2019-04-19T12:44:49Z-00012-000": 0, "ae578f31-2019-04-18T19:54:47Z-00003-000": 0, "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00005-000": 2, "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00001-000": 2, "b9ed0f89-2019-04-18T15:25:01Z-00004-000": 0, "2cfef4b7-2019-04-18T18:42:38Z-00004-000": 0, "c301704b-2019-04-18T20:03:50Z-00002-000": 0, "c3cbe7d1-2019-04-18T13:12:52Z-00002-000": 0, "dd42bd49-2019-04-18T16:32:33Z-00001-000": 0, "dde03838-2019-04-18T15:39:50Z-00004-000": 1, "2cfef4b7-2019-04-18T18:42:38Z-00001-000": 0, "e07fb55a-2019-04-18T19:12:59Z-00003-000": 0, "e07fb55a-2019-04-18T19:12:59Z-00002-000": 0, "e07fb55a-2019-04-18T19:12:59Z-00000-000": 0, "e2ab2756-2019-04-18T18:05:26Z-00002-000": 0, "e5e50ee1-2019-04-18T14:11:28Z-00007-000": 0, "e5e50ee1-2019-04-18T14:11:28Z-00002-000": 0, "3fe9d307-2019-04-18T11:18:44Z-00003-000": 0, "eb6fc43-2019-04-18T15:34:07Z-00004-000": 0, "efbdcc9f-2019-04-15T20:22:41Z-00003-000": 0, "f58281f0-2019-04-18T12:08:22Z-00003-000": 2, "427a0855-2019-04-18T11:43:00Z-00000-000": 1, "445d9e6e-2019-04-18T17:14:03Z-00000-000": 1, "4ec3d0f6-2019-04-18T14:40:07Z-00003-000": 0, "5941421a-2019-04-18T15:20:27Z-00003-000": 0, "34004fff-2019-04-18T14:16:32Z-00003-000": 0, "26130a2f-2019-04-18T14:25:08Z-00001-000": 0, "4bb9a826-2019-04-18T16:15:51Z-00001-000": 0, "2245ae98-2019-04-18T16:15:50Z-00001-000": 1, "2245ae98-2019-04-18T16:15:50Z-00005-000": 0, "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00005-000": 2, "90227f05-2019-04-18T11:32:18Z-00001-000": 1, "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00001-000": 2, "a8af0abf-2019-04-18T19:34:36Z-00006-000": 1, "5ad2a71d-2019-04-18T17:17:02Z-00004-000": 0, "1fbc253e-2019-04-18T13:51:33Z-00003-000": 0, "879b0e40-2019-04-18T14:12:02Z-00003-000": 0, "1e7f4ed8-2019-04-15T20:22:41Z-00005-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Lovely.", "title": "Obesity is a disease", "pid": "c3cbe7d1-2019-04-18T13:12:52Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.64688110351562}, {"text": "Nice.", "title": "Obesity is a disease", "pid": "c3cbe7d1-2019-04-18T13:12:52Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.51226806640625}, {"text": "Majority of the population will loose weight if they eat healthy and exercise as i stated originally. There will always be people with issues such as imbalanced hormones that will cause different results. The hormone imbalance would be considered a disease leading to obesity. Obesity is not a disease. Obesity can cause illness and be a result of other conditions but being overweight in itself is not a disease. The genetics that cause diseases such as diabetes and heart disease is absolutely real. Being healthy and good lifestyle choices only helps reduce your risk of being subjected to these diseases. In many cases no matter what you do you will become diabetic because it is in your family but it will always help to be healthy when trying to fight a disease. Overall, eating fatty foods and lack of exercise will result in obesity. You decide what to put into your body and how active your life is. While there are genetic disease that can result in obesity, obesity in itself is not an illness but rather a choice.", "title": "Obesity is a disease.", "pid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.2947540283203}, {"text": "I accept! Thank you for instigating this debate, @AndDontCallMeShirley. Good luck to my oponent...", "title": "Obesity is a disease", "pid": "c3cbe7d1-2019-04-18T13:12:52Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.03488159179688}, {"text": "What is obesity? Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have a negative effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems http://en.wikipedia.org... Many people use the excuse that the reason why they are obese, is because they have a \"disease\" I will be arguing that obesity is in fact a choice, not a disease. Opponent in first round may state their argument. Good luck!", "title": "Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.", "pid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.65069580078125}, {"text": "Though you do make a few valid points, stating their will be people who will become healthy if obese and change their life style there is still the fact that there are those who can change their life style yet will remain obese. Side effect or not, obesity is directly correlated from illnesses that effect a person hormones. You do make a valid point in your second argument but that is more or less off point from the point i was making when i brought it up. I was simply stating a fact that obesity does in fact lead to march harmful diseases that cannot always be fixed by simply eating healthy and exercising. That is to say if an obese person does eat healthy and exercise before they become sick with the various illnesses related to obesity (Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc.). True family history does also play a factor in those illnesses affecting a person's health. Obesity greatly increases those factors. In Conclusion may it be a side effect of some illness or be directly correlated to a person's life style obesity in the long run is a disease. A disease that effects tens of thousands if not millions of people in the United states, and across the globe for that matter. It is a serious issue that should be taken seriously and not written off as a poor life style choice.", "title": "Obesity is a disease.", "pid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.97610473632812}, {"text": "Resolution: \"Obesity [1] is a disease [2].\"I will be arguing against the resolution. My opponent will be arguing for the resolution. The opponent will begin his argument in the first round, and he will not include an argument in the final round. This rule is in place because the opponent will be arguing in the affirmative—and he who argues in the affirmative generally ought to initiate the debate. (NOTE: This debate is currently impossible to accept. If you're interested in taking the \"Pro\" side, say so in the comments section.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Obesity is a disease", "pid": "c3cbe7d1-2019-04-18T13:12:52Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.7738494873047}, {"text": "Obesity is not a disease. Obesity is a lifestyle. People chose what to put into there bodies. No one drives you to McDonald's, forces you to buy a quarter ponder and consume it. These actions are choices. When you choose to eat burger containing 3x the amount of recommended calories, you should expect to gain weight. Not to mention the ones who wash down the burger with a coke and biggie size french fry. If you make these decisions you are not ill, you are negligent.", "title": "Obesity is a disease.", "pid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.72482299804688}, {"text": "To make up for this if the Pro wants me to waive my final speech I will if I am told in their second speech. In addition I would like to note that as con and the person supporting the status quo, my opponent will bear the Burden of Proof. I agree with the definition of obesity provided, but would like to insert a few more. Disease:an illness that affects a person, animal, or plant : a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Choice:the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities. http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Obesity is in fact a disease and not a choice. This is because it fits the definition of disease as it an ilness that affects a person, and ir prevents the body from working normally. It is not a choice, because one does not \"choose\" obesity. A person may make choices that lead to being obese, or even chose that they want to become obese, but the obesity itself is not a choice. Even if you disagree with my analysis, you must also look back again to the definition of choice. Obesity, even if one did choose to become obese, would be an option, not a choice. For all these reasons please vote Con. Good luck to the Pro.", "title": "Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.", "pid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.2965850830078}, {"text": "Obesity is the cause of many diseases and cancers. Heart attacks and colon cancer are two of the most reported. 10-16% of cases of breast and colon cancer and heart attacks are said to be caused by obesity [[BMA, December 2007]]. These are long standing diseases which take a variety of drugs to cure or at least alleviate the symptoms. These drugs are expensive, and many people who have not caused their own disease miss out on new drugs as the NHS is not willing to pay the extra money for the drugs. If healthy eating were mandatory, then less money would be needed by the NHS to heal people who have eaten themselves to oblivion and more money can be spent on newer drugs.", "title": "Our economy suffers because of unhealthy eating", "pid": "9f203748-2019-04-19T12:46:11Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.29209899902344}, {"text": "This rule is in place because the opponent will be arguing in the affirmative—and he who argues in the affirmative generally ought to initiate the debate. \"What part of this didn't you understand, thebestdebate?", "title": "Obesity is a disease", "pid": "c3cbe7d1-2019-04-18T13:12:52Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.22898864746094}, {"text": "My opponent con states that \"Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice.\"He is right. A person makes choices on a daily basis knowing the consequence, of eating unhealthy food, yet they still do it, knowing that their choice will effect their life in a negative way. My opponent also states that \"Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat\" his claim is also incorrect. So exactly why is con wrong? Well here is why Obesity is unhealthy: Obesity is the number one cause of type 2 diabetes. The chances of getting diabetes increases more than tenfold if your body weight is higher than normal. Diabetes do all the bad things to your body. It can give many problems to your eyes, kidneys, and heart. Source: http://www.obesity-info.com... Con has not made any of his points clear other than saying that it IS a disease but yet not backing it up with any facts. Cancer is a disease, people don't choose to have cancer. Obesity is not a disease, they choose to become obese by the food they consume. Vote PRO!! :)", "title": "Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.", "pid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.1949005126953}, {"text": "1. Though you make a valid point on the fact that the choices of exercising and eating healthier there are many other factors that go into a person suffering from obesity. There are plenty of people who eat healthy and stay active yet still remain overweight, or obese. This is not because of any choices they made; it is because of a medical issue. Though this not mean it is entirely a genetic issue. Obesity is still largely related to ones genetics. A person can make all the right choices in life, eat healthy, stay active, and never sit still in a sense and yet they will remain overweight, or obese. Bottom line they remain this way due to the fact that their body's genetics simply can't lose weight because of its genetics. 2. Congrats to your father. 3. Though there is no illness that causes a person to eat all those fatty foods in the world. There are illnesses that cause them to be unable to lose the weight they do gain though the foods. These illnesses lead to them becoming overweight and then soon enough becoming obese, or just really overweight. It cannot always be helped, and just because some over the top BS pill will create a temporary fix for their weight. It does not mean every obese person should run out and get a lifetime supply of hydroxi cut or whatever the hell it's called. For that solution is exactly what it says it is. A temporary fix for the larger issue unless of course they constantly use these pills. For once the body has an outside source take over a bodily function it is difficult to return to a pure body experience. So every morning the person would have to wake up and take pills in order to stay \"healthy\" or skinny again. So i remain with my point that obesity is directly correlated to the fact that some people just have poor genetics that cause them to gain weight, but never lose it. While on the other hand there are people who can go out eat obscene amounts of unhealthy food and then sit on their couches all day and never gain a single pound. So as i said a person's weight is directly related to their genetics.", "title": "Obesity is a disease.", "pid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.17477416992188}, {"text": "Obesity is obviously the most urgent issue in America today. As I stated above obesity affects 1 out of every three adults and 2 out of every 19 kids ages 2-19. Obesity does more than just make a person look bigger / fatter, it also increases the risk of many serious health conditions such as the following ; Heart disease in adulthood very high blood pressure high cholesterol high blood sugar type two diabetes certain types of cancer strokes Respiratory Disease Musculoskeletal Disorders and finally, obesity has been linked to high depression rates. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...", "title": "Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today.", "pid": "720c8ec-2019-04-18T16:27:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.07431030273438}, {"text": "My opponent has agreed tha Obesity is the result of choices, however has not rebutted the fact that this in itself makes it not a choice. She points out people make choices that lead to obesity, and attempts to rebut my statement that obesity is not being unhealthy. However, it still stands. Obesity is a specific condition that can lead to unhealthy consequences. I am not saying that being obese isn't unhealthy, I'm just saying that obesity isn't unhealthiness itself. For example, a smoker can be unhealthy without being obese. My opponent has said that I have not provided facts, but I have. Look to the definitions. Obesity fits all of the definitions for disease provided. It affects a person, animal, or plant and it is a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally. My opponent has also pointed out cancer, and that it is not a disease because the don't choose to get it. However, this is not true. If you agree with my opponents logic, then you must admit that people who work as painters chose to work with carcinogens . http://www.inchem.org... therefore cancer is a choice. My opponent herself stated \"Cancer is a disease\". As we can see this is hypocritical and thus falls.", "title": "Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.", "pid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.06649780273438}, {"text": "Simply put obesity is an uncontrollable pandemic on our society. People do not have to have to eat an unprecedented amount of calories in order to become heavily overweight or obese as some people put it. People can just live their lives and become obese. It is a health issue not a sheer disregard of a person's health; some people just cannot help themselves when it comes to this issue. So just because someone gets a Super-Sized double quarter pounder from McDonalds with a coke, and milk shake does not mean they are obese. For if that logic was correct then soon enough most if not all of children will soon be obese. Sure it means there making a terrible choice with their lunch but it will not make them become obese as you have suggested, though it is not the bone of your argument or i would hope it wasn't anyway. But yet you make it seem that anyone who enjoys Fast Food will start to live a lifestyle of obesity which is a sad mistake and probably a biased outlook on a major issue of today's modern society. Anyone can become obese no matter what they eat. Foods are not the issue in obesity as media and people who are looking for a scapegoat make it seem. The real issue in this matter is a person's body. As a person's body can have many natural parts, act very unnatural, such as hormone imbalance, issues affecting a person's glands, as well as a slow metabolism. All these and other factors can play right into the hands of obesity and the risks that come with it, like Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, and Heart Disease. These are all health issues not lifestyle choices, well last time i checked they were health issues not social, I could be mistaken, just saying.", "title": "Obesity is a disease.", "pid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.0431671142578}, {"text": "There are many definitions. However, we must have an agreed upon meaning of the resolution to debate. I believe my definitions are reasonable and encompass the meaning that they are suppossed it. You are also correct in that they don' make either of us right. Itis the way that they are used that wins debates. My opponent claims that people have choices, whether to be healthy or unhealthy. That is very true. She points out that if they make unhealthy choices they will gain weight. This is also very true. However, this does not matter, as this does not mean obesity. Obesity is not being unhealthy, or having fat. Obesity is a medical condition. Obesity is not a choice, it is the result of a series of choices. The result is distinct from the choice.Her claims merely expand upon the nature of becoming obese, they do not refute my points and they are rebutted by the points I have already made.As you did not ask me to waive my final speech, I will not.Good Luck to the Pro.", "title": "Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.", "pid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.93112182617188}, {"text": "Consuming calories and not exercising is how a person gains weight. Exercise and eating healthy food only helps control problems with hormone imbalance. In addition to good lifestyle choices there are medications a doctor can suggest to help. You aren't born obese and overweight individuals make changes everyday. My father was obese and made the choice to get off the couch and exercise. He made the choice to stop eating KFC, Taco Bell and Burger King on a daily Basis. His choices have resulted in loosing 100 pounds and overcoming what he had done to his body for so many years. The point of the matter is there is no illness that forces you to take in fatty foods and ignore exercise. You are correct that being overweight does lead to heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure and that only suggests that indeed being overweight is a contributor. A factor that definitely can cause an real disease such as diabetes. Obesity is a result of not caring for your body.", "title": "Obesity is a disease.", "pid": "b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.72412109375}, {"text": "There are many different definitions. Just because you choose a definition doesn't make you right. Obesity most of the time is caused by excessive amount of calories. People have choices, to be healthy or not. It's all up to them what they eat or don't eat, if they choose to exercise or not. They know if they eat unhealthy food more then likely they will gain more weight, compared to if they eat more healthy food they wont gain as much wait compared to junk food. My claim: 1)Obesity is a preventable risk factor for other diseases and conditions, and is not a disease itself. Like smoking is a preventable risk factor for lung cancer and drinking is a preventable risk factor for alcoholism, obesity is a preventable risk factor for coronary heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, cancers (like endometrial, breast, and colon), high cholesterol, high levels of triglycerides, liver and gallbladder disease, incontinence, increased surgical risk, sleep apnea, respiratory problems (like asthma), osteoarthritis, infertility and other reproductive complications, complications during pregnancy and birth defects, and mental health conditions. [42] [36] Women who gain 20 pounds or more between age 20 and midlife double their risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. [36] For every 2 pound weight increase, the risk of developing arthritis rises 9-13%. [36]. 2)Obesity is the result of eating too much. The suggested daily caloric intake for 31-50-year-olds is 1,800 calories for women and 2,200 calories for men. [7] In 2009-2010, 30-39-year-old women consumed an average 1,831 calories (which is 1.7% over the recommendation) while men of the same age consumed an average 2,736 calories per day (which is 22% over the recommendation). [3] The average American restaurant meal portion size is four times as large as portions in the 1950s and 96% of entrees at chain restaurants exceed dietary guidelines for fat, sodium, and saturated fat, with some almost exceeding daily intakes in one meal. [44] [45] The body is doing what it has evolved to do by converting excess calories into fat cells. The CDC recommends reducing consumption of sugar drinks (like sodas) and high-energy-dense foods to prevent and reduce obesity. [42] The Mayo Clinic states, \"Having a diet that's high in calories, eating fast food, skipping breakfast, eating most of your calories at night, drinking high-calorie beverages and eating oversized portions all contribute to weight gain.\" Sources http://obesity.procon.org...", "title": "Obesity is not a disease, it's a choice.", "pid": "21e2b85c-2019-04-18T15:17:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.55645751953125}, {"text": "Obesity causes huge medical costs - in the USA alone, around 150 billion dollars [6]. This is because obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, cancer, heart problems, strokes, asthma and other medical problems. Many of these diseases need lifelong treatment following expensive diagnosis, and often emergency treatment. This not only has human effects, but causes problems for the economy due to being less productive at work and taking lots of medical leave. Due to obesity’s costs (financial and otherwise) to society, it can’t be considered as something that only affects individuals any more [7].", "title": "Being fat causes problems for everyone", "pid": "63392463-2019-04-15T20:24:36Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.5090789794922}, {"text": "All around the world, obesity has become a serious threat to public health. And the problem starts early on. In the US, for example, 17% of youth are obese4. Obesity itself has many consequences; most obviously on health such as increasing the risk of numerous diseases like heart disease, there are however economic costs both for treatment of these diseases, lost working days and due to less obvious costs such safety on transport and its resulting fuel cost.[1] Tackling obesity is therefore well within the purview of government policy. A failure to act might seriously affect the economic productivity of the nation, and even bankrupt healthcare systems[2]. A measure like the toy ban would be a first step to tackling the problem at the root, preventing children from growing up into obese adults.   [1] Zahn, Theron, “Obesity epidemic forcing ferries to lighten their loads”, seattlepi, 20 December 2011, http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Obesity-epidemic-forcing-fer... [2] “Obesity ‘could bankrupt the NHS’”. BBC. 15 December 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180991.stm", "title": "Obesity is a public health issue .", "pid": "efbdcc9f-2019-04-15T20:22:41Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 213.48275756835938}, {"text": "Thanks.", "title": "Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today.", "pid": "720c8ec-2019-04-18T16:27:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.42245483398438}, {"text": "It is self inflicted. I eat a lot but I work or excercise. Obesity is called a terrible desease. It is only terrible because of idilitis and the amount of money folk have to gorge themselves.Ask your parents or grandparents how many fat folk there were years ago,rare.So it is not an illness,there were more depressed folk years ago so that is no excuse. Rubbish food is no excuse,we all eat it. Smokers pay a lot of extra tax but the obese are costing the nhs(tax payer) far more with larger ambulances,inhouse lifts and stairlifts,more paramedics to lift them,hospital beds and refrigerators in the morgues. And its down to being idle and a glutton, one cannot do both. A girlfriend of mine who weighs 8 stone has to pay excess if her bags are a bit over at the airport, then a 20 st person climbs aboard at no extra charge, where is the justification in that ?. She bought her teams rugby shirt,child size. She paid the same price as the person buying an xxl, where's the justification in that ? triple the amount of cloth. Its the same in all clothes shops, its not right. If you purchase material they charge per mtr. Yes charge them more,they are not paying extra tax, it will go towards the forthcoming gastric band they may require because they have no will power. Having worked with depressed people for many years it was rarely an excuse for obesity,its a new thing because they can. If we returned to stateing they are FAT instead of obese this would help.", "title": "Obesity can be a psychological problem and should be treated as such", "pid": "6388e7e9-2019-04-19T12:47:11Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.13841247558594}, {"text": "Yes I agree that it is delusional to think that \"any\" size is beautiful. As soon as they become unhealthy, some might consider it unattractive, but some obese look only mildly overweight and still be attractive. However I disagree that obesity is a choice. My brother classifies as \"obese\" but he did not chose to be the way he is. Sometimes obesity occurs along with other conditions, in my brothers case, autism, which is not a choice. His doctor said that if he wasn't autistic his weight would have been fine. So no, obesity (in most cases) is not a choice. And most (obese) people don't just wake up one day and decide to just become unhealthy with a bigger chance of death at an early age. Some obesity is developed in childhood, where a child has little to no control over their lives.", "title": "Overweight people cannot be beautiful.", "pid": "e1952864-2019-04-18T12:16:12Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.04376220703125}, {"text": "Oh wow... yeah idont hunk I'm prepared for this I'm just going to forfeit... that was a really nice job by the way...", "title": "Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today.", "pid": "720c8ec-2019-04-18T16:27:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.9890899658203}, {"text": "\"processed\" its called diet and EXERCISE!!! Also, it isnt super expensive to be healthy! bananas are the most cheap food you can buy! Obese people need pressure... FAT ACCEPTANCE IS DEATH ACCEPTANCE!!! it isnt only obesity but being overweight that kills! \"In 2015, nearly four million people died from disease related to their weight, most commonly from heart disease. But only 60% were technically obese, which is defined as a body mass index over 30. The other 40%, or 1.6 million people, were overweight but not obese.\" (https://www.theguardian.com...) People go crazy on people for smoking when in reality OBESITY KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN SMOKING (https://www.menshealth.com...)", "title": "Diet and exersise!!!", "pid": "7b734685-2019-04-18T11:48:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.8566131591797}, {"text": "Obesity In America is a big problem that's needs to be fixed. heart disease is a killer that is caused by diabetes that is cause by obesity argue if your against doing anything about it", "title": "Obesity In America should we do something", "pid": "2245ae98-2019-04-18T16:15:50Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.81802368164062}, {"text": "YEAH IM KNEW TO THIS WHOLE DEBATE THING..... OKAY MY OPPONENT SAID that diseases were out of the debate but the fact that obesity IS a DISEASE so how can we leave disease out of the entire thing?!?!?!?! My opponent killed the main factor of why kids are obese in the first place. Dude in case you didn't know Obesity is a disease!!!!!!!! My opponents argument should be completely thrown out because as I have previously stated OBESITY IS A DISEASE MY OPPONENT FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT SO THE CASE IS MINE!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU TO MY OPPONENT AND ALL VOTERS!!!!!!!!!", "title": "Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity", "pid": "636669d7-2019-04-18T19:49:10Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.69239807128906}, {"text": "I accept", "title": "Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today.", "pid": "720c8ec-2019-04-18T16:27:18Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.65609741210938}, {"text": "I'll take the neg on this case, arguing that healthy people are not more oppressed than the obese. Opression is defined as: the act of subjugating by cruelty, force, etc. or the state of being subjugated in this way[1] Although my opponent states how there are groups which advocate that the obese be treated equally, this does not prove that the unhealthy are being opressed in any way whatsoever. My opponent proves that the more accepted the obese become, the more obese people there will be, and the more obese people there are, the less healthy people there are. However, this is a logical fallacy as shown by Occam's Razor[2]. Occam's razor states that when an argument that assumes too much to be proven true, it is likely to be false. This applies because my opponent's entire case revolves around the fact that the more accepted obesity becomes, the more people will become obese, which is a huge assumption. To make this argument is the same as making the argument that th emore accepted Homosexuals become, the more Homosexuals there will be, which is rediculous. Further more, simply there being less healthy people is not oppression unless the government comes down, forces food down your throat, and thus strips you of your right to be healthy. I don't advocate Obesity as an actual disease unless you have a legitimate medical condition that affects your metabolism, but there is no reason to assume that either the healthy or the obese are being oppressed. Works Cited: 1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2.) http://math.ucr.edu...", "title": "People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people", "pid": "745edcc5-2019-04-18T18:16:38Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.54006958007812}, {"text": "Prosecution could be damaging for the child. If they are aware that their parents are in 'trouble' because they are overweight, this could cause psychological problems for the child. Feelings such as guilt, worthlessness and an unhappy body image may occur. These could last well into adulthood and are far more difficult to rectify than a weight problem. Nearly all of weight related illness occurs during adulthood, when it is the responsibility of the overweight person to take action upon their own bodies. Whilst parents can influence and encourage children to pick up healthy eating habits, they cannot be held accountable later in life when the children have grown up. By this point they must take responsibility for themselves. We should be educating and helping families not punishing them. Blame is very unproductive and solves nothing. We need to understand the origins of the child's weight problem in order to gain better understanding, enabling the parent to help their child, not punish them. It can not be clearly proven that a child's weight problem is entirely down to nurture over nature therefore there is no clear evidence which would allow prosecution to occur.", "title": "Obesity costs the NHS millions of pounds each year", "pid": "e74fd589-2019-04-19T12:46:06Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 212.5304412841797}, {"text": "Obesity is the most urgent problem facing America today. Today, 36% of all adults ( people over 18 ) are obese! That is 1 in every three adults. what's more is that obesity rates have doubled from 1990 going from 15% to 30%! However, this major issue does not just affect adults. 2 out of every 9 kids ages 2-19 are obese. This is not a problem that will just resolve its self, without immediate attention obesity rates could double again and again and again until the entire population is obese! Do you really want a society where the children of the future all can't do many of the physical activities that we enjoy today due to their weight? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...", "title": "Obesity is the most pressing issue that faces America today.", "pid": "720c8ec-2019-04-18T16:27:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.49546813964844}, {"text": "Obesity is a major problem around the world, and particularly in the United States. It is so bad that it certainly justifies taking decisive actions such as mandating the labeling of menus in restaurants.", "title": "Obesity epidemics justify mandatory calorie counts", "pid": "fdb7b7d4-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00076-000", "bm25_score": 212.43499755859375}, {"text": "After doing extensive research, I've found that poverty is one of the leading causes for obesity today for many reasons. One of the reasons is their low income, and not being able to afford health food. Today, the cheapest food is also the most unhealthy food, leading to morbidly obese rates in children and young adults. Also, they do not have access to gym facilities, which doesn't help this issue.", "title": "Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today.", "pid": "e17f5669-2019-04-18T18:02:16Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.4075469970703}, {"text": "Children become obese through a lack of exercise and an unhealthy diet. By prosecuting the parents of obese children you force them to change their children's lifestyles. Children who exercise and eat healthily are more likely to remain healthy throughout life and are therefore less likely to suffer from illness's in adulthood. Weight related illness currently costs the NHS millions of pounds each year.", "title": "Obesity costs the NHS millions of pounds each year", "pid": "e74fd589-2019-04-19T12:46:06Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 212.40078735351562}, {"text": "Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In the UK it is predicted that over 20% of 2-15 year olds will be obese by 2010. It is important to fight obesity as it causes many health problems and can lead to early death through heart diease, diabetes and strokes.", "title": "Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In t...", "pid": "c415d069-2019-04-19T12:47:01Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.39834594726562}, {"text": "As I've proven in previous rounds, obesity is indeed high in the United States. I am not arguing that a particular action needs to be taken because of this, just that the \"obesity problem\" can be harmful to those who become obese by choice or otherwise. Laziness may indeed be a large source of the problem, but depression may be both a cause and an effect of obesity. As stated before, obesity DOES affect the rest of the population by raising healthcare costs. And the intent in pointing out childhood obesity is to demonstrate how parents do not deal with the problem effectively, so to expect them to resolve it is irrational.", "title": "America is NOT obese.", "pid": "8662c54-2019-04-18T17:31:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.3959197998047}, {"text": "The USA is not a good place to take figures from as its health sector is very expensive and inefficient compared to most other countries [9]. If anything, that is getting worse. It’s not possible to say if the rising cost of healthcare is due to obesity related disease, as there are numerous other possibilities such as the risk of doctors being sued, an aging population, and spiraling drug costs. Also, there are other lifestyle choices that can cause problems, for example eating meat can contribute to cancer [10], we should not single out one lifestyle choice that can cause problems over others.", "title": "Being fat causes problems for everyone", "pid": "63392463-2019-04-15T20:24:36Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 212.38729858398438}, {"text": "The National Institute of Health (USA) spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link.", "title": "Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pres...", "pid": "86362978-2019-04-19T12:46:42Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 212.38336181640625}, {"text": "The obesity epidemic is taking an enormous toll on global medical costs. In the US alone the health care costs attributable to either direct or indirect consequences of obesity have been estimated at $147bn.[1] Put into context, this amounts to roughly 9% of the health spending in the US.[2] The figure might seem excessive, but we need to remember that obesity is linked to Type 2 Diabetes, several kinds of cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic back pain and hypertension, to name just a few. We also need to realize that many of the diseases on this list are chronic in nature, requiring lifelong pharmacological therapy, which often follows complex and expensive diagnostic procedures, frequent medical specialist consultations, and not infrequent emergency interventions.[3] Adding to the list is the value of income lost due to decreased productivity, restricted activity, and absenteeism, not to mention the value of future income lost by premature death. Thus it becomes increasingly clear that due to the substantial cost obesity presents to the society, individual choices that might lead to excessive weight gain, can no longer be considered as solely individual in nature.[4] Therefore the government is legitimate in its action to introduce a form of a fat tax in order to try to dissuade the population from becoming obese and cover the increasing societal costs the already obese individuals are responsible for. [1] CDC, Obesity: Economic Consequences, published 3/28/2011, http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.html, accessed 9/12/2011 [2] RTI international, Obesity Costs U.S. About $147 Billion Annually, Study Finds, published 7/27/2009, http://www.rti.org/news.cfm?objectid=329246AF-5056-B172-B829FC032B70D8DE, accessed 9/14/2011 [3] The Council of State Governments, Costs of Chronic Diseases: What Are States Facing?, published in 2006, http://www.healthystates.csg.org/NR/rdonlyres/DA24108E-B3C7-4B4D-875A-74F957BF4472/0/ChronicTrendsAlert120063050306.pdf, accessed, 9/14/2011 [4] Los Angeles Times, Should there be a 'fat tax'?, published 4/11/2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/11/opinion/la-ed-obesity-20110411, accessed 9/12/2011  ", "title": "An individual's BMI is no longer a purely personal matter", "pid": "1e7f4ed8-2019-04-15T20:22:41Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.36849975585938}, {"text": "Even if we were to accept that the government has a role in combatting the so-called ‘obesity epidemic’, that does not justify it taking any measures it deems appropriate. The government should at the very least be able to prove that there is some link between the toys sold with the fast food meals and the rise in obesity. After all, the toys have been around since the late 70s. The ‘obesity epidemic’ is a far more recent phenomenon. ", "title": "Obesity is a public health issue .", "pid": "efbdcc9f-2019-04-15T20:22:41Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 212.2798309326172}, {"text": "Treating the obese with acceptance means that, while TheOrator points out, just because it's being treated with acceptance doesn't necessarily mean it will be more common and the other more rare, it is simply being promoted as an unhealthy lifestyle, and it ends there. Furthermore, obese children have more of a likelihood of becoming obese adults, as studies have shown time and again. \"Yeah, you can say that, but it's not true. Oppression is when you are being forced to do something against your will, not when you want you do something because of your will.\" This reminds me of the statement that government is a necessary evil to prevent tyranny in US constitutionalism. If people were able to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, however they wanted without some constitutional restraints, other people's liberties are infringed, therefore said to be oppression. Same way can be applied to this topic. Other people choose to be obese and it is out of control and growing, therefore the other people (for example, there are those who don't prefer to be in the company of obese people) are oppressed and squeezed out.", "title": "People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people", "pid": "745edcc5-2019-04-18T18:16:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.267578125}, {"text": "But some people are so sick that they don't have the energy or desire to help themselves get healthier. If you don't have the motivation to get yourself better, then you will never lose that weight.", "title": "Obesity", "pid": "605392ad-2019-04-18T17:01:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.25169372558594}, {"text": "Although over eating is a huge aspect of obesity, people should be aware that for some people, food intake has nothing to do with their weight. In many cases, it is a legitimate health disorder. For people with diabetes, it is mandatory to eat certain foods at certain times. Before judging someone immediately because of their weight, you need to contemplate the possibilities. Also, metabolism contributes to obesity. Some people are born to eat whatever they want, and some gain weight from the littlest thing. Food is not the only catalyst to obesity.", "title": "Obesity", "pid": "605392ad-2019-04-18T17:01:18Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 212.1752471923828}, {"text": "The true question to be asked here, is this: Do your arguments prove beyond any doubt that obesity, in America, will never be solved? (This is your job in the Pro position) Because as of right now, we can only treat it but, we have not found a cure. We do not know what our future entails for us, but I do know that I believe in America, and just as it has in the past, it will conquer every disease and cancer that fills it's land. Until someday, we no longer face these problems, and freedom and basic needs are supplied to the entire world. Someday, we will no longer have diseases, including obesity (which will prove an easier one to solve), and since we are always moving towards that day, hundreds, thousands, or hundreds of thousands of days away: All problems are getting better including the problem that is obesity.", "title": "americas weight probem is only getting worse", "pid": "fb2e263c-2019-04-18T19:34:26Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.14500427246094}, {"text": "I assumed that for the sake of this argument wouldn't need to define them but thank you for doing that. We can agree that obesity is not healthy. It is unhealthy. un\"health\"y adjective harmful to health. \"an unhealthy diet\" synonyms:harmful, detrimental, destructive, injurious, damaging. As far as weight range, the Body Mass Index is the standard. I have not set that scale, but is accepted in the medical realm as the established healthy weight range. It is not beautiful to be obese. When someone makes conscious choices to become overweight, it is detrimental, unhealthy, and therefore cannot be perceived as beautiful. It is delusional to state that you can be beautiful at any size. Obesity, one of the greatest causes of preventable death, is linked to some of the highest cases of hospitality and mortality including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. If I said beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then said I think that abuse is beautiful, would you agree?", "title": "Overweight people cannot be beautiful.", "pid": "e1952864-2019-04-18T12:16:12Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.14486694335938}, {"text": "I Agree with my opponent about not being able to force people to fight their obese problems, but their are many obese people who want to make a change for example Jamie Oliver a chef from England is not obese but tries his best to change other people's eating habits. Forcing people is obviously not an option but getting people to help is, the United States is the 3rd most obese country in the world behind Mexico and Australia and that is a substantial problem Obesity in childhood can add up to health problems\"often for life. In adults, overweight and obesity are linked to increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes (high blood sugar), high blood pressure, certain cancers, and other chronic conditions.", "title": "Obesity In America should we do something", "pid": "2245ae98-2019-04-18T16:15:50Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.06410217285156}, {"text": "Many people suffering from overeating do so compulsively as a result of psychological problems. For example a depressed person might comfort eat to feel better. Why should these people be punished instead of helped?", "title": "Obesity can be a psychological problem and should be treated as such", "pid": "6388e7e9-2019-04-19T12:47:11Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 212.03695678710938}, {"text": "Thanks for the debate, yada yada yada. Now then. Consider for a moment the consequences of you actions Brian. Obesity becomes, well, fatness, hugeness, lardiness, whatever, but that doesn't solve the problem, does it? See the nice thing about a word like \"obesity\" is that it's an easily-affixed suffix to words like \"dangerously\" \"morbidly\" and so on. Additionally, obesity as a word is meant to be one up from fat, the same way that love is greater than like, and that hate is greater than dislike, and I quote: :Wikipedia said: :Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have an adverse effect on health, leading to reduced life expectancy and/or increased health problems. http://en.wikipedia.org... In other words, a fat person is fat, but is at less risk than an obese person. I'm fat, I weigh about a hundred kilograms, but I'm six foot one and I go to the gym and do so to build muscle alongside some cardio training, as a result I've become much stronger physically over the past year but my weight hasn't changed. By the standards of the bullsh!t BMI, I'm obese, looking at me, I still appear to be fat because I can't lose the fat in my face and my stomach, though smaller, is still too round for my tastes, but I'm fat by most people's standards, I'm not obese. By mixing the two you're putting unnecessary strain on people that are fat and you're making obese people more relaxed, not less, about their weight, because to be fat is different than to be obese. Additionally...are you really going to focus on women's appeal as leverage for this debate? Has it never occurred to you that there are fat dudes too? Worse yet that these fat dudes may be totally cool with a curvy girlfriend. Hell, send the fat 50% of the female population my way if they trouble you so much, either I'll get tons of exercise or they will. Besides, if being insulted motivates you to lose weight then you're losing weight for the wrong reasons, and insults heal pretty damn quick compared to, say, being told you're gonna die. Insults or death, insults or death, which would you choose? Insults of course. Not only should obese people be referred to as such, but I think it should be expanded so that dangerously obese and morbidly obese become commonly used terms to refer to them to remind them of the dangers to their health. Losing weight is pretty hard once you get past the half-stone or so of water that under-exercised bodies contain, and old habits die hard, but you can't seriously suggest risking people's lives and confusing a simple little system of identification simply because you aren't getting enough tail.", "title": "We should use the term ‘fat' instead of ‘obese'", "pid": "4e64f8eb-2019-04-18T19:04:33Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.009765625}, {"text": "Those studies have been refuted with more recent research that proves that eating habits are the main true cause of obesity at any age. ????????????????? eating habits with no excercise yes but there was more calorise in bread and dripping and fish and chips than there is in a mcdonalds,fact. Folk do not walk anywhere now, they do very little now so eat through bordom. A fit person can eat MORE than an obese person because they burn it off, fact, and proven myself personally. It is not the food it is idleness.", "title": "Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle", "pid": "e74fd589-2019-04-19T12:46:06Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 212.00758361816406}, {"text": "Peace", "title": "Child obesity not related to a pre-existing medical condition should be considered child abuse", "pid": "4bdb8ef9-2019-04-18T17:43:07Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.0054931640625}, {"text": "It is indisputable that not everyone has the same body shape and frame. We genetically inherit many of our physical features and obesity may also be genetically inherited. Therefore it is not right to prosecute a parent who despite providing a healthy lifestyle has an overweight child.", "title": "Some study's suggest that obesity may be more linked to your genes than your lifestyle", "pid": "e74fd589-2019-04-19T12:46:06Z-00024-000", "bm25_score": 211.97811889648438}, {"text": "Sigh...", "title": "Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today.", "pid": "e17f5669-2019-04-18T18:02:16Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.96859741210938}, {"text": "still waiting...", "title": "Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today.", "pid": "e17f5669-2019-04-18T18:02:16Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.95175170898438}, {"text": "good times!", "title": "Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today.", "pid": "e17f5669-2019-04-18T18:02:16Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.93716430664062}, {"text": "I think that obesity is a serious problem in society today. There are many children in elementary school that are obese and eat tons of food a day. I think that the problem is there parents don't control their diet. Parents should be responsible for giving their children three healthy meals a day and maybe one unhealthy snack a day. If parents did that, then their children would be at a healthy weight. Parents have a huge role in controlling whether their child becomes obese or not, and I believe that obesity is something that can be controlled.", "title": "Obesity", "pid": "605392ad-2019-04-18T17:01:18Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 211.9341583251953}, {"text": "When you try to urge an alcoholic to stop drinking how well does it work? when you want a drug addict to go to rehab how many times do they comply? The point is they have to want the change they have to take the first step then we can come in. Obese people have to do something first before we can help. Thank you.", "title": "Obesity In America should we do something", "pid": "2245ae98-2019-04-18T16:15:50Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.9142303466797}, {"text": "To start off, The fat acceptance movement seeks to eliminate anti-fat biases. They are also known as the Health At Every Size movement (or simply HAES). HAES is pretty self-explanatory. A good portion of fat activists believe that you can be overweight and healthy, That we should completely disregard the relationship between weight and health. Thing is, I don\"t believe that is true and the way they see it is pretty much in black and white. It is NOT that simple. This mentality is misleading and can eventually lead to even worse outcomes. Here\"s my first argument:Health and Weight are connected, It is wrong for fat activists to think otherwise because they are factually incorrect. We\"ve seen it, Heard it, Experienced it; you name it. We all know that is simply untrue. \"Your weight, Your waist size, And the amount of weight gained since your mid-20s can have serious health implications. These factors can strongly influence your chances of developing the following diseases and conditions: Cardiovascular disease, Heart attack, Stroke, Diabetes, Cancer, Arthritis, Gallstones, Asthma, Cataracts, Infertility, Snoring, Sleep apnea\"Lets also not forget that excessive weight will damage your knees and wear down the cartilage from the friction. Aside from the unpleasant feeling of your bones grinding together till you collapse, The fatal consequences have become very prevalent. \"Overweight and obesity are the fifth leading risk for global deaths. At least 2. 8 million adults die each year as a result of being overweight or obese. \" Sources:http://easo. Org/education-portal/obesity-facts-figures/https://www. Hsph. Harvard. Edu/nutritionsource/healthy-weight/", "title": "Fat Acceptance Is Dangerous", "pid": "615af073-2019-04-18T11:22:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.89451599121094}, {"text": "Almost every problem that we have ever had in history can be \"fixed\" by change. Most haven't been because the need for money and the lack of interest from people. Now if you are specifically talking about the rise in obesity, perhaps if we took the right steps towards eating more healthy (maybe creating a law that no restaurant can sell a single food item that equals over 800cal. since the average person needs just 1,500-2,500cal. a day). If we continue to serve healthier foods in public school for our kids and stop cutting gym class. If health care plans paid for and required that you enter a gym at least once a week to get the service. The biggest problem with obesity is the way we live; it is almost as simple as calories in calories out. Sure there are restrictions such as genetics but if everyone else ate healthy and worked out a couple hours a week there would be no obesity. But again it will take some money; mostly it will take the participation from people to want this change. It could take 100's of years but it can happen.", "title": "Law and Regulation will not fix the problems of Health Care", "pid": "283df47e-2019-04-18T19:33:43Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.89273071289062}, {"text": "Yes you have, you have stated equall pro's in each!!!I believe obesity is worse because you become fat as well as several diseases such as Tiredness, endometrial cancer etc.Evidence: http://www.mindbiz.com.au...;", "title": "Smoking is as bad a Obesity", "pid": "d4a2b65c-2019-04-18T18:00:36Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.85157775878906}, {"text": "Obesity is a growing problem that we should take seriously. But the way to solve it is not to limit the choice of food in schools as children will just fill up on unhealthy food outside of schools. Instead we need to increase the amount of sport and exercise in schools and educate children about eating healthily. At the same time we should encourage parents to provide a balanced diet for their children.", "title": "Obesity is on the increase in the developed world, and that includes rising childhood obesity. In t...", "pid": "c415d069-2019-04-19T12:47:01Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 211.8489990234375}, {"text": "Before I turn the floor over to my opponent, I would like to state one statement:If I wanna be fluffy, LET ME BE FLUFFY.", "title": "Obesity", "pid": "6053928e-2019-04-18T18:09:46Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.8394012451172}, {"text": "Obesity is a subject I have spend copious time researching.My stance My position is that both morbid obesity and obesity are complex biological subjects that have many causes. Fat-shaming is both cruel and counterproductive. Say no to fat shaming.", "title": "More People Should Fat-Shame Women", "pid": "ab908431-2019-04-18T13:57:08Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 211.8350830078125}, {"text": "(INTRODUCTION) I would like to clarify that we mean GRADE SCHOOL! I am sorry for that miss, and I do hope you accept this definition. If not, please propose your own definition of the resolution, though remember there is NO ridiculos semantics. CONTENTION 1: OBESITY RATE IN CHILDRENChild obesity has been a problem around the world. What is obesity? “The condition of being grossly fat or overweight.” (taken from google, not sure where they get there definitions) Now how exactly is this bad for an obese person’s health? “Obese youth are more likely to have risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as high cholesterol or high blood pressure. In a population-based sample of 5- to 17-year-olds, 70% of obese youth had at least one risk factor for cardiovascular disease.” {1} {2} “Obese adolescents are more likely to have prediabetes, a condition in which blood glucose levels indicate a high risk for development of diabetes. Children and adolescents who are obese are at greater risk for bone and joint problems, sleep apnea, and social and psychological problems such as stigmatization and poor self-esteem.” {1} {2} “Children and adolescents who are obese are likely to be obese as adults and are therefore more at risk for adult health problems such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, several types of cancer, and osteoarthritis. One study showed that children who became obese as early as age 2 were more likely to be obese as adults. Overweight and obesity are associated with increased risk for many types of cancer, including cancer of the breast, colon, endometrium, esophagus, kidney, pancreas, gall bladder, thyroid, ovary, cervix, and prostate, as well as multiple myeloma and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.\" {1} {2} Want to hear something shocking? Well, it turns out that out of all children, 20% (around) are obese. One in every five children are obese! {1} {2} So now that you know the health risks that obesity comes with, you now need to know how to combat it. With physical activity: “Healthy lifestyle habits, including healthy eating and physical activity”{1} {2} Obviously in gym you get physical activity, and if it is a requirement it will MAKE SURE that these obese children start getting healthier. If it was optional, most of these children would most likely not go to gym, and thus develop the obesity more. So now I ask anyone who is reading this, do you want ( I did the calculations based on the facts provided earlier) 14% of all children to have a major risk for cardiovascular disease? I don’t think so. To slowly lower this number, gym should be a requirement in all grade schools. CONTENTION 2: GYM HELPS YOU THINK In grade school academics, the goal is for you to get smarter, and learn. So what is an effective way to help your brain get working? Your first reaction is mostly ‘well you go to your classes and academic subjects’ but I have reason to believe your reaction could be ‘go to P.E.’ I will provide multiple studies showing why: “Look at the brain functioning after just 20 minutes of walking. Getting kids to move helps strengthen and stimulate their brains. This is why so many recent research studies are showing increased fitness = improved academics. Note: The blue color represents inactivity in the brain.” {3} To see the image go here (sorry my computer can’t post images so I have to give links to them): http://www.debate.org... From the same interesting website came this overwhelming evidence from a different study: They took 3 million children and compared the kids who had a higher fitness level to the corresponding academic level and kids who had a lower fitness level to the corresponding academic level and look what they found: http://www.debate.org... Shocking isn’t it? Here is some more studies: “The California Department of Education (CDE) looked for a correlation between fitness scores and test scores. They found that kids who were deemed fit (by a standard test of aerobic capacity, BMI, abdominal strength, trunk strength, upper body strength and overall flexibility) scored twice as well on academic tests as those that were unfit. In the second year of the study, socio-economic status was taken into account, to possibly eliminate that variable as an explanation. As expected, those in the upper-income brackets scored better overall on the academic tests, but within the lower-income set of students, the same results were observed — kids who were more fit performed better academically.” {4} Now, before I run out of space to finish this argument and argument 3, I would like to post one last study under this contention: “Charles Hillman, associate professor of kinesiology at the University of Illinois, was able to duplicate these findings with 259 third and fifth-grade Illinois students. His team also noticed that two of the tests, BMI and aerobic capacity, were significantly more influential to higher academic scores than the other four fitness factors. Digging deeper, he isolated two groups of 20 students, one fit and the other unfit. They were given cognitive tests of attention, working memory and processing speed while their brain's electrical activity was being measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG) test. The fit kids' brains showed more activity in the prefrontal cortex, known for its executive function and control” {4} So, just to clarify, if you make gym a REQUIREMENT then the test score of ALL the students will be very likely go up. But if it is optional or even non-existent, then obviously these kids who came to school would not be going to gym and thus not helping the brain enough. When they mean a correlation from fit kids to high academic scores, I want to point out that a major way for a kid to start getting fit starts with gym. Look at this: http://www.debate.org... Alright, on to the next point. CONTENTION 3: GYM REDUCES STRESS IN SCHOOL Stress sucks, it is nerve racking and just really is almost painful. Now let me show you just how much stress sucks. “Stress that continues without relief can lead to a condition called distress -- a negative stress reaction. Distress can lead to physical symptoms including headaches, upset stomach, elevated blood pressure, chest pain, and problems sleeping. Research suggests that stress also can bring on or worsen certain symptoms or diseases. Stress also becomes harmful when people use alcohol, tobacco, or drugs to try to relieve their stress. Unfortunately, instead of relieving the stress and returning the body to a relaxed state, these substances tend to keep the body in a stressed state and cause more problems. Consider the following: Forty-three percent of all adults suffer adverse health effects from stress. Seventy-five percent to 90% of all doctor's office visits are for stress-related ailments and complaints. Stress can play a part in problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, asthma, arthritis, depression, and anxiety. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) declared stress a hazard of the workplace. Stress costs American industry more than $300 billion annually. The lifetime prevalence of an emotional disorder is more than 50%, often due to chronic, untreated stress reactions.” {5} Let me break this down a bit. The facts provided are obvious reasons for why stress sucks Let me point out the Alcohol, Drugs, etc… makes it worse. Now, I know this sounds a bit abstract, but just how much do kids in grade school drink, use drugs, etc? “25% of youth aged 12 to 20 years drink alcohol” {6} So, wait, 1 IN 5 KIDS DRINK ALCOHOL? That is horrible! Ok so now how many kids take drugs or smoke? I am going to use marijuana as an example: “7.0 percent of 8th graders, 18.0 percent of 10th graders, and 22.7 percent of 12th graders used marijuana” {7} So a HIGH amount of kids drink and use drugs which, if you remember an earlier quote, make existing stress worse, then obviously we need to stop stress before it happens! Now what is an effective way to stop stress before normal kids and drinking and drug using kids get school/social stressed? GYM! “Physical education classes provide the opportunity to participate in sports, exercise and perform other activities that promote physical fitness. These activities release chemicals in your brain known as endorphins, which help produce feelings of calm and relaxation. A study done by the University of Georgia in 2008 showed that people who exercise just 20 minutes a day can decrease their fatigue by 65 percent. If you're feeling tired and stressed out, getting exercise will help refresh you.” {8} POINT. PROVEN. (CONCLUSION) Thank you, DDD (REFERENCES) {1} http://www.cdc.gov... {2} GO TO {1} AND GO TO REFERENCE 7, 5,6,10, 15, 12, 11, 14 {3} http://www.phitamerica.org... {4} http://www.livescience.com... {5} http://www.webmd.com... {6} http://www.cdc.gov... {7} http://www.drugabuse.gov... {8} http://classroom.synonym.com...", "title": "DDD's 30th debate: Physical Education SHOULD be a requirement in schools", "pid": "7064c844-2019-04-18T15:41:56Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 211.8231201171875}, {"text": "Ok, fine. I only used a small portion, but I know for a fact that all of america is not fat, there are many people who ARE obese, but not all of America. True, the obesity rates are getting higher, but it's not any of anybody else's business how much people weigh. It's their choice, and a few people choices--laziness, or overeating--don't affect the whole country.", "title": "America is NOT obese.", "pid": "8662c54-2019-04-18T17:31:23Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.8162841796875}, {"text": "Outline I. IntroII. Main argumentIII. ConclusionIV. Links I. Intro I will not address any of my opponent's points this round. Instead, I will make my argument this round and address my opponent's in round three. First, lets establish that obesity is a major problem. Obesity is a risk factor for cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Cancer \"Obesity is associated with increased risks of the following cancer types, and possibly others as well: Esophagus Pancreas Colon and rectum Breast (after menopause) Endometrium (lining of the uterus) Kidney Thyroid Gallbladder\"Diabetes \"Obesity or being overweight. Research shows this is a top reason for type 2 diabetes. Because of the rise in obesity among U.S. children, this type is affecting more teenagers.\" [2]Heart disease \"Coronary Heart DiseaseAs your body mass index rises, so does your risk for coronary heart disease (CHD). CHD is a condition in which a waxy substance called plaque (plak) builds up inside the coronary arteries. These arteries supply oxygen-rich blood to your heart.\" [3] The real question is does fat shaming work? I contend tat fat shaming in an ineffective method of reducing obesity. In fact, fat shaming have the opposite effect. I will also give an alternative to fat shaming. II. Main argument Fat shaming has been proven to be ineffective. Both through scientific and anecdotal evidence. I know plenty of obese people in my life that have been fat shamed. They are still obese. Here's some scientific evidence \"CONCLUSIONS:Our results indicate that rather than encouraging people to lose weight, weight discrimination promotes weight gain and the onset of obesity. Implementing effective interventions to combat weight stigma and discrimination at the population level could reduce the burden of obesity.\" [4] Instead, people need to be educated on the causes of obesity. Overeating is one cause but there are many others. Also, there are dietary tricks like eating high fiber foods to help curve appetite. Fiber \"It has been suggested that sufficient fiber in the diet will tend to prevent excessive food intake\" [5] Sleep \"Thus, rodent obesity models also support an association between sleep and obesity.Improving sleep quality may be a clinical tool to treat obese individuals.\" [6]. Exercise \" Not exercising in a given week was associated with a 35% incidence of obesity. Exercising for 30 minutes, 1-2 days a week, was associated with a 28% incidence of obesityHowever, the survey also showed that those who exercised every day were slightly more likely to be obese (20%) than those who say they exercised five or six days (19%).\" [7]III. Conclusion In lieu of fat shaming education needs to be provided to everyone. Not just obese people. This way no discrimination takes place. Furthermore, many people I know that were young and normal weight are now extremely overweight. By taking a preemptive strike against obesity via education for normal weight people we eliminate shame. IV. Links1. http://www.cancer.gov...2. http://www.webmd.com...3. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov...4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...5. http://ajcn.nutrition.org...6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...7. http://www.webmd.com...", "title": "More People Should Fat-Shame Women", "pid": "ab908431-2019-04-18T13:57:08Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 211.79574584960938}, {"text": "The current social situation that America is in is only the tip of the iceberg. 65 % of American adults suffer from obesity and 1 in 3 children are obese. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. last year was $147 billion. Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer, some of the leading causes of preventable death. Obesity is no longer just a social concern. If obesity continues to rise in the future then it will impact business productivity, the economy, housing, transport. It will change our future for the worst. However just like with issues such as smoking and child mortality persistent efforts create an impact. This epidemic is now part of the American culture .Children are growing up not knowing about healthy eating habits. Findings from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics suggest that kids ages 2-18 get most of their calories from two foods groups: Milk, Cakes/cookies/quick bread/pastry/pie. Their fat comes mainly from cheese and from crackers/popcorn/pretzels/chips. As these children grow up, this core issue subjects itself into a cycle where communities not making healthy choices, not in the sense that they don\"t know about basic nutrition such as a candy bar being worse than a carrot but, in the sense of including variety, correct portion sizes and moderation. To say that obesity is an issue of willpower is no longer viable because if we look around at the food being given to our generation absolutely everything we eat (apart from fruit and vegetables contains fat and sugar). American are constantly exposed to toxin foods that are affordable (a lot more than fresh fruit and vegetables), heavily promoted, and good tasting. If people don\"t know the correct methods to ensure healthy eating habits then there is no way obesity can be overcome. There is a clear disconnection between what is and what should be and the way this can changed is by providing more effect tools and creating harmony between communities and the government. Communities need to be continual informed of the advantages of a healthy lifestyle and the realistic ways they can obtain it. Kelly Ward a professor of psychology, epidemiology, and public health at Yale University suggests this: subsidize the cost of healthy foods, so they cost less; increase the cost of bad foods, so they cost more; regulate food advertising aimed at children; and develop more opportunities for people to be more physically active\". In 2010 a study was released by The Trust for American Health that stated that 80% of Americans recognised that obesity was an issue. In the 5 years since, communities have been working to actively engage more people into physical activity (through programmes such as Shape Up) as well as obtain healthier eating habits. How do we do this if Americans do not get the help they need? People need to have the tools, the knowledge, the assistance and guidance to be able to make the change. Intervention must occur to break the cycle we are in. https://www.cspinet.org... http://www.usatoday.com... http://www.psychologytoday.com...", "title": "Should Americans get help beating obesity.", "pid": "c4eaae9b-2019-04-18T15:22:52Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.79286193847656}, {"text": "If you have seen documentaries such as FED UP then you know that it is not only just a genetic problem. Children are growing up with their staple food being highly processed, high in fat and high in sugar. What choice do they have if that is all they are being shown and fed since they open their eyes? I am not defending the fact that it is alright for them to be obese but society should and could be doing a lot more such as creating awareness about healthy eating, good food practices and exercise. People need to intervene. In the documentary FED UP a bill was trying to be passed to stop unhealthy food being served however someone prevented pizza from falling under this bill because it contained tomato sauce which to some company counted as a vegetable. How much more ridiculous can it get? Not as ridiculous as the fact that heart disease is the number one biggest killer in the world and obesity the leading cause. Companies like this are controlling what our children eat and it can be clearly seen that they don't care about what happens to them. Obesity is a disease . It is a social responsibility that we help our next generation free themselves from the cycle To your point about 'Pro-fat' what really do you mean when you say people don't want to see reality? The reality that they see is a very different reality we see which is, once again, why they need help to be able to see what is right and make the suitable change", "title": "Should Americans get help beating obesity.", "pid": "c4eaae9b-2019-04-18T15:22:52Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.79071044921875}, {"text": "I would take the time to make my resolution that people with a healthier weight in American society are oppressed more than those with an unhealthy weight. My arguments stem from the weight acceptance movement in America which attempts to normalize unhealthy eating habits. The more people accept unhealthy lifestyles, the more unhealthy people there will be. The more unhealthy people there are, the chances of seeing other healthy people on the street becomes more rare. The more rare a type becomes, the less chances of being able to associate with a type besides ourselves becomes. So, we cannot have true freedom of association. Those with a healthier weight are becoming more rare in American society, therefore that particular type of group must be oppressed. In addition, no government action to reduce the issue has seen results. On the other side, you see obesity being promoted as something of a crutch that doesn't need attention, such as the welfare carts at Walmart. It sounds more accepted, therefore there are more people with obesity every day in America.", "title": "People with healthy weight in American society are oppressed more than obese people", "pid": "745edcc5-2019-04-18T18:16:38Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.78440856933594}, {"text": "First of all, I would like to say that you are right, good job man. However, there is one point with what i disagree. You are saying that an obese man is eating way too much. This is not true at all. Majority( not everyone) who are suffering from obesity are ill people, because their digestion system are working slowly to digest food, this could be because of gender. There is nothing to do when it is a gendery illness, because no matter how hard you work to loose a weight- there's no outcome. In my opinion, this question is over, I mean that we didn't need to go on about this topic, because you mostly right as i do. It was nice to talk to you.", "title": "how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments", "pid": "445d9e6e-2019-04-18T17:14:03Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.7835693359375}, {"text": "Yes but smoking also causes lung cancer and Pregnancy growing slowing down No evidence is needed to just search or look at a smoke packet to see both theses results", "title": "Smoking is as bad a Obesity", "pid": "d4a2b65c-2019-04-18T18:00:36Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.7542266845703}, {"text": "\"Yes but smoking also causes lung cancer and Pregnancy growing slowing down\"? Grammar? AGAIN?Obesity and smoking are equal", "title": "Smoking is as bad a Obesity", "pid": "d4a2b65c-2019-04-18T18:00:36Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.7530059814453}, {"text": "Skinny people also have the chance to gain weight by eating more and exercising less. But on the other hand it is also possible for obese people to eat less and exercise more. Anorexia and obesity are both terrible sicknesses but there are many ways to cure those sicknesses.", "title": "Obesity", "pid": "605392ad-2019-04-18T17:01:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.72647094726562}, {"text": "Obesity is everyones fault overall, but the temptation is brought by the companies who create the food. They lure people in. If the temptation wasn't there, then no one would have the urge to eat their food. The children are being hypnotized into being unhealthy.", "title": "Food industries and corporations are the main problem in the obesity of children", "pid": "afd15b2a-2019-04-18T18:23:25Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.72250366210938}, {"text": "Thanks for the clarification. First of, my opponent gives me a source to a wikipedia article that defines \"fat\" in an lengthy format. I noticed that in the beginning of it it said that \"fat\" means \" having more body fat than is optimally healthy\". Here is the definition of living: living: having life; being alive; not dead; in a healthy state To be alive we all need to have health. My own opponent's source states that those who are obese are not optimally healthy. Here is a list of the top eight oldest people recorded: 1. Jeanne Calment: aged 122 years Was not obese 2. Shigechiyo Izumi: aged 120 years Was not obese 3. Sarah Knauss: aged 119 years Was not obese 4. Lucy Hannah- aged 117 years Was not obese 5. Marie-Louise Meilleur Unknown 6. Mar�a Capovilla-aged 115 years Was not obese 7. Tane Ikai- aged 116 years Was not obese 8. Elizabeth Bolde- aged 114 years Was not obese 9. Carrie C. White- Many other claims have been made, and this list does not include those living. In fact, most people on this list were relativly thin. Here is a list of diseases commonly aquired with being overweight: ■Type 2 Diabetes ■Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke ■Metabolic Syndrome ■Cancer ■Sleep Apnea ■Osteoarthritis ■Gallbladder Disease ■Fatty Liver Disease ■Pregnancy Complications Heart disease is one of the most died-from disease in the USA. A disease, often gotton from being fat. Long life, huh? Woman often commit suicide over being overweight. This typically happens at an age between 13-40 years. Thats enough for now. I am too interested to see your arguments than to make more of mine. Type away.", "title": "Fat people live longer than skinny people.", "pid": "4365c705-2019-04-18T19:13:33Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.7060089111328}, {"text": "True, to say \"America is obese\" is a generalization, but the best way to judge a country's obesity rate is by comparison. The U.S. in 1800 was very wealthy, but in today's world their standard of living would be lower than most developed nations. Like wealth, obesity rates are considered high or low in a relative way. There is no absolute threshold for what would make a country \"obese\", but it is evident that something is causing the U.S. to pull ahead of the competition when it comes to obesity in first-world nations.While I will not argue about policy implications, since that is not the topic of debate, I will reject the notion that obesity in America does not affect the whole country. Obesity cost $190 billion in health care expenses in 2005 [1] and could reach $344 billion by 2018 [2]. This means higher health insurance premiums for many non-obese Americans.Another concern regarding America's obesity rate is how it affects children. Childhood obesity is clearly on the rise: It is arguable that obesity is a choice for many adults, but lack of concern for a child's health can cause them many problems that the child was likely not aware would result from obesity. This includes negative health affects, as well as the potential for bullying and poor self-esteem. Obesity does indeed correlate with self-reported emotional issus: And to pass these on to the next generation willingly would be irresponsible.America is an obese nation and it is worth addressing.Sources:1) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...2) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...", "title": "America is NOT obese.", "pid": "8662c54-2019-04-18T17:31:23Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.70277404785156}, {"text": "Obviously this person is not educated on the subject and has failed trying to prove alcoholism is a disease over my claim that it is in fact an addiction to alcohol.", "title": "Alcoholism is not a disease!", "pid": "de2f5531-2019-04-18T15:07:10Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.6782989501953}, {"text": "I fully understand my opponents points, my reply would be that YES. Most of the people who or maybe morbidly obese, yes are Freaking huge because they eat a ton or don't work or just sit there i will not deny you that because then i will be lying on the facts. But also wouldn't you think that the people you so call needing \"rehabilitated into society through a work-house based program. \" Shouldn't they be able to just say 'NO! Yes we would all have better health, dignity, self-esteem. But my opponent fails to explain to you what these three things are. Self-Esteem: self-esteem reflects a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of her or his own worth. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs (for example, \"I am competent/incompetent\") and emotions (for example, triumph/despair, pride/shame). Behavior may reflect self-esteem (for example, assertiveness/timorousness, confidence/caution). . http://en.wikipedia.org... dignity: the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect; \"it was beneath his dignity to cheat\"; \"showed his true dignity when under pressure\" Health: a healthy state of wellbeing free from disease; \"physicians should be held responsible for the health of their patients\" . http://www.google.com... As my second standing point doctors have said that it is possible and has been proven that obesity is majorly caused by a genetic issue my evidence stand with: \"It is wrong to place all the blame for a child's excessive weight gain on the parents - it is more likely to be due to the child's genetic susceptibility\" -Professor Jane Wardle University College London \" Even if someone has a gene which predisposes them to obesity, it doesn't mean they will become obese if they work hard to eat healthily\" Tam Fry Child Growth Foundation . http://news.bbc.co.uk...", "title": "It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on greedy fat scroungers", "pid": "6e81aa86-2019-04-18T19:35:34Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.6642608642578}, {"text": "Again, by saying \"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder\" I was referring to different weight preferences for romantic partners or aesthetic attraction. You are right that eating more calories that you burn is destructive, but I fail to see how that is \"shame\" ful. Yes it puts your health at risk, and society looks down on that, but honestly its a part of humanity. Society has set unrealistic beauty standers that are ridiculous, such as having clear skin, being a certain weight, or having a certain hair color or style. However, all those things are what make us diverse and special, the human body is a beautiful. You cant summarize everyone's preference on over weight people, because a lot of people have different beauty standers that are different from society's. But since obesity and the classification of being over weight are technically two different things, parts of this argument are invalid.", "title": "Overweight people cannot be beautiful.", "pid": "e1952864-2019-04-18T12:16:12Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.6388702392578}, {"text": "Deregulation is like trying to play a game of football without a referee. Government can't demand that people take responsibility for things that they have no control over, especially when ordinary citizens are against big business that has huge amounts of money to spend lobbying in it's interest (making money and nothing else) while people are left without a defence against the negative effects of deregulation. Obesity isn't entirely the responsibility of a particular person, it should be treated as a disease like any other. “For an increasing number of people, weight gain is the inevitable – and largely involuntary – consequence of exposure to a modern lifestyle. This is not to dismiss personal responsibility altogether, but to highlight a reality: that the forces that drive obesity are, for many people, overwhelming.” [[Government Office for Science, 2007. Tackling Obesities: Future Choices. Project Report, 2nd Edition. http://www.foresight.gov.uk/Obesity/17.pdf%5D%5D Why do people need to take responsibility for themselves in the first place? Telling people that they should have to take into account every possible consequence of their actions is both unfair on them and unneccessary. Where an action has consequent effects on other people (such as carbon emissions causing global warming) that an individual can't neccessarily foresee or take into account, we need the Government to step in and regulate to avoid those external harms.", "title": "People need to take responsibility for themselves", "pid": "7e68c5b8-2019-04-19T12:47:02Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.62709045410156}, {"text": "I do agree that some obese people have diseases, like many thin people have anorexia. However, I don't agree with you that an obese person doesn't eat a lot. He does. I myself was over 150 pounds when I was only ten. I didn't have any illness or problem in my digestive system, I just ate and didn't do enough exercise at the end of the day to burn the calories I needed to stay I good shape. That's how people get obese, at least the majority of them. Later on they might get a disease relating to their digestive system due to the fact that they have had a long history of over eating and surrounding their whole body in fat, which is never healthy. Of course this doesn't go to all people, some have illnesses, some don't. On the other hand, I also disagree with you when you say that obese people no matter how hard they work there is no outcome. I've seen it happen, read, and heard about it. Out of the top of my head these are a few people who went from obese to thin. You don't have to watch the whole video, or read the whole article, just either read the headline or parts of it to get an idea:http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... These are two very inspirational people who have lost more than 400-650 pounds each naturally, with diet and dedication.It was a really nice debate :) If you have any other interesting debates in mind please do write my name in the opponent part ;)", "title": "how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments", "pid": "445d9e6e-2019-04-18T17:14:03Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.61911010742188}, {"text": "Sports will not help obesity because people want to be fat and eat food. This debate is just stupid. Vote for me or you\"re a Jew.", "title": "Sports and Obesity", "pid": "427a0855-2019-04-18T11:43:00Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.59814453125}, {"text": "And thank you for accepting! As side pro, I will be arguing that obesity is a serious problem that requires a solution, and government intervention is the answer. First, we must define what obesity is. Obesity is a growing problem in countries such as Canada, the U.S. Australia, and the U.K. [1] When a person is obese, not only are numerous health problems a direct result, [1] it causes a strain on economies where healthcare is public. [2] In summary, obesity is an extreme problem, damaging to health and the country's economy. It is obvious that this problem must be solved, so then the question falls to what action should be taken. Pro's side of the argument suggests government intervention. To reinforce this, I will use the example of tobacco smoking. Smoking cigarettes irrefutably is the cause of many illness, ranging from heart failure to lung cancer. Yet it was a growing trend for a large part of the 20th century. (Due to lack of information.) When information was present that showed cigarettes were damaging, the public refused to stop the habit. It was only when the government intervened, that things started to change. They raised the tax on cigarettes, which raised the price. They also began lengthy education programs in school, with the aim of education children on the horrible affects. [3] As a result, cigarette smoking has been on the decline since, and with it, many types of illness. In summary, government intervention was the solution for the national crisis which was smoking; individual intervention did not result in the decline of smoking. The above argument can be related to obesity as well. Information is now being shown on just how damaging being overweight really is. Yet, as of 2014, obesity is on the incline. A government is morally responsible to act in the best interest of it's society. That means introducing taxes, advertising programs, and health programs to reduce obesity. [1]http://www.worldometers.info... [2]http://www.yaleruddcenter.org... [3]http://www.euro.who.int...", "title": "The Government has a Responsibility to Combat Obesity", "pid": "69f186d6-2019-04-18T16:47:51Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.58912658691406}, {"text": "The world will be overrun by fat, plumper, sumo wrestler type obese people by 2050. With the abundance of food, the buffets, the high sugar content in food and drinks plus the lack of exercise by most people due to the constant sitting in front of computers and on social media and the fact that children do not play outside anymore, just on their devices, the human bodies will turn into obese fat plumpers for the general population. The obesity rate in the USA is already at 56%, as we become more globalized and McDonalds with their grease ball burgers and KFC with their greasy buckets of chicken infiltrate all countries, those countries will get into the same habit of eating crappy food and sitting on social media all day until we will have a world of sumo wrestlers. This is a global pandemic that will result in extinction of human kind through diabetes, heart disease, and other overweight problems.", "title": "The World will be overrun by fat plumpers aka Sumo Wrestlers", "pid": "cf3f8df7-2019-04-18T11:59:46Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.5797576904297}, {"text": "Because an obese person deviates far from what our societies deem attractive, people find it very easy to be cruel and close-minded and make a number of unwarranted assumptions about obese people. This is a chance to discuss facts. I appreciate Mr. Eggleston's concession that the facts are exactly as I have explained them. Unfortunately, he has introduced a sort of slippery slope argument that is ungrounded in the law and contrary to the facts. Starting with the latter, Mr. Eggleston claims that this case is the thin edge of the wedge. If he is still discussing the U. S. , as was his initial argument, this is contrary to the facts. As already set forth at reasonable length, the U. S. has taken obesity into account in determining eligibility for SSD for some time, and requires that obese people are offered reasonable accommodations so that they can stay employed. This is the think end of the wedge, and it is precisely the system that Mr. Eggleston claimed must not be changed. If he is disussing Europe, as pointed out there is already a vibrant welfare state in Europe. Going a step further, there is no reason to conclude that obesity and the effects of obesity, such as muscular-skeletal diseases, are not taken into account in determining whether a person is incapable of working and thus eligible for full or partial disability. In fact, Denmark itself may be at the thick end of the wedge, and a ruling that requires that accommodations are made to avoid the payment of partial or full disability is likely a boon. (. https://www.swisslife.com...) In short, the proposed slippery slope is contrary to the facts as admitted by Mr. Eggleston, and is illogical because there is no reason to suppose that keeping people employed sends anyone down the path to reliance on the welfare state. Proceding to the former, Mr. Eggleston's assumption that this ruling is precedent for an expansion of disability benefits is unwarranted. As pointed out in my original argument and sources, this cannot be true in the U. S. , where SSD for obesity-related condition long preceded the requirement of workplace accommodations. And, it may not be true in European countries, where by all appearances an obese person with related conditions that rendered him unable to work would already have been eligible for disabiity benefits. But, more importantly, Mr. Eggleston's assumption runs contrary to the way in which a judicial system based on precedent and the rule of law actually works. Courts make limited rulings, and have done so since time immemorial, without succumbing to the slippery slope, in large part because courts are in fact bound by the necessity of interpreting statutes. Here, disability due to an inability to work is completely different from disability requiring workplace accommodations, because of the simple logical reality that a person eligible for workplace accommodations is not eligible on a claim of inability to work. And, the inability to work one particular job does not qualify a person for disability benefits, rather, it is required that the person is permanently unable to work. (. http://www.ssa.gov...) So, the concept of a disability that requires a workplace accommodation is vastly removed from the concept of a disability that creates eligibility for benefits due to an inability to work. The two are not even remotely the same. Courts are aware of the distinction, and it is unreasonable to conclude that they will create a rule whereby people who by definition can work are thus eligible for benefits that require that they cannot work. As a parting shot after all of Mr. Eggleston's resistance to facts and logic, I will point out that in the U. S. (and likely elsewhere) it is already the case that persons who cannot walk long distances can obtain handicap decals, despite Mr. Eggleston's warnings about this being an eventuality of the decision. (. http://www.daytondailynews.com...) I wonder how we can fear Mr. Eggleston's bogeymen when he is blissfully unaware that they are walking about beneath his nose. Thanks for the debate.", "title": "The obese should not be entitled to disability benefits.", "pid": "c71893a8-2019-04-18T15:21:11Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.57839965820312}, {"text": "Childhood obesity is one of the most serious problem in the 21st Century. It is one of the Global problem and it is steadily affecting many Low, Middle and High income class families and their children all over the world. Overweight and Obese children are likely to stay obese into adulthood and likely to develop Non communicable diseases like Diabetes and Cardio -Vascular diseases at a younger age of Overweight and Obesity. These above causes are mainly based on the advertisements of junk foods from TV and from online Network and from other media that create and absorb children to eat junk foods which results in child obesity.", "title": "Should junk foods advertisements be banned to stop childhood obesity", "pid": "cb509540-2019-04-18T13:01:05Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.5763702392578}, {"text": "Nowadays there are so many warnings about the dangers of obesity that if a parent ignores these warnings it is out of choice. If a parent ignores any danger that could affect their child’s health then they are guilty of neglect and should be prosecutable offence. From experience, I can say that the problem is not as much ignoring the warnings as it is a failure to control the child. Parents are not so ignorant of the medical maladies because they do see and hear the warnings. But many parents are unable to deny their children. They see the obesity as less threatening than the possibility of losing the \"affection\" of the child. Parents typically do not want to be the \"bad guy\" who must enforce the rules of positive values and will, in more cases than not, allow the child to maintain a poor diet and eat too often. I am the stepfather of a mildly autistic male who is now 20 years old and roughly 380 lbs. I've seen this played out in person and I can confidently state that, until this allowance of bad vaules is changed, this problem will run even more rampantly. If parents are unwilling or simply unable to make the necessary changes then, perhaps it is time for the legal system to step in...they would if the child were being physically abused. I maintain that the outright allowance of obesity and its many maladies IS physical abuse and should be dealt with appropriately.", "title": "Ignoring the countless warnings about the dangers surrounding obesity is neglect and neglecting a child is a prosecutable offence", "pid": "e74fd589-2019-04-19T12:46:06Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 211.56324768066406}, {"text": "Thanks for accepting, I've been looking forward to this. DISCLAIMER: By no means am I attacking fat people, my argument is designed to find a way to help fat people. I believe shaming, to some degree will help. Please read through carefully and keep an open mind. I'm going to briefly explain how it's possible to compare fat people to drug users as I did. Then I will move onto my more interesting argument as to why \"we should shame fat people.\" Fat people can be compared to drug users because both drug users and fat people suffer from addiction. One addiction is to food and one is to drugs. Fat people over eat and drug users overdose. I don't dislike drug users, I simply recognise they have a problem, so do fat people. It was a minor comment that my opponent shouldn't have attacked, as he clearly doesn't understand what an analogy is. (a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.) I would certainly say that's a fair analogy. Lets move onto the actual argument. If you take the time to read through his argument, you will see my opponent agrees that fat people being fat is a problem and something must be done. What we disagree on is how it should be done XDM-\"that the health of any given citizen should be of paramount importance to them and that it affects the people around them\" Below I will explain my solution to the fat epidemic, and how we may help our over weight friends, family and relatives. In society we accept fat people. They, like you or I, are just ordinary people with a problem, some have even called the problem of being fat \"a self-inflicted disease\" Certainty being fat is not good, not by any means. For those who would believe being fat is good I will present a quick list of health problems caused by obesity. High blood pressure, cancer, stroke, heart disease, pregnancy problems and many more. The fact that these health problems affect the obese individual is bad enough, but it also affects many others. For instance here in England we have a national health service where health care is free, however many obese people are a drain on this service, which causes other patience to be left untreated or receive poor service. Many people die because ambulances can't reach patients in time, instead these ambulances are busy dealing with other people, many of whom are fat. Lives are lost because fat people clog up the health services, here in England it's a growing problem, as people keep growing. Clearly something needs to be done, but what? From this I hope we can all agree that people being fat is a problem for society and for the fat individuals. I'm a personal trainer and I used to be overweight, but I worked hard to lose much of my weight and I think others can do the same. In society we accept fat people, but some people like myself encourage them to lose weight, we, for many years have tried to motivate them, but the obesity rate is rising, so it\"s clear our encouragement is not enough. Keep in mind \"encouragement\" is a carrot method of motivating someone. For example \"JUST DO IT!\" Would be a carrot form of motivation, as it's positive, but is it enough to really help them lose weight? It seems that the problem with the carrot method is, fat people just eat the carrot and get fatter. In some cases the positive attention/encouragement that fat people get for being fat only motivates them to get fatter for more attention, it\"s a vicious cycle. So now the carrot has failed and been eaten, it's time for the stick. What is the stick you might ask? Ladies and gentlemen I present to you \"shame.\" We now understand, in some cases simply encouraging fat people only will only make them fatter. The fact that I want to point out is that obesity is rising. How can we constructively use shame (stick) to motivate fat people to lose weight? Below I will present my ideas. Use the word \"fat\" constructively by ensuring your tone is firm and serious. This will ensure the word \"fat\" and being fat is in bedded into the listener as a negative term. Thus allowing fat people to understand their condition is negative. Be a role model. Demonstrate to others how you are mentally in control of food, and how you choose to enjoy living the fat free life. Then give examples of where other \"fat\" people go wrong. After seeing a comparison like that, many people will see the dramatic difference between the two life-styles, and the shame associated with being fat, this should hit home that not just being fat, but the \"fat life-style\" is undesirable. Be proactive and deliver constructive fat warnings, nothing good should be said about being fat. If you observe loved ones becoming too fat, sit them down and explain your concern with a serious tone. You must let them know that what they\"re doing is wrong. Always explain why you are being anti-fat. If you are talking \"fat\" then it must always come from a good place. You are talking about it because you care. Being too fat is becoming a common occurrence for too many. Many try diets and fail badly. Perhaps fat shaming isn't so bad after all. This is just a small list I've come up with, as I'm trying to be pro-active with helping fat people. Just imagine the list we could come up with, if society worked together to apply constructive shame to motivating fat people to lose weight. I will close with a small conclusion and give you something to think about. we have tried the carrot method, yet obesity is rising. Now the carrot has failed we must resort to the stick and that's why shaming fat people constructively is something we should consider. If we don't motivate them who will? Call it tough love.", "title": "We should shame fat people.", "pid": "e4feb1b5-2019-04-18T12:43:31Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.55833435058594}, {"text": "Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pressure, cancer, heart diseases, diabetes etc. are the cause of over 50% of deaths in the Arab world. If a fat tax is introduced, fat consumption will fall as consumers save money by buying non-fatty foods. Lower fat and fat-free foods will abound and the society will benefit. Citizens will be leaner, healthier, happier and more productive.", "title": "Fat causes severe medical problems. Diseases connected with being overweight such as high blood pres...", "pid": "86362978-2019-04-19T12:46:42Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 211.55368041992188}, {"text": "Rebuttle:1. Parents who suffer from obesity are right to share this burden with children, regardless of the consequences. College age [aka adult] children deserve to know the truth, and the consequences their families may face. If this changes their decisions it is their own choice. 2. Bullies can see that a kid's parents are fat. Educating one's child about this disease puts bullying in context, and helps them understand. Teaching a child about your health condition is not burdening them.", "title": "Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems", "pid": "6327257c-2019-04-18T18:25:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.55250549316406}, {"text": "Thank you for starting the debate. So, we have a fat person. They are fat by their own doing, not by genetics. This is established. Now, we must reason why they're hating skinny people. What if they think that being fat is superior? What if they have different definitions of beauty? (Remember, during the Renaissance and before, more full-figured women were considered more attractive than skinny women.) What if they think of it that way? In that case, it's no different them then getting angry about ugly people. Now, that sounds kind of bad, but this is something everyone is guilty of at some point or another, whether they own up to it or not. If they have a different view of beauty and view skinny people as ugly, shouldn't they be able to express their opinions on what they view as physically unattractive? Other people do it all the time. Furthermore, assuming that they they are speaking down at skinny people because of envy. But what if they don't like people with anorexia or bulimia? Now, true that talking bad about people with eating disorders seems mean, but then we're going to have to condemn half of America's comedians. Anorexia and bulimia are eating disorders just like obesity. And these disorders are all self-inflicted. the original source is from the victim themselves. So, if a fat person decides to talk bad about skinny people because of these eating disorders, it's no different than when a healthy person talks bad about people for being obese. In fact, it actually might be better. Why? Because an obese person has first-hand experience with an eating disorder. They know how dangerous it can be. They could, quite logically, despise other people with eating disorders, because they want people to be more responsible, since they know how bad it can get. It's like a drug addict not wanting someone to start using heroin, because he knows how bad it can get. There's even further reasons why an obese individual should be able to speak out against skinny people. we would all like to live in a world where people aren't teased and put down, but that isn't so. A lot of obese people are ridiculed because of their weight. A lot for them try to lose weight when this happens, but still can't. and they keep getting teased. Now, their is only one natural reaction to this: resentment. If a group of people teases you every day, you're eventually going to hate them, and you're eventually going to speak about it. You should negate the resolution on this point, because here the \"normal skinny people\" are bringing it on themselves. Finally, I give you the freedom of speech argument. Even if it's completely unjustified, even if what they're saying is completely stupid, they should have the right to say it. It's not hurting anyone for them to express their opinion (so long as they're not teasing anyone about it and as long as they're not endangering anyone else by doing so), so they're only making themselves look stupid by expressing an unfounded opinion. If someone wants to make a fool of themselves, let them. This will give us a good indication of who the stupid people are, and it will tell us who to put our confidences into. And even if you disagree with someone, you shouldn't want to keep them from expressing their opinion. For example, I disagree with you. However, I'm not saying that you shouldn't say what you want, I'm simply debating what you're saying. Freedom of speech and expression is one of the most valuable freedoms we have It gives us a plurality of ideas which is priceless. As Voltaire said, \"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.\" I have given you FOUR INDEPENDENT REASONS to vote CON. My opponent should have to successfully refute all of them. Otherwise, you default CON. Good luck. :)", "title": "People who are obese by their own neglegence should not say how much they despise thin people.", "pid": "648b32e-2019-04-18T19:45:35Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.5357208251953}, {"text": "I agree that childhood obesity is rising, but that is the parents' problem. Not everybody else's. If the parent thinks the child is too overweight, then they can do something, not concern the rest of America with it. And most of the time, with the negative emotions, it's because if they're feeling depressed, or stressed, or sad, or anything else negative, they'll just sit on their lazy a$$es and stare at the TV all day, thinking \"Oh, whoa is me. I'm getting fat because I'm depressed.\" You know what, no, they're not getting fat because they're depressed. They're getting fat because they're LAZY.", "title": "America is NOT obese.", "pid": "8662c54-2019-04-18T17:31:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.5333709716797}, {"text": "Deadly: Drugs and smoking still kill more people than obesity. Not to mention automobile accidents. The world is very dangerous and you are more likely to die from a different reason then obesity. In shape: Where did you see that definition? The problem with that definition is when people are proportionally larger. Theoretically there can be a guy with a six pack and still have a 40 inch waist. That is why fat percentages are used. Unhealthy: What do you mean by unhealthy? America is one of the healthiest due to our healthcare and various laws regarding sanitation and pollution. Conclusion: Being fat is not glamorized nor will be in the for see able future. I apologize if I misunderstood your point. From the evidence you provided I do not believe being fat will be glamorized but the free choice of others will be. Thank you for the debate", "title": "Fatness", "pid": "3c486e0b-2019-04-18T16:34:39Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 211.51512145996094}, {"text": "For clarification, the title is really asking: does the government have a responsibility attempt to combat obesity, and their citizens lack of exercise, through legislation, changing curriculum, advertising, etc. Or does the responsibility fall solely on the individual?", "title": "The Government has a Responsibility to Combat Obesity", "pid": "69f186d6-2019-04-18T16:47:51Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 211.5063018798828}, {"text": "A healthier body weight is necessary to be able to treat the patient’s psychological problems. Studies in Minnesota show that when normal volunteers were starved, they began to development anorectic patterns. They over-estimated the sizes of their own faces by approximately 50%. This shows the impact of starvation on the brain.", "title": "A healthier body weight is necessary to be able to treat the patient’s psychological problems. Studi...", "pid": "db8506ce-2019-04-19T12:47:17Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 211.49473571777344}, {"text": "My opinion is that parents should be blamed for their child's obesity, whether it be partially or fully, they do influence their child's weight. The parents of children are the ones who provide food for them, so they have direct control of what their child is consuming, so they should be able to help their child maintain a healthy weight. Parents also have control over what their children do, resulting in the fact that parents could enroll their child in an excersize program or at least stop them from sitting around inside all day. This debate is not focused on those who gain weight due to disease; it is focusing on children becoming obese due to food consumption.", "title": "Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity", "pid": "636669d7-2019-04-18T19:49:10Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 211.4910430908203}, {"text": "I accept and look forward to your first arguments!", "title": "Poverty is becoming one of the leading causes of obesity in children and young adults today.", "pid": "e17f5669-2019-04-18T18:02:16Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 211.49008178710938}, {"text": "The CDC (2012) defines obese as being over 200lbs and less than 6ft tall. Most stocky men are \"obese\", and you are saying that their weight makes them incapable of parenting, when it doesn't even prohibit them from playing sports in most cases. Also 1/3rd of Americans are obese (CDC), what youre suggesting would take children away from 30% of our country and put them in foster care. Obesity is a consequence of a national disregard for diet, not immorality.", "title": "Parents shouldnt burden their children with their obesity problems", "pid": "6327257c-2019-04-18T18:25:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 211.48898315429688}, {"text": "Thank you brian_eggleston, for this debate. First off, the majority of overweight people do not become grossly obese because of \"hormone disorders\", but rather because of over eating and lack of exercise. Yes, a select few of them actually have disorders that makes them obese, but almost all of them become fat by their own unhealthy choices in life. I do not feel sorry for them, because they brought it upon themselves, and the chances of them having a hormone disorder (the most common is in the thyroid) is around 1 and 25 (being conservative), and you can't just assume every fat person you see has this. Also, standing in a crowded train is good for the obese person's health, instead of letting them sit down and devour another Big Mac. And besides, how do you know there is not a problem with the healthy gentlemen? What if he's depressed, just been fired, sprained his ankle, or ill? This happens to many people, yet no one feels bad for every man they see on a train and gives up their seat for them, so why should we all just assume that every fat person we see has a disorder? I'd also like to point out that while there is obesity in developing nations, the highest amounts of obesity are still in developed countries like America, UK, New Zealand and Australia, I wonder why. Thank you sources- http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... http://www.thyroidproblems.net...", "title": "Gentlemen should offer their seats to the obese on crowded trains", "pid": "e99ff5b0-2019-04-18T18:41:05Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.4762420654297}, {"text": "You considered nothing I said: Diet is an expensive thing to maintain in some areas. Over 23 million Americans live in a food desert, meaning an area, usually urban, in which it is difficult to by affordable fresh food. And half of those 23 million people are low-income, so they will not have much time for exercise either. When both those intersect in a food desert, obesity is imminent. You may have bananas in your area for pretty cheap, and it's great that it's not expensive to be healthy where you are, but in some areas it is. I don't deny your facts about obesity and preventable disease, and it is a problem, but why are the people suffering from it being much more criticized instead of the local governments for allowing the food deserts to form and stay. Instead of reactive people like you, people have taken a proactive approach to this, building local community gardens with free fresh for for everybody. There are still many people in areas with well-established food security, and to tackle that problem, we once again we don't attack the people affected by unhealthy eating and bad exercise, instead tackling the problem at the source, whatever it may be. By helping these communities and creating a new cultural attitude instead of demeaning them and expecting them to fix themselves on their own, we can finally eradicate the problem. And before making these claims, understand what causes obesity and how it could realistically be fixed. All caps doesn't make you more dominant or correct in this debate. It is showing your adamance towards the second opinion. Sources: https://www.dosomething.org...", "title": "Diet and exersise!!!", "pid": "7b734685-2019-04-18T11:48:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.47227478027344}]}
{"idx": 30, "qid": "32", "q_text": "Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?", "qrels": {"70acc403-2019-04-18T14:33:51Z-00009-000": 0, "70acc403-2019-04-18T14:33:51Z-00001-000": 0, "70acc403-2019-04-18T14:33:51Z-00007-000": 0, "68fec0d0-2019-04-18T19:14:41Z-00006-000": 0, "68fec0d0-2019-04-18T19:14:41Z-00007-000": 0, "70acc403-2019-04-18T14:33:51Z-00005-000": 0, "651b1111-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00009-000": 0, "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00014-000": 2, "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00020-000": 1, "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00004-000": 1, "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00019-000": 0, "337b3aee-2019-04-18T16:22:29Z-00003-000": 0, "45121256-2019-04-18T18:50:06Z-00005-000": 2, "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00009-000": 1, "651b1111-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00016-000": 0, "5f3b3c6d-2019-04-19T12:44:37Z-00027-000": 0, "538dd198-2019-04-18T18:14:33Z-00005-000": 0, "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00010-000": 0, "fff4a963-2019-04-18T12:39:15Z-00000-000": 0, "f2c72c91-2019-04-18T19:54:40Z-00000-000": 0, "419ec682-2019-04-18T12:10:32Z-00001-000": 0, "dfd4164c-2019-04-19T12:44:12Z-00010-000": 0, "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00027-000": 0, "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00000-000": 0, "be96fc73-2019-04-18T17:02:03Z-00005-000": 0, "b39faaa3-2019-04-18T14:35:17Z-00000-000": 0, "ae578f50-2019-04-18T15:05:12Z-00003-000": 0, "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00004-000": 0, "5022c09c-2019-04-18T17:31:45Z-00003-000": 0, "c0900fa2-2019-04-18T13:00:22Z-00006-000": 0, "750f1586-2019-04-18T19:47:50Z-00001-000": 0, "651b1111-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00054-000": 0, "18a26ffe-2019-04-18T14:23:17Z-00005-000": 0, "790c6317-2019-04-18T14:20:46Z-00002-000": 0, "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00024-000": 0, "1a2ffdd3-2019-04-18T15:08:28Z-00003-000": 0, "790c6317-2019-04-18T14:20:46Z-00001-000": 0, "87602c6-2019-04-19T12:44:16Z-00002-000": 0, "8f6f694e-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00040-000": 0, "8fa5c306-2019-04-18T18:47:35Z-00004-000": 0, "93844764-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00003-000": 0, "9acf5a44-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00038-000": 0, "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00017-000": 2, "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00016-000": 2, "8f6f694e-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00066-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Voting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that ‘hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data’ recorded by the machines[1]. In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election[2]. Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html,, accessed 24/08/11", "title": "Efficiency", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 217.68453979492188}, {"text": "The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote[1]. A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run[2]. Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes[3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state. [1] http://www.tiresias.org/research/guidelines/e_voting.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000313, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/diebold-audit-l/, accessed 24/08/11", "title": "Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 216.65032958984375}, {"text": "Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries. Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1] [1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting", "title": "Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever.", "pid": "e6af11b5-2019-04-15T20:22:52Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 216.15060424804688}, {"text": "The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting[1][2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren’t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out[3]. If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to ‘find, retrieve and evaluate’ information found electronically[4]. It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are ‘most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer’[5]. 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet[6]; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression[7], which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/electronic-voting-machine_n_141119.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550650/, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [7] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11", "title": "Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 216.04641723632812}, {"text": "In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote[1]. In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote[2]. Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend[3]. When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations[4]. As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’[5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home[6][7]. [1] http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, accessed 22/08/11 [3] http://www.euractiv.com/en/elections/voter-turnout-european-election-lower/article-117868, accessed 22/08/11. [4] https://files.nyu.edu/tsc223/public/ElectronicVoting.pdf, accessed 25/08/11 [5] http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11 [6] In the USA: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/whynotvote.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [7] In the UK: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11", "title": "Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 215.65061950683594}, {"text": "Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible", "title": "allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 215.62368774414062}, {"text": "Efficiency", "title": "allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.5419921875}, {"text": "Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise[1], Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8497014.stm#list, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules04/security/students/SS8.pdf, accessed 24/08/11", "title": "Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 215.5044708251953}, {"text": "Hello Cosmojarvis, I will be taking the con side, arguing against the resolution. Good luck, Cosmojarvis! Main Argument: Although it is not good to see lower voter turnouts, and is concerning, I believe it is no cause to lower the standards. Think of the potential consequences that could arise from removing some or all of the voting qualifications. Instead of having only those who are experienced debaters (three debates) voting, removing this requirement could cause many non-serious voters to cast biased votes, or \"vote bomb\". Although it would be nicer to have many voters, we would risk causing a degradation of the quality of material on Debate.org. When debating, we should consider the opinion of one person who is vetted and experienced more valuable than the opinion of one who is not. In addition , there are other ways to attract voters that are not so dangerous. For one, Debate,org could advertise its debate voting feature more. It could also remove the most privacy invasive requirement that asks for a phone number Even though it is not ideal to have few voters, it is best not to reduce quality standards.", "title": "Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote", "pid": "3189383-2019-04-18T12:29:02Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.48971557617188}, {"text": "Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise", "title": "allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.4495391845703}, {"text": "Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability", "title": "allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.44110107421875}, {"text": "If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo.", "title": "Democratisation", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00027-000", "bm25_score": 215.28411865234375}, {"text": "Compulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote 1. People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled. Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain.  This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary. 1 Peter Tucker, The median Australian voter and the values that influence their vote choice presented by the author at the 3rd European Consortium for Political Research Conference in Budapest, September 10, 2005. improve this  ", "title": "It will cause more people to become interested in politics", "pid": "4ce497c-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 215.256103515625}, {"text": "The electoral college may have made sense many years ago when it took weeks to hand deliver votes by horseback to Washington, DC but it no longer makes sense. With today's technology it is possible to tally everyone's vote quickly and securely. Unfortunately, the current implementation of electronic voting is lacking from a security perspective but that shouldn't affect the scope of this debate as it could be fixed and implemented using current technology. Giving more power to residents of Wyoming over the residents of California is simply not fair. Each and every american is as much as American as the other one and each of their vote should be counted equally regardless of any state borders. Of course California should have more influence as it contains many more Americans than Wyoming. While states can and should regulate themselves, when it comes to our nation, we are all the same. As far as susceptibility to manipulation and corruption, with proper multi-factor authentication, authorization, cryptography and other strong security controls being used, a modern system can be significantly more trustworthy than this archaic system. The current system rely on trusting people which are often shown to be corrupt [1]. Using blockchain technology to vote could be used to provide much more secure voting with built-in validation vs. the current system [2]. In addition, as you have stated, 1% of electors sometime do not vote per their constituents which is 1% too much. A properly designed, vetted, tested and peer reviewed algebraic solution to voting would represent the will of the people 100% of the time. In conclusion, the electoral college had a purpose that it no longer serves. By switching to a better and more secure system, the will of the people would be respected 100% of the time and the risk of tampering with election results would be significantly reduced. Sources: http://www.politico.com... [1] https://followmyvote.com... [2]", "title": "The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system.", "pid": "b9c7eff8-2019-04-18T12:18:17Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.1492462158203}, {"text": "Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster[1], and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system[2]. For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error – and actually changed the outcome of the election[3]. The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate[4] – yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption. [1] http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/Promise_and_Pitfalls_of_Electronic_Voting.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/votecounts.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11", "title": "Efficiency", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 215.13003540039062}, {"text": "If voting were conducted electronically, we would have no guarantee that an individual’s vote was privately and freely made. Instead, voting becomes open to manipulation where the head of the household, or another figure, may cast votes for others to try and ensure their preferred outcome. Indeed, under the status quo there are still instances of organised corruption where votes are sold or bullied out of people[1][2], despite the fact that this was the exact reason that the secret ballot was originally introduced[3]. Electronic voting would just take corruption further out of our hands by hiding it from public view; this would be detrimental to democratic process. [1] http://www.usip.org/files/MC1/MC1-Part2Section15.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03667.pdf , accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8ujf3YM9AfwC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=secret+ballot+prevent+corruption&source=bl&ots=6Z5cAyLtLe&sig=-yPKNj6ikiTouVLKSthPmYbBtEA&hl=en&ei=mj9VTufACMeKhQehwJWkBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=secret%20ballot%20prevent%20corruption&f=false, accessed 24/08/11", "title": "Engagement with democracy", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00029-000", "bm25_score": 215.11129760742188}, {"text": "Our understanding of online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11", "title": "Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 215.08609008789062}, {"text": "I agree with Cosmojarvis that \"low voter turnout is a problem that we must tackle.\" However, as I previously stated, I believe that there are better ways to do this than doing what would probably lead to a large collection of meaningless voters, troll voting, and vote bombing. Even with a highly capable moderation team, there may just be to many cases to handle. Pro says that, \"there should be more ways to register as a voter such as submitting one's email and give them a verification code...\". When you sign up on debate.org, you already give your E-mail address so that you can see notifications. The Debate.org moderators need a method to hold voters to accountability. Making voters give a phone number is a way to make sure that they are serious voters. Pro also says that, \"I am certain that creating a campaign to teach people to vote will be ineffective...\". I am not so certain. I think that a diligent, well designed campaign to teach people how to vote and streamlining the look, appeal, and process of registering would increase the number of voters. I think that by doing nothing about this problem , Debate.org risks losing popularity to other debate forums. However, there are other ways to boost usage that do not lower the quality standards of this great website.", "title": "Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote", "pid": "3189383-2019-04-18T12:29:02Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.04718017578125}, {"text": "It appears that my opponent's only true objection is the possibility of hacking. In the first round, I stated that such a system could be created and regularly updated to prevent intrusion from pirates and hackers, thereby dismantling my opponent's only objection. As such, no new evidence is admissible. The benefits clearly outweigh the cons. My opponent agreed on several points, at least in theory, that this is indeed a good concept. With the sole objection addressed and countered, and concurrence with my ideals, I respectfully request an Affirmative ballot. Thanks.", "title": "Online voting should replace traditional voting.", "pid": "93844764-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.94085693359375}, {"text": "Modernisation", "title": "allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 214.93402099609375}, {"text": "A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. The outcome of the election reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).", "title": "Compulsory voting reduces power of lobbying groups.", "pid": "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00055-000", "bm25_score": 214.87960815429688}, {"text": "Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11", "title": "Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00019-000", "bm25_score": 214.87173461914062}, {"text": "Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government[1]. Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy[2]. The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern[3]. [1] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.independentliaison.com.au/Independent_values.html, accessed 24/08/11", "title": "Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 214.83680725097656}, {"text": "Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion", "title": "allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.7847442626953}, {"text": "Voter apathy", "title": "allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.76499938964844}, {"text": "Democratisation", "title": "allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.7518310546875}, {"text": "Computer literacy is constantly on the rise[1][2]. In state-run secondary schools, children are provided with information and technology classes which helps to bridge any existing divide[3], and there are discussions about extending these lessons to primary schools. Easily-accessible community classes are also available to seniors[4][5]. Moreover, given the opportunity to save money through electronic voting rather than having to pay for polling station venues, manual vote counters and so on, this money could easily be redirected to provide computer lessons for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or to funnel into state libraries and public computer resources. This mechanism is a much more efficient way of making sure that everybody is able to participate. [1] Children in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/5223192.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] In the USA: http://computerliteracyusa.web.officelive.com/default.aspx [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7770469.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [4] Across the USA: http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/computer_classes/Computer_Training_Classes_User_Groups.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [5] In the UK: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/work-and-learning/, accessed 24/08/11", "title": "Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 214.69601440429688}, {"text": "Rules: No word play on semantics. No specific format. If you accept, please present a case and don't just forfeit. Thanks in advance! I affirm the resolution. C-1: Many entities use various forms of online voting with success. Examples include Major League Baseball All Stars, and Debate.org (Sources www.mlb.com & www.debate.org) The basic premise requires a person to log in and vote. Failsafe measures to prevent fraud would be 1 vote per SSN. The Social Security Administration has dates of birth on file. Thus, it stands to reason that persons 18 and older could vote one time. C-2: Numerous elections have had questionable results and recounts, most notably that of Florida or Iran. Such a system would likely alleviate inaccurate vote counting as it would be done electronically, and tallied as the votes occur. C-3: Absentee voting has it's share of potential debacles as well. Online voting alleviates the process of mailing ballots, having them marked, mailed back, opened and counted. C-4: Elderly and shut in voters may not get the opportunity to vote traditionally. Having access online would enable them to have a better opportunity to vote. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliability & inaccessibility of traditional voting, it passes the common sense test to switch to online voting. It is possible to create a reliable program that would be protected against hackers and pirates, that would not only simplify, but also uncomplicate the entire voting process. Further, greater accessibility suggests that more registered voters would actually vote, which is the very essence of what a democracy is intended to be. Many people fought for the rigth to vote, thus we have the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendmentst o our national constitution. Thank you!", "title": "Online voting should replace traditional voting.", "pid": "93844764-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.6480255126953}, {"text": "Hello Sheety! This is my first debate here so it\"s a pleasure to do it with you! If I make any mistakes with my presentation please let me know. Onto my argument. Voting is the essential basis of a democratic government; it ensures that the people are fairly represented so that the best leader can be found. It is essential that in a democratic society all of its members are represented equally, however my opponent would seem to disagree with this simple fact, stating that \"if they can't come to vote they do not deserve to vote\". This means that people or peoples who have busy lifestyles where the time to vote may be very precious to them, or live in rural areas where the nearest voting location is a distance away \"do not deserve to vote\". In reality we should be encouraging all people to vote, thus a fair representation of the citizen's interests can be measured. The bias caused by the restrictive nature of ballet voting can be seen very clearly in many locations, For example during the American 2014 midterm elections 37% of voters where over 60, while only 12% where under 30 years old[1]. The reason college students do not vote is 34.7% that they are too busy, or have conflicting work [2]. It is clear that the voting system needs to be made more effective and allowing online voting would easily improve this issue, allowing a fairer representation of all people and thus a more democratic society. My opponent also argues that online voting can cause discrepancy and fraud, however fails to back up these arguments with any evidence. I cannot argue against these until my opponent is able to back them up. [1] (The Young Turks \"Old people run the country\") [2]http://www.civicyouth.org...", "title": "\"should voting be done online\"", "pid": "e0860e7e-2019-04-18T15:28:49Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.6178436279297}, {"text": "Engagement with democracy", "title": "allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.6129608154297}, {"text": "My opponent doesn't respond to most of my arguments and doesn't describe anything in his sources. I'll rebut a few things he says real quick and then restate my case in the last round. {{{ Adding candidates alters the outcome now }}} This is only true if you add a candidate who gets the most votes. Under IRV, you can add a candidate who has very little support, but who splits the vote count of the *most* popular candidate enough so that this candidate loses and is eliminated before the last \"round\" of voting. For example, candidate A could have 60% of the vote to candidate B's 40% in a head-to-head matchup. But if enough candidates run that are similar to candidate A in ideology, candidate B advances to the finals, but candidate A was eliminated early on, allowing candidate B to beat a weaker opponent. Candidate B could even have his friends run with similar political platforms to candidate A in order to have him eliminated early. {{{ Is Hand-Counting the Votes under IRV feasible? }}} As to hand counting votes vs. machine tallying, there has yet to be a reported incident of hacking. The machines are a closed system, which is nearly impossible to hack. In contrast, my opponent drops all my arguments as to why having openly partisan election officials hand-counting ballots - with little to no oversight - is a bad idea. {{{ Voting 3rd Party }}} My opponent claims that IRV is easier to understand. This makes no sense. The current system is whoever you vote for gets your vote: vote for the candidate you want. Under IRV, there are scenarios where you are HURTING your candidates chances by voting for him. This system is far more complicated. In addition, 3rd Parties don't suddenly win under IRV, as seen in the UK. But even if they did, my opponent drops all my arguments about having more than 2 parties under a presidential system of government is BAD. {{{ Awarding Electors Proportionately }}} My opponent claims that no states do this. He is wrong, quite simply. Nebraska and Maine currently award electors proportionally instead of winner-take-all, and many other states are considering moving towards proportional awarding of electors. [1] My opponent still doesn't respond to the argument that awarding electors proportionally solves many of the problems with winner-take-all, without the baggage of IRV (overcomplicating the system, allowing the majority candidate to lose, strategic voting, additional candidates altering the outcome, etc). [1] http://www.archives.gov...", "title": "The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting.", "pid": "538dd198-2019-04-18T18:14:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.6035614013672}, {"text": "By the definition of your title, I was speaking off topic for the previous Rounds. However, the only federally mandated election law change suggestions for future Federal Elections have been not a picture ID, but a voter ID. Regardless, I will propose a counter-plan advocating voter accountability through a paper trail. The greatest risk to switching votes (D. Josef Thompson, University of Chicago) is tampering with electronic machines. Because votes are analyzed more on the county precinct level instead of the voting locations, discrepencies are much harder to find. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, he estimates, that there were more incidences of voter fraud by one individual than there were electronic machine tampering. However, the percentage of votes changed by machine tampering outweighed the percentage of votes changed by voter fraud by a ratio of 3:1, while even counting invalidated absentee ballots equals the approximate number of votes by voter fraud. I will now assess the American government's ability to improve its voting system. The American government only has the resources available to take one option: paper trails for electronic machines OR voter/picture ID because of the official documentation and training purposes. The winner of this debate is the Negative side because its counter-plan of instituting a paper trail defeats the Affirmative plan of picture Identification at the voting booth. Thanks, The Colonel", "title": "A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote.", "pid": "f2c72c91-2019-04-18T19:54:40Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.57095336914062}, {"text": "Elections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made.  Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting.[1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence – so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots. [1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., ‘The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting’, University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson2007.pdf, p.3", "title": "Would complicate elections", "pid": "bdcf90af-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00024-000", "bm25_score": 214.49844360351562}, {"text": "I am not arguing that Hillary rigged the election. This is irrelevant. Please be sure to argue for your actual position in round 2, which should be that the recounts will change the results of the election. I don't believe the recounts will change the outcome of the election because in order for Hillary Clinton to win at this point, all three of the aforementioned states will have to come out as Hillary actually winning. The chances that all of the three states will do this seems very small. Perhaps 1 will, but that won't be enough for Hillary to get to the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Donald Trump will still have more than 270 even if one or two of those states is lost. The recent objection is with the voting machines themselves, and some computer experts believe many voting machines in each of the aforementioned states have been hacked. However, while it is true that the voting machines are pretty archaic, for they use a Windows 2000 style of programming, almost none are connected to the internet [1] and cannot be hacked that way. In order for them to be hacked, the person would have to have access to the voting machine or the voting cards and tamper with either. The likelihood that this occurred in all three states in a widespread enough of a manner to effect the election seems slim. It would take a lot of coordination, and people would have had to have had access to either of those two things, which are under strict protection by the states they reside in up until election day. And on election day, poll workers are watching the machines the entire time. Bottom line, is that it seems very unlikely any such hacking occurred on such a large scale, and it doesn't seem likely all three of the states will end up going to Hillary Clinton Source: [1] http://www.nbcnews.com...", "title": "The recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will change the outcome of the election", "pid": "76b390ba-2019-04-18T12:41:01Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.45225524902344}, {"text": "Even if you don't believe what I said (that democracy is bad), you still have to negate becuase pro doesn't prove why automatic voter registration is a good thing. He brings up stats saying that it'd increase voter turnout - okay, but there is no actual impact. We can accept everything the pro said and just one thing that I've said (anything at all) and still vote con because of pro's lacking arugments. My argument attacked the notion fundamental in the resolution - democracy is good. My opponent advocated for democracy throughout their arguments, something that should be considered irrelevant because he didn't even rebut what I said, he left it at its full value.", "title": "Automatic Voter Registration", "pid": "a83c80fd-2019-04-18T14:13:58Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.42303466796875}, {"text": "Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.", "title": "allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.37750244140625}, {"text": "William Galston, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. \"Mandatory voting would loosen partisan gridlock.\" US News and World Report. July 8th, 2010: \"In Australia, the case that I know the best, these nonvoters who are being drafted into the political system were referred to pejoratively as 'donkey voters' [who vote for candidates based only on their order on the ballot]. But in fact, once they have to vote, they may work a little bit harder than they would have otherwise to know what's going on.\"", "title": "First-time voters will better inform themselves.", "pid": "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00064-000", "bm25_score": 214.37667846679688}, {"text": "Your system is way too complex for simple positions like mayor and counselman. One reason people don't vote is because they don't understand how their vote will make a difference. How is putting peoples' votes through a middle man (your proposed added congress) helping the weight of their vote? It gives them no more motivation. If anything, all it does is complicate the system. You failed to explain how the congressmen would get elected. I agree with you on the fact that people should use their right to vote more often, but this is not the solution. It is a waste of money.", "title": "United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out.", "pid": "5c32174c-2019-04-18T19:57:01Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.36463928222656}, {"text": "It is highly unlikely that this would be the case across all 600+ constituencies of the UK. Furthermore, an abstention vote means 'do not count me', not 'don't elect anyone'. The number of votes in this category therefore do not matter, so long as the real candidate with the most wins the seat. (It would be different if the option were to Re-Open Nominations, but that has not been proposed.)", "title": "Compulsory Voting Does not enhance democracy", "pid": "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00028-000", "bm25_score": 214.26304626464844}, {"text": "In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compulsory voting prevents interference with access to the vote. Compelling voters to the polls for an election mitigates the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. It is a measure to prevent disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. Polls are generally held on a Saturday or Sunday as evidenced in nations such as Australia, to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Similarly, mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes and hospitals to cater for immobilized citizens, and postal voting may be provided for people who are away from their electorate on election day.", "title": "Compulsory voting helps protect voter access.", "pid": "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00083-000", "bm25_score": 214.20729064941406}, {"text": "Because you have conceded that the electoral college system does violate the democratic principals of equal vote weight, I will not cover this argument in my last response. This only leaves the argument that the electoral college system is necessary to prevent corruption. I see no reason to add an intermediary between the voter and their vote being counted. Contrary to your argument, this increases the chance of corruption. This intermediary is just another point of failure that can manipulated, paid or otherwise mislead. Your main argument is that the electoral college can prevent corruption. The electoral college is not a good solution at preventing corruption. What I propose is a better popular voting system that would be significantly stronger at preventing corruption, voter fraud and also deliver equal vote weight. Blockchain technology is decentralized and has no single point of failure. It would be impossible for a voter to vote twice when blockchain technology is associated with solid two factor authentication. This would make the blockchain system significantly more resilient than the electoral college system. Blockchain technology is already being used in voting and is the way of the future. It is very short sighted to think that there is no better way and the current electoral system will remain what works best indefinitely. Other countries are already at various stages of deploying blockchain technology to offer more efficient and secure voting platforms [1]. Has far as Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump being sociopath or not have nothing to do with the electoral college being a good system. I personally didn't like either candidate and found it very sad that this was the best we could come up with. Regardless of the election outcome and as your candidate Donald Trump stated, \"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.\" [2] Sources: https://venturebeat.com... [1] https://twitter.com... [2]", "title": "The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system.", "pid": "b9c7eff8-2019-04-18T12:18:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.18983459472656}, {"text": "In the past, it was impractical to organise frequent referendums due to the difficulty and expense of holding them. But with the advent of the internet and mass media, it is now easier than ever to consult the public on issues of concern to them. For example, Switzerland regularly holds referendums on all sorts of issues in an efficient manner which commands widespread public support. [1] [1] Gerlach, Jan; Gasser, Urs. “Three Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting”, Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, March 2009. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Gerlach-Gasser_SwissCases_Evoting.pdf", "title": "Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever.", "pid": "e6af11b5-2019-04-15T20:22:52Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 214.1759796142578}, {"text": "A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. A notable example would be the disproportionate influence of agriculture in policy making as seen in both European politics and well as American with enormous amounts of subsidies for farmers who represent a minute percentage of the population. 1 2  The outcome of the election therefore reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?). 1 Ira M. Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky, \"Jewish Population of the United States, 2006,\" in the American Jewish Year Book 2006, Volume 106, David Singer and Lawrence Grossman, Editors. NY: American Jewish Committee, 2006. 2: Mark Weber, Feb. 2009, 'A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby', Institute for Historical Review (Accessed 10/06/2011) improve this  ", "title": "It will reduce the power of special interest groups", "pid": "4ce497c-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 214.14932250976562}, {"text": "Only where the ballot offers a \"none of the above\" option can compulsory voting being truly democratic. However, where this is the case if the \"none of the above\" option achieves over 50% of the vote does democracy simply fail and the state fall into anarchy? that would be truly democratic, although, hardly pragmatic. Consider that in most British elections the majority is not in fact the winning party, but in fact, the non-voters.", "title": "Compulsory Voting Does not enhance democracy", "pid": "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00029-000", "bm25_score": 214.11636352539062}, {"text": "I would like to debate someone on the effectiveness of the electoral system over the popular system. The electoral college assigns values to states depending on population size, and all of the points for a state are awarded to a candidate when that candidate receives majority vote in that SPECIFIC state. The popular vote is a simple majority vote of the entire nation. I have started this debate because of the rising controversy from Hillary winning the popular vote, but not the electoral vote. The first round is ACCEPTANCE ONLY, so please be courteous and don't present an argument until the second round. You may ask me questions about the topic, but no more than that. This debate is only 3 rounds, because people keep forgetting to post arguments after about 3 rounds, which ruins the debates. Sorry if you wanted to debate more rounds than 3.", "title": "The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system.", "pid": "b9c7eff8-2019-04-18T12:18:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.11473083496094}, {"text": "well, first off, i dont think that voter justification is needed because we can assume that the voter identifies more closely with the arguments of the debater he/she voted for. to add that option could create a regurgitation of information, or-for the keyboard happy- countless paragraphs of why so and so agrees with so-so. when we vote for a winner we already make a point of where we stand and why, any additional information from voters can be provided in the comment boxes which is what i sometimes do. as far as your experiment goes, you have no way to prove, or have not proven, how many people read how far, yet voted for you anyways. i denote that it may be too ambitious to rule out someone saw the message but voted against nazis not being evil because they wanted to stay in tune with their own ethics. i think our current voting system is fine because its simple and to the point. maybe next time you can request that voters leave a reason, because even if it is mandatory whose to say someone will insert real reasons of substance.", "title": "Voting on debate.org should be significantly overhauled", "pid": "d4b3ab9e-2019-04-18T19:57:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.11216735839844}, {"text": "It seems obvious to me: anyone can set up an account on DDO, search for their favorite topics, and easily vote on whatever they want, without even reading the arguments. The resolution is that SOMETHING must be done to improve the voting system on this site. I will give a few ideas that could be incorporated by the DDO creators, but am open to any other suggestions: 1) Show how each person voted. 2) Moniter the votes more closely. 3) Show a feed on each account's page that reveals what they voted on and how they voted. 4) Have each voter write a short, detailed paragraph on why he/she voted that way, which fellow members can see and report if they find something wrong with it. Also, I am not able to vote, even though I have a cell phone. Why? I do not know. I have sent in my number multiple times, and have never received an approval text. This must be remedied as well. Remember, this debate is focusing on whether or not the DDO Voting System is flawed, NOT on whether or not my specific ideas are \"the best\". I await an opponent", "title": "The Voting System on Debate.org Needs VAST Improvement", "pid": "e644e50d-2019-04-18T19:18:42Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.08551025390625}, {"text": "Perhaps the infrequent nature of public votes is an indication of the level of confidence in the quality of the system. I agree that this does discriminate people who are less from those that are more knowledgeable. Another way of saying this is that it discriminates those that can contribute meaningfully towards the decision from those that cannot. In the majority of cases, the less knowledgeable could become more knowledgeable by reading the relevant materials. Everyone's votes still do still count, however. At the moment, each individual vote taken in isolation is usually almost insignificant in the calculation of the result. This proposal will just alter the level of significance of the vote up or down slightly. In engineering, there is the concept of the signal-to-noise ratio. If a telephone line has noise that is too strong, and a signal that is too weak, the signal is lost amongst the noise and the communication is useless. Uninformed voters are the noise of the system, and there are many more of them than informed voters. Thus the signal is too weak compared to the noise. This means that decisions reached through popular voting are largely irrational. Your last sentence is a little defeatist. To paraphrase, you say that the current system is poor and it won't change. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the proposed system will realistically be adopted, just that the act of making decisions through voting would be improved if it did.", "title": "Democracy would be better if all citizens did not have an equal vote", "pid": "e006bff-2019-04-18T19:30:36Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.0850372314453}, {"text": "No, I completely disagree with the fact that voting should not be done online as there can be many discrepancy while voting online there can be fraud to....now talking about the largest democracy in the world that is the USA too does not follow this type of voting.......if the fact arises that some people do not vote by coming in the booths.....it's for their betterment that they can vote online...I completely disagree by saying that if they can't come to vote they do not deserve to vote...thereby I remain unchanged in my stance...becoZ I believe ballot voting is the best method of voting", "title": "\"should voting be done online\"", "pid": "e0860e7e-2019-04-18T15:28:49Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.0550537109375}, {"text": "My opponent has failed to provide reasoning as to why hacking, viral infections, and cheating would be impossible in his perfect little system, beyond saying something akin to \"nuh-uh\". The truth of the matter is is any computer system can be hacked into. All one needs are the time, money, and resources to do it, none of which would be impossible to get [http://articles.latimes.com...], especially with such high stakes. It is likely that converting to an online voting system would bring on a new wave of internet terrorism, and would even make it possible for other countries to decide the course of our nation. Because this one problem WILL exist, and is such a serious threat that it outweighs any good online voting could do because of the amount of damage it could cause to us as a country. Therefore, online voting should not replace traditional voting.", "title": "Online voting should replace traditional voting.", "pid": "93844764-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.03895568847656}, {"text": "Thanks for taking the time to debate me on this, and thanks to the debaters for reading this and voting.", "title": "The Voting System on Debate.org Needs VAST Improvement", "pid": "e644e50d-2019-04-18T19:18:42Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.00244140625}, {"text": "Compulsory voting hides the problem which is causing people to be disengaged from politics; it allows politicians to ignore measures that can tackle the true causes of political disengagement.   States instead should seek on strategies that will eliminate barriers to voting along with reducing the costs of turnout for its citizens, weekend voting, making election days a holiday, simple registration procedures, reforms such as to the party finance rules to widen the playing field, and the creation of a centralized, professional bureaucracy concerned with all aspects of election administration. In the UK, for example, adopting a more proportional system will allow for a political spectrum rather than the three major parties that currently dominate.     improve this  ", "title": "There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement", "pid": "4ce497c-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 213.98577880859375}, {"text": "VOTING ISSUES My opponent concedes that not-voting has ZERO advantages while VOTING has at least some advantages. Therefore, on balance, you must vote PRO.In this debate I don’t need to prove that voting is \"the best thing you can do\" nor that our electoral system is perfect. I only need to prove that voting is BETTER than not-voting. My opponent argued in round 2 that voting cannot solve every problem, granted, but he conceded that voting has some advantages while not-voting has zero advantages; therefore you must vote PRO. Round 1: Grandbudda: “I agree that most of the time it's better to vote than not to vote“ Round 2: Grandbudda: “I don't suggest that you shouldn't vote” Grandbudda asserted supposed advantages of not-voting in round 1; all of which were refuted in my opening round 2 response. PREFER EVIDENCE OVER MERE ASSERTION. Many of Grandbudda’s arguments are big claims with ZERO evidence. Regardless of your personal biases, in a debate claims should be backed up with hard evidence. Read over his round 2 case and count the amount of claims he makes with zero evidence. All of my arguments are supported with examples from recent history or I cite studies with a link to a reputable website. Prefer the side that uses empirical evidence. VOTE PRO.He failed to attack all of the PRO VOTING advantages I spelled out in round 2. In debate, if you fail to respond to an argument then you concede the argument. He failed to defend any of his non-voting advantages in his round 2 response, opting instead to spend the entire round making these three points in one form or another: 1) Sometimes ignorant people vote and that’s bad 2) Voting is irrational because most elections aren’t decided by a single vote 3) Sometimes politicians do not keep all of their election promises Let’s consider each of these points one by one 1) Grandbudda: Ignorant People Shouldn't VoteHierocles:Prefer a Rawlsian Ethical Analysis Over Assuming A Voter is Ignorant Because of Her Race or Age Who's to say who is too ignorant to vote? It’s convenient to assume that voters whom you disagrees with are misguided. But if you place yourself in the shoes of the person(s) in question then you will probably NOT assume that YOU are ignorant or misguided. In Grandbudda’s example he argues that people like Rock the Vote’s young people are too ignorant to vote. Grandbudda fails to consider the Rawlsian Original Position. He fails to realize that he could be a new voter who registered with Rock the Vote. You could be a young American voter in 2007 considering whether or not to vote. You know that you are worried about student debt, the war in Iraq, and health care. Therefore, you vote for Obama because he campaigned on the issues you care about. Since 2008, American troops have pulled out of Iraq, student loan interest is down, and health-care reform (for better or worse) has passed, just as Obama promised. Although Obama is imperfect, according to the Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact, Obama has kept approx. 70% of his campaign promises. Therefore, my opponent’s assertion that politicians never keep their campaign promises is clearly false. (More on this below in contention 3.)<http://www.politifact.com...> Grandbudda argues that “citizens who are young, uneducated, or otherwise less likely to be engaged” should not vote. Assuming that people you’ve never met are too ignorant to vote because of their age, class, or race is prejudiced and wrong. Who’s to say what people are “less likely to be engaged”? Instead of assuming that others are ignorant, use the Rawlsian Original Position to place yourself in the shoes of the person in question. 2) Grandbudda: Voting is Irrational Because a US Presidential Election Has Never Been Won By a Single Vote A) Voters are aware that they are working in concert with fellow voters, like voters in the same political party, to achieve a certain objective on election day. Saying voting is irrational is akin to saying singing in a choir is irrational because one singer will not make it a choir. It’s akin to saying attending a parade is irrational because one person won’t make it a parade. This is a logical fallacy of composition. If people don’t vote because they assume that their vote won’t make a difference then that collective decision makes a huge difference in a lower voter turnout. But if people choose to vote because they understand that millions of voters’ collective decision to vote can make a huge difference, then they will make a difference. To quote Henry Ford, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” Case in point, in 2000 the US president was determined by less than 600 Floridian voters; I think their votes made a HUGE difference. B) In the US over 20 elections have been determined by a single vote. Here’s the list:http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us... C) Many elections were decided by less than 1% of the electorate: http://en.wikipedia.org... 3) Grandbudda: Voting is a Waste Because Politicians Never Keep Their Campaign Promises This is clearly an empirical/historical question, yet Grandbudda makes the claim with ZERO evidence to back it up. So I’ll provide some evidence. According to the Tampa Bay Time’s Pulitzer Prize winning Fact-Checking project PolitiFact, Obama has met 70% of his campaign promises so far. <http://www.politifact.com...; Obama, love him or hate him, was reelected in 2012 because he’s kept most of his 2008 promises, not because people are stupid. According to PolitiFact, the GOP congressional leaders have kept approx 68% of their 2010 campaign promises. <http://www.politifact.com...; The charge that politicians never keep their campaign promises is false. It’s worth your time to vote. OTHER ISSUES 1) Electoral College: This is off-topic. Besides, a low voter turnout would only worsen this problem, especially for those from the neglected states. 2) Grandbudda: “Our political candidates are picked by monied interests” This is a popular and cynical view to hold, but it’s not supported by the facts. Many times the non-establishment candidate wins the primary. In 2010 over 60 of the congressional races were won by the candidate that had less campaign dough. In many of the bigger spender wins, it could be attributed to advantages reaped from being the incumbent in a safe district. In most close races, the smaller spender won about half of the time. SOURCE:<http://www.opensecrets.org...; If politicians were commodities to be bought and sold then the highest bidder would always win - that's not the case. 3) Regarding Third Parties: Grandbudda: “ I can write in or vote for a third party. The net effect of these actions are to elect the favored candidate of one of the two main parties.” This is not true. Sometimes third parties win. Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org...; Furthemore: “Voting for a third party candidate allows constituents to make a profound statement regarding their dissatisfactions with the platforms of both of the candidates that might be elected. In large numbers, these votes can change the behavior of the two major parties in future elections by encouraging them to incorporate the views of third parties.” <http://www.yale.edu...; Our democracy still has a lot of problems, but inaction solves nothing. As citizens of a democracy, it is our responsibility to add our voices so we are represented in our government. Falling into cynicism is the lazy way out; accept complexity and fight to make it better. In a democracy, your fight will always be more effective if you backup your convictions with a vote; be counted. History proves that progress can be made.", "title": "Voting in Elections is Always Better than Not Voting", "pid": "c4f7d17e-2019-04-18T16:45:40Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.98291015625}, {"text": "Pro suggests we replace account verification with preventing the same computers voting twice for a period of time, however; 1. For such a feature to be effective, it would have to prevent people from voting for a very long time. If the person could simply come back and vote once per day it would still be ineffective. It would therefore have to prevent users from voting for about a week, which is ridiculous and still wouldn't be completely effective. 2. It could easily be worked around - for instance, school children could alternate between different school computers to vote, or if the household they lived in had multiple computers they could simply use all of them to vote. Most cell providers are already implemented in the registration system. The only problem is with the amount of numbers you can type in the box, which seems like a simple feature to fix. Almost everyone who uses the internet has a mobile, and if not they are sure to have a friend who does.", "title": "This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote.", "pid": "615e029c-2019-04-18T19:03:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.97772216796875}, {"text": "I staunchly disagree! Online voting should NOT replace traditional voting. It holds far too many ways to fail than suceed. Idealy, yes, for convenience sake online voting would be far superior to traditional voting. However it makes the already problematic voter fraud even easier then it already is. While you have listed ways that you think will be able to prevent this, I shall now go through and show how each is inevitably able to fail to virus', hackers, and general vote bombers. c-1: Voting fraud on this site has not been unheard of, and debate.orgs 'fail safe' with cell phone identity is a speed bump at best. All one needs is a phone number that can recieve text messages, an viola, that account can vote. I do not have a phone that can recieve TM, and so am unable to confirm my identity, though I know I exist. This means I can't vote, which is very inconvenient. However, if I so chose to I could get one or convince a friend or even steal a phone and \"confirm\" my identity tot he satisfaction of debate.orgs fail safe, though as you can see there are more dishonest ways to pass this than the honest one. Now, for your example of what I am assuming are serious political elections, you say that a social security number will do the trick. Not so. Just as with the cell phone all one needs to do attain a SSN, and they are now that person whether they are or not. If you have contention with this then you are probably not aware of identity theft [http://www.ftc.gov...]. Now as you'll have surly noticed this site is not just about what identity theft (IT) is but how to fight it. I fully admit that there are ways to fight IT after it has happened, though they are often lengthy, inconvenient, and costly. In all cases, IT could be fought but not after the damage has been done. This means that in a serious election, the mere possibility of the damages of IT far outweight the benefit of convenience. An election where seemingly thousands have voted could just as well be 1 person, or group with a particular agenda. Even if 1 vote is not that of the legitimate holder of the SSN, your fail safe has failed. It is far more pssoible than not, and for this reason, online voting clearly fails. C-2: If we lived in a perfect world then you'd be right. An electronic voting system would be more relable in counting votes. That is, if those votes were real and reliable. As I've already shown, the reliablity of votes is already in question. But whether a real person in any degree cast those is also in question. A virus, especially a well designed one, could easily pass through a fail safe of any kind, and perform a simple operation of changing a 1 into a 2, or 3, etc. Hacks and viruses into what where thought to be secure systems is all too common, and a simple google search can reveal hundreds of stories of real life scenarios where such a thing happened. Here's on that happened just 2 years ago [http://www.crn.com...] and a famous story where the FBI's database was hacked into [http://www.computerworld.com...]. The moral of the story is that if there is a will, then there's a way, especially when it comes to computers. Vote bots exist, and are able to be purchased easily and effectively, as well as (obviously) designed [http://cheatingnetwork.net...]. So again here, electronic votes fail as they would only suceed if there were not people who would exploit them. C-3: Sure they do, but it isn't as easy to fraud those as it is from a computer. With absentiee votes there is an official form, that has to be filled out be hand. A very lengthy process and definetly not immune to the effects of fraud, but it would take more time and resources to produce anywhere near the amount of damage that can be caused by a few key strokes. I believe I've sufficently described how that can happen above. C-4: Undoubtably, but like I've shown, for every honest elderly shut in who could use the technology to vote, there are more who would use it exploit their own agendas dishonestly. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliabilty and accessibility that a hacker or virus could take advantage of over the web, online voting does more harm than good. With traditional voting, were one has to go into a set voting center, and show an ID that matches the person to it to another living person, the chance of fraud exists but is minimalized by the ability to verify the actual physical existence of a person right then and there. Opperations to commit fraud with traditional voting are far more costly, time consuming, and active (as in one has to get up and go do something) than it is with a computer. No system is perfect but a computerized voting system is far more so in the ease that it could be hacked. So while we are not in contention that a online system would do some good, I hold that it's far too easily penetrated by wrongdoers for it to become the mechanism that decides the course of an entire country, or even county.", "title": "Online voting should replace traditional voting.", "pid": "93844764-2019-04-18T19:10:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.97137451171875}, {"text": "Because mandatory voting means that no large campaign funds are needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics will decrease. Compulsory voting will reduce spending such as campaign spending on voter turnout. It can also lead to a reduction in the incentive for negative advertising “as there is little to be gained from tactics aimed purely at persuading opposition voters to stay at home” 1. States that sanction fines usually sanction a very low fine, which even the poorest members can afford. Besides, government like the British seem to manage speeding fines just fine, there is no reason to think they wouldn’t be able to manage non-voting fines. However, other measures such as disenfranchisement (Belgium) and denial of public services (Peru, Greece) can be used, which don’t incur a cost for the individual. 1Electoral Reform Society improve this  ", "title": "Policing and financing the system is unmanageable", "pid": "4ce497c-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 213.97116088867188}, {"text": "The benefits obtained from compulsory voting cannot be gained from any of the strategies mentioned by the opposition. Compulsory voting can enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. This can be especially helpful in bringing new people in to community life. It also forces the silent majority to think about elections which safeguards from extremism. improve this  ", "title": "There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement", "pid": "4ce497c-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 213.93231201171875}, {"text": "As this is the last the last i will be posting a short argument ,it is as follows: 1. Increased Block Voting - Unions have spent a noticeably greater amount of money since the ruling, and union members have voted more homogeneously. This demonstrates the advent of voting blocks rather than independent thoughtful voting. The results of this is increased political divisiveness as people increasingly vote on partisan lines as opposed to voting on the merits of the candidates\" positions and ideas. 2. Increased Non-Voter Influence - Interest groups like unions and corporations do not vote. While election decisions affect them, candidates are supposed to represent the people. Since the ruling, a number of non-voter interests have enacted initiatives which can be characterized as \"buying votes\" for the candidate of their choice. This has negatively impacted the election process by not only decreasing its legitimacy but also removing the representation of the people.", "title": "On balance, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs FEC harms the election process", "pid": "d62e7eb3-2019-04-18T17:50:30Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.9269256591797}, {"text": "PR results in more engagement in politics as every vote counts (CPA/Wilton Park conference, ‘How can Parliamentarians best re-engage the public?’). Political participation is good and we should care about the low voter turnout in elections that has been caused by first past the post. Surveys show that that those who vote are more engaged in the community in other ways and have better personal wellbeing. Research in Switzerland has shown that voting does make people happier as well as being better informed citizens. The higher the stake the person has, and the more likely their vote is to count the more effort they will make to find out the facts so as to make informed choices.(Marks et al., 2005,  p5-6)", "title": "PR increases political engagement which benefits society.", "pid": "24b396e9-2019-04-15T20:22:53Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 213.87957763671875}, {"text": "Even if compulsory voting allows for abstention, legitimacy is not improved. It merely allows the government to say 'because there is a 100% turnout, this government is 100% legitimate', which is clearly not the case. Donkey votes, random votes, \"just for the fun of it\" votes, protest votes and abstentions do NOT contribute to improved legitimacy of the government. There is a reason why some people are less politically active. They neither know nor care about politics. How can their forced input add legitimacy to the mix?", "title": "Mandatory voting does not enhance legitimacy of govt.", "pid": "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00057-000", "bm25_score": 213.8784637451172}, {"text": "No networked commuter system is immune to attack or subversion. By their very nature, electronic voting systems must be inter connected and in continuous communication with one another. As a consequence, the devices and methods used to gather votes can also serve as access points to the larger network of vote gathering and counting systems. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11", "title": "Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion", "pid": "2c05e9fb-2019-04-15T20:23:05Z-00021-000", "bm25_score": 213.87461853027344}, {"text": "1.It will be effective if it prevents computer users from voting twice for just a certain topic. They then can vote again for another topic. Yes, two members might be using the same computer and both might want to vote for a certain topic but such case is less common than not having a provider listed and less disadvantageous. >members using the same computer with an intent to vote on the same topic in the system I proposed a. is rare b. won't render the other users from voting for other topics >members not having access to providers listed by the site in a system requiring verification a. is very common especially outside the U.S. b. will render them unable to vote for all topics 2. Having identity verification is easier to be worked around, so it must be replaced. Having different sim cards or friends to lend you a phone is easier, less costly than having different computers. Providers from some countries aren't listed and might not agree to be included.", "title": "This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote.", "pid": "615e029c-2019-04-18T19:03:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.87167358398438}, {"text": "Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled (some even at the cost of social benefits). Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary.", "title": "Mandatory voting compels voters to better educate themselves.", "pid": "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00063-000", "bm25_score": 213.87130737304688}, {"text": "Thanks for the quick response. 1. There is a very low chance of that happening. There are loopholes in any voting system, but they're highly unlikely. As far as the not ranking = ranking last, I see what you're saying but I was talking about if there were several candidates whom you don't like. Then, it wouldn't be the same. 2. Adding candidates in the status quo can alter the outcome of the election. The problem you're referring to is the Condorcet method. But IRV solves for that, while the status quo does not. http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... The second link has a great graph showing the advantages and disadvantages of all. You can see that IRV solves for much more than Plurality (FPTP). I'll include it in the comment section. Officials can find it much easier to tamper with electronic machines. All they need is a hacker. http://www.youtube.com... I need evidence that the U.S. can't mandate IRV, states don't award proportionately for the presidential race (final). Multi-party systems can be a great thing, they provide much more balance. On the large global political scale, our Democrats and Republicans are very similar. That's the problem. If you want to vote for who YOU ACTUALLY AGREE WITH, then you can't do it in FPTP without wasting your vote. This way, you have a backup. *Overall, you can see that IRV may not be the best mathematical system, but it's the easiest for people to understand, it blows the current system out of the water and makes it look prehistoric, and it makes the most sense. I urge a Pro vote. Thanks to my opponent.", "title": "The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting.", "pid": "538dd198-2019-04-18T18:14:33Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.83609008789062}, {"text": "Good Luck! My esteemed opponent has analyzed the electoral college and found it wanting. He believes it to be an inefficient formality. He offers two contentions to support his resolution: 1. \"The Electoral College [EC] makes votes unheard. \" 2. The EC gives some regions more representation than their population warrants, and others less. I will begin by correcting Con's analysis on what the EC is and what the EC is not. Then I will then refute his two contentions. Finally, I will offer a brief conclusion. (Note: I reserve the right to offer new arguments in round two) --------- Con believes that the main purpose of the modern EC is to echo the popular vote of its consituency. To a degree he is correct, this is a major function of the EC, but not the only one. The United States is a Federal Republic. A Federal Republic is a collection of sovereign states that give up certain aspects of their autonomy to form a larger 'union', or 'Federation'. [1] Therefore, when electing the Head of State for a Federal Republic there is more to consider than regional population. A state needs to be adequately represented in order to benefit from being a member-state of a Federation. The EC ensures that smaller, less populated states receive the same benefits as the larger ones. Without the EC smaller states such as Wyoming or West Virginia would receive even less federal consideration than they do under the current system. Politicians would have little reason to visit the mid-western states, and even less reason to give them the same benefits of union that larger states like New York and California enjoy. ------------ Claims: 1. The EC makes votes unheard (a,b,c). 2. The EC leads to overrepresentation and underreppresentation. Rebutals: 1. a) My young opponent claims that the voices of some citizens voting for the losing candidate go unheard (in cases where the winner of the popular vote loses the EC vote). I find a different interpretation to be more accurate. Their voices do not go unheard, rather the voice of the states Does get heard. b) This is not an argument in favor of reforming the EC. This is an argument in favor of conducting the federal census more often. We have the technology to make this more feasible today than we did when the census was instituted in the mid 1800s. c) Con is correct in his historical analysis. However, he offers no explanation as to why the election going into the House of Representatives is a bad thing that suggests that our election methods should be reformed. 2. . If someone were to look strictly at the popular vote then Con would be correct in this claim. However, as I have discussed above, there are more things to take into consideration. This nation was founded both on the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of separate states. The two branches of congress were created with the same principle as the EC. It apportions some of the representation based on population (House of Representatives) and the rest based on statehood (two votes for each state in the Senate). This gives smaller states like Wyoming the same representational proportion quoted by Con in Congress for the very same reason that the EC takes both measures into consideration - to ensure that the smaller states have some say in the Federal government. Therefore it would be more accurate to say that these states are given a base level of power to make their existence in the federation worthwhile than it would be to say that its citizens exercise more 'power' than others. ------------- CONCLUSION The United States of America was founded with two things in mind: the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of the separate states. These principles are reflected in the apportionment of Congress and the apportionment of the Electoral College. Both of these institutions ensure that the more populace regions like the Northeast and the West Coast do not dominate the less populace ones. A base level of power is necessary in order for all states to enjoy the benefits of union. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "A Debate On The Electoral College", "pid": "1bdb82e-2019-04-18T19:33:32Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.82296752929688}, {"text": "A mail-in system depends on ballots being received by voters. One of the problems, however, is that poor voters are frequently transient or without permanent or up-to-date addresses. This means that poor voters are uniquely disadvantaged and disenfranchised by a mail-in ballot system. A walk-in caucus or primary, conversely, does not depend on voters having permanent addresses, and is subsequently more accessible to poor voters.", "title": "A mail-in ballot risks disenfranchising poor, more transient voters", "pid": "e10d3563-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00075-000", "bm25_score": 213.81382751464844}, {"text": "I have received no counter arguments from my opponent, so I will present them myself, and refute them. The implementation of this system would not force anyone to do anything, simply enact a self-provided incentive to do so. The only part yet to be figured into the plan is how to set this up. I believe that the money should be held by the state Division of Elections department. Part of every citizen's taxes will go towards this incentive; it will be put in their voter account. It provides some nice side benefits as well; if the money is absent from their account, you know that they have voted. It will be set up by someone with more knowledge of the whole process than myself, only 14 years old; I have yet to hear any fact based arguments, so I assume it has been found to be a possible option. Thank you for reading my arguments.", "title": "Increase Voter Turnout by Holding Money Until Vote", "pid": "33ca1924-2019-04-18T15:27:21Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.80931091308594}, {"text": "My opponent has presented a very interesting argument, however it is flawed. Firstly my opponent makes the statement \"\" the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote \"\" however this does not disprove the statistics presented in the previous argument, young people are still voting less and most young people are not voting because they are too busy or have conflicting work, regardless of the holiday, and as such a more accessible voting system is required, i.e. internet voting. My opponent brings up hacking in the internet; I am well aware of it. I have recently studied Information Technology and that includes security, database management and networks. I am well-schooled on the issues and methods of hacking and believe I am qualified to talk on the subject. On the contrary my opponent has still failed to provide an example of how exactly an online voting service can be hacked, beyond \"a lot of hacking in internet\". However internet voting is more efficient as computers can more effectively calculate the results and it reduces human error in comparison to paper voting where human error is a very prominent issue. Actually one of the largest issues of fraud in voting is people who vote more than once either at the same location or separate locations. One of the main reasons nothing has been done to prevent this is the cost of implementing the system, however should online voting be introduced the cost would be substantially less, almost non-existent [1]. Thus online voting may actually be safer from fraud then conventional techniques. My opponent also argues that rural people do not have access to the internet to vote with; however this is a blatant fallacy. Most rural communities have internet access, in many countries internet access is considered a basic right, including Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece and Spain. I have been to rural areas that are a two hour drive from the nearest down as the crow flies, and still have access to basic satellite internet; it was slow, but still capable of casting a vote with. Unless my opponent can back up his statement and disprove the evidence I presented then this is simply not true. As it stands two European countries have already successfully upgraded to internet voting (Estonia and Switzerland) [2] and it would be beneficial for other nations to do that same. [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.eui.eu...", "title": "\"should voting be done online\"", "pid": "e0860e7e-2019-04-18T15:28:49Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.7918243408203}, {"text": "Well.", "title": "Emotion manipulation equals votes", "pid": "61f30d03-2019-04-18T15:48:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.79026794433594}, {"text": "The electoral college is helping promote democracy through implementing a mechanism that make candidates pay attention to local issues, and actually do what they are elected to do- serve the interests of their constituents. A presidential candidate is of course going to focus on a more national level interest, but in order to visit and campaign across the country, the candidate must be at least aware of the issues that of particular interest to the local area. ", "title": "Casting votes by state forces candidates to be attentive to local interests, which they would otherwise ignore in a national campaign.", "pid": "b9e3533f-2019-04-15T20:22:51Z-00027-000", "bm25_score": 213.78440856933594}, {"text": "As the BoP is shared, I will be arguing that Voting in Elections will make more of a difference than not voting. My contentions are as follows:1) Voting accurately polls a populus2) Voting officially elects government offices3) Voting increases the quality of a nation's overseas representation4) Voting helps the economy5) Voting voices the opinions of AmericansThese will be further expanded during the second round of this debate.", "title": "Not Voting in Elections Will Make More of a Difference than Voting", "pid": "33d6b29e-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.78353881835938}, {"text": "In this round I will address all of my opponent's contentions and then reaffirm the resolution. 1. Actually that wouldn't happen. If you don't want a candidate to win, you don't rank them at all and leave the box blank. So if you want the Democrat to win but like none of the others, and if the Democrat gets eliminated in the first round, then you're not electing another candidate whom you don't like. 2. They can already corrupt the system in the status quo. In the scenario you gave, David wouldn't necessarily win because you're assuming that 100% of John supporters ranked David #2, which is highly unlikely. You say that people in this system would just listen to others without doing research, but I'll remind you that that also happens very much in today's FPTP system. 3. If you were to do a poll using the \"regular\" First Past The Post system we used today, found the \"early predicted winner\", and then did an election using an entirely different system, of course the results will be different. The point of the system is to find a candidate that most people would actually want to have, and so people voting for a 3rd party candidate would be justified. 4. That doesn't have to do with Instant Runoff Voting but more of people today. It's irrelevant. 5. http://www.oilempire.us... \"Those who cast the vote decide nothing, those who count the vote decide everything.\" - Joseph Stalin According to Black Box Voting (blackboxvoting.org), an independent company investigating voter fraud, hand counting the paper ballots is actually quicker. The machines can break down at any time, and when they do, they must spend hours trying to fix it. The machines are also more susceptible to corruption. They can easily alter the results and hackers can change the outcome (for more see HBO's \"Hacking Democracy\"). So not only would hand counting be quicker and cheaper, it would also be more reliable (assuming they did the correct thing by allowing the public to watch the counting, like in Germany). The purpose of IRV is that you can rank #1 a candidate whom you agree with the most. Especially if they are a 3rd party candidate. In the current voting system, if you vote for a 3rd party candidate, you are throwing your vote away. You can't get the majority of people collectively in the FPTP system to elect a 3rd party candidate. In cases like the Bush-Gore recount, while it may take longer, but it would be worth the significant change that could benefit everyone.", "title": "The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting.", "pid": "538dd198-2019-04-18T18:14:33Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 213.78225708007812}, {"text": "The proposition highlights how tactical voting can be affected by opinion polls. However there is nothing wrong with tactical voting.  In fact, it is a crucial feature of a democracy that citizens are not only able to vote for the government they want, but also for the type of opposition that that government will face.   Tactical voting also avoids wasted votes under the First-Past-the-Post system Britain and America both use.   To enable tactical voting, opinion polls are necessary to inform voters what way they should vote if they wish to vote tactically.   That this may sometimes lead to mistakes, is an unfortunate but necessary by-product.  Banning opinion polls can therefore have unintended results. In the 1981 French Presidential election once the seven day ban started Chirac’s campaign suggested that their campaign was taking off and he would go through to the second round – which would make it two conservatives in the run off. This frightened communist party supporters into voting tactically to support Mitterand when there may well have been no need.[1] [1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx", "title": "Tactical voting is legitimate within the democratic process.", "pid": "c7b72d87-2019-04-15T20:24:23Z-00027-000", "bm25_score": 213.77276611328125}, {"text": "There's no reason to believe that the debate had started before Con posted his argumentActually, the debate has started as PRO has already typed an argument for his case.The role of the ballot is to break away from boxed out methodologies and change debate for the better.This is untrue: voting is for getting the general opinion on something, not to change opinion. Also, logic is not a boxed-out methodology; everything is based on logic, so pro needs to destroy everything in order to win.", "title": "You should vote for me.", "pid": "8619f721-2019-04-18T15:19:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.76258850097656}, {"text": "People are apathetic about politics because they only get to vote once every few years. Even then it is not directly for policies but for competing political parties who promise to implement them (but often reverse position when in office). They feel that politicians do not listen to them between elections, and disengagement with the political process grows and grows. More frequent referendums would stimulate interest in politics because people would actually get a say in decisions. For example, evidence from the US shows that states with frequent use of ballot initiatives tend to have higher voter participation in elections. [1] [1] Tolbert, Caroline; Grummel, John; Smith, Daniel. “The Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States”. American Politics Research Vol. 29 No. 6, November 2001. http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/apr.pdf", "title": "Reduces public apathy about, and disengagement from, politics.", "pid": "e6af11b5-2019-04-15T20:22:52Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 213.74615478515625}, {"text": "The first point Con makes is that opening the voting system to more people increases the risk of including biased voters. On the contrary, I believe that opening voting will diversify what types of voters we have, outnumbering the amount of potentially biased people there are and might be if we open up voting. Additionally, as I have said before, because Debate.Org has such able and responsible moderators and the report system put in place to report potentially biased votes, and because of the \"Reason For Voting\" which is mandatory for all debates when voting, voters must give statements specifying why they voted for someone. They cannot provide vague and unspecific statements like \"I voted for Pro because he provided a better argument.\" Moderators will remove votes for these explanations because even though they might slightly explain the reason behind one voted, it is too unspecific.The second point Con makes is that a better solution to resolving the problem with low voter turnout is to advertise voting more. On the contrary, I feel that this will have little to no effect. I am certain that most, if not all people, are aware that anyone with the proper registration can vote. I am certain that creating a campaign to teach people to vote will be ineffective, especially being that this is a debating website reliant on public voters. I believe that many people have considered voting, but have been prevented from doing so because they did not want to give out personal information such as their home or personal phone number.Con ends his argument by saying that \"Even though it is not ideal to have few voters, it is best not to reduce quality standards.\"Yes, I do believe that we should not open voting to everyone, with little to no restriction. It will open the website to corruption and voting fraud. And there will be a point when it may become too extensive and tough for our moderator team to handle, no matter how great they are at their work. However, I do believe that the low voter turnout is a problem that we must tackle. If we remain to keep the strict restrictions on voting, not only will many thought-provoking and groundbreaking debates go unnoticed, and a winner remaining undecided, but the failure to gain any new voters, the website itself might spiral down into ruin from inactivity, as people who seek greater debating opportunities will flock to other debating websites such as DebateIsland.", "title": "Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote", "pid": "3189383-2019-04-18T12:29:02Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.74119567871094}, {"text": "Thanks for admitting that CV could be damaging. Low voter turnout should be addressed but not through compulsory voting because not voting is a valid political choice; and exercise of freedom of choice, movement, and association. Also, compulsory voting will create false democracy. Pro cannot just add conditions now, he should have stated his conditions like ‘educating voters,’ in round 1. This is a basic rule in debate. But granted it counts, still his so-called ‘educating voters’ is very vague and not in harmony with compulsory voting. We can increase voter’s turnout by informing and educating people about election, without necessarily forcing people to go to the polling stations because it violates their fundamental freedoms.", "title": "Compulsory Voting", "pid": "ae578f50-2019-04-18T15:05:12Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.7364959716797}, {"text": "Knowing that turnout would be substantially increased would lead to far more active campaigning by all political parties. This in general would raise political awareness and negate the problem proposed. Furthermore, an option to 'abstain' on the ballot paper would accommodate anyone who truly does not wish to have a say in the running of their country.", "title": "People forced to vote are unlikely to vote intelligently.", "pid": "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00030-000", "bm25_score": 213.7151641845703}, {"text": "Con please", "title": "Not Voting in Elections Will Make More of a Difference than Voting", "pid": "33d6b29e-2019-04-18T17:32:30Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.71014404296875}, {"text": "Parties know that certain states will always vote one way eg Alaska always votes Republican, Massachusetts usually votes Democrat. Both parties generally spend less resources on campaigning in these ‘safe’ states, and pay more attention to the needs of electors in ‘swing’ states, such as Michigan and Florida, which determine the outcome of elections. This can mean that elections become less competitive as resources are concentrated on a smaller geographical area and smaller section of society.", "title": "The electoral college's \"winner-takes-all\" system causes campaigning only to swing states:", "pid": "54bd63d7-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00033-000", "bm25_score": 213.70851135253906}, {"text": "I accept. The additional set of rules listed aren't relevant to the debate but I'd definitely be willing to put my ideal against yours on how to prevent voter harassment in the future. It's my belief that neither voting system mentioned is the best possible but that the status quo is superior.to the proposed alternative. The purpose of this debate is to prevent DDO from making a mistake by excluding too many people and the wrong people from the presidential voting process. I want that purpose kept in mind because it probably will affect the style of my writing. Good luck BSH 1.", "title": "Voting Reform", "pid": "b33077f-2019-04-18T15:26:00Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 213.7036590576172}, {"text": "Rules:This debate is intended to be very short and brief. Therefore, there is a character cap of 5,000 characters, and will only be 1 round. Pro (myself) and Con will have only 24 hours to post their argument.Main Argument:Debate.Org is a website flourishing with many insightful debates and discussions on current events and pressing issues in society. However, due to the lesser amount of activity on this website, we have seen record-low voter turnouts, with a fair amount of debates being declared a tie due to no voters, or merely possessing only one or two votes.Comparatively, debates from approximately 7 or 8 months ago were crowded with commentary from spectators and plentiful of voters. The debate, \"The swearing filter on DDO should be removed,\" had 123 comments and around 22 voters. However, in this day and age, most debates either have one voter or no voters at all. People are able to vote only if they give their phone number. This method is fairly strict being that there is not alternate method of registering to vote, and may seem compromising to people who do not wish to give out personal information like their personal cell phone number. I do believe that there should be more ways to register as a voter such as submitting one's email and give them a verification code, and in addition, voting will only be open to those that are fairly active on the website, to prevent bots or alts from being able to vote. Thankfully, in the event that an alt, bot, or overly-biased person were to vote, the moderation team is very capable and responsible in preventing voter fraud.There are many benefits of opening voting to more people such as awarding debaters a win that they fairly deserve. The less voters there are and the less spectators are present in debates, the less likely debaters will prefer this debating site over others, such as Debate Island. If Debate.Org cannot open debating to more people, the website is likely to get more inactive and be deemed obsolete compared to more active debating websites. Additionally, allowing more people to vote will combat biased voters. Though voters have to write \"Reason For Voting\" alongside their vote and though the moderators are persistent in removing votes which are clearly biased or underwritten, the lack of variety in our voters may close ourselves off to having to appease to voters who are biased or have a personal preference towards one debater. Voters are a crucial part of Debate.Org, and if the website fails to attract more voters due to its strict policy of who can vote, debates will be less populous with spectators and will be limited to few, if any, voters at all.", "title": "Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote", "pid": "3189383-2019-04-18T12:29:02Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.70135498046875}, {"text": "Tactical voting is legitimate within the democratic process.", "title": "opinion polls harm the democratic process.", "pid": "c7b72d87-2019-04-15T20:24:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.70077514648438}, {"text": "I will first refute my opponent's argument and if space allows, return to my own.In his/her first observation, my opponent has clarified that this is a status quo debate. This is true, but I would like you to keep in mind my definition of should: MORALLY BETTER, which refers to an issue of justice and in this case, equality in the value of each and every vote. Since my opponent has failed to provide his/her own definition, it is only right that we should utilize mine. S/he has said that we ought not to “reform legal precedent based off status quo unless we can conclude” the following: A. The status quo DOES have a problem. We can see that the Electoral College is not morally better; rather, it fails to uphold equality in elections. The Electoral College system not only ignores votes due to the state winner-take-all policy, but compounds this inequality 51 times for the 51 voting jurisdictions. B. The problem will NOT go away by itself. As long as the state winner-take-all policy still exists, it is inevitable that a large portion of the voters in each state will be ignored, and this number is compounded 51 times, as previously mentioned. C. Changing the status quo will indeed fix this problem. Referring back to my framework, I define should as morally BETTER. Notice that it does not say morally BEST. This is important because no system is perfect, but direct popular vote is indeed BETTER because it greatly improves the equality which the state winner-take-all system fails to uphold. D. The “unintended problems from changing the status quo” HAVE been evaluated. As mentioned, no system is perfect. In the end, there will be votes that are disregarded because they did not favor the majority. However, in direct popular vote, this number is kept to a minimum by placing all votes in a single national pool instead of 51 separate jurisdictions. This means that much less people are ignored, and their votes DO matter because they have a direct say in the overall election. Briefly addressing my opponent’s second observation, the direct popular vote system would use a single, national vote tally to determine the presidency. If votes were counted by state, there would be no difference from the current system which already uses state popular vote totals to determine the winner of electoral votes. All votes will be taken on the same day, and candidates will still be referred to the House of Representatives if they do not win a majority (over 50%) of votes. My opponent claimed in his/her first contention that the EC preserves our moderate government. S/he assumes that a candidate “could represent all fifty states by winning the vote with a minimal plurality.” However, I have established in response to his/her second observation that a candidate would need to either win a majority of popular votes or be selected by the House of Representatives. Also, s/he states that the Electoral College requires landslide victories, which s/he defines as “half of the electoral votes, plus one.” A one-vote difference is definitely NOT a landslide victory; rather, it further emphasizes the fact that the Electoral College is creating RAZOR-THIN MARGINS and EXTREMELY CLOSE outcomes. In direct popular vote, this simply would not happen. “In fact, no presidential election since the 19th century has been won by fewer than 100,000 votes on a nationwide basis” according to John R. Koza, a professor at Stanford University. [1] This confirms that the probability of a close outcome would be decreased, which greatly IMPROVES the MORALITY of the voting system by electing a definitive winner - thus indicating that direct popular vote SHOULD replace the Electoral College.In his/her 2nd contention, my opponent cites the Heritage Foundation in placing his warrant regarding focus. However, this source is strongly conservative and therefore biased. Their website clearly states that it is an organization “whose mission is to formulate and promote CONSERVATIVE public policies.” [2] Therefore, my opponent has failed to support his claim with reliable evidence. The judge should also consider that just 17.0% of American citizens live in Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, North, Carolina, and Florida combined, the 5 most controversial swing states in the 2008 election according to the New York Times. [3] By contrast, 80.3% of citizens reside in metropolitan areas according to the 2010 census. [4] The metropolitan areas clearly represent a greater part of the country, thus candidates will campaign to more people with direct popular vote. This is morally better, so it should replace EC.My opponent states in his/her 3rd cont. that the EC respects the states, and DPV takes away the voice of the small states. The fact remains, however, that small states are currently OVERrepresented. A vote cast in a less populous state is currently worth THREE to FOUR TIMES one cast in a more populated state. “Although the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not allow such extreme deviations from the ‘one person, one vote’ standard in legislative apportionment, they are perfectly tolerated in the apportionment of the Electoral College” according to John Mark Hansen of the Michigan Law Review. This is NOT an equal representation, while in direct popular vote, the “one person, one vote” standard is upheld. Using my definition of should as morally better in terms of equality, direct popular vote thus SHOULD replace electoral vote in presidential elections.We have successfully rebutted each of our opponent’s points and shown why the direct popular vote is better in every scenario, thus we urge a pro ballot. Thank you.Sources:[1] http://www.every-vote-equal.com...[2] http://www.heritage.org...[3] http://elections.nytimes.com...[4] http://factfinder.census.gov...", "title": "Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.", "pid": "7e8cbef7-2019-04-18T18:37:20Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.6861572265625}, {"text": "Role of the Ballot:The role of the ballot is to determine who does a better job debating the resolution by evaluating the arguments each side makes against each other. This is the only fair way to evaluate a debate because it better eliminates judge bias compared to evaluating a debate based on if the resolution is true or false. This mean you're determining the victor of the debate by who makes the better arguments, rather than who proves the resolution to be true or false. If Pro makes the better arguments, then he \"wins\" the debate, meaning you negate the resolution. If I make the better arguments, then I \"win\" the debate, meaning you affirm the resolution. Thus, my argument is simple: I won't make an argument.", "title": "Debate Halting Problem", "pid": "fe03cf47-2019-04-18T15:18:48Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.66192626953125}, {"text": "I am going to rebut my opponent's case and defend my own. Defense 1. The example my opponent provides is a flawed example. Elections, unlike bullets, are mutually exclusive. A more apt example might be a coin flip or a dice roll, where more votes is equal to more weight on that side of the coin or dice. Votes can sway the Election one way or the other, but those who vote against the majority are wasting their time. 2.My opponent claims that larger states states in fact have more power in the popular vote because the larger states would decide all of the elections. This appears to be a reasonable concern until we look at the population distribution of the United States. Even if a candidate got the top 100 cities to unanimously vote for them, from titanic New York City all the way down to mighty Spokane, the elector would only receive 19.4% of the vote, not nearly enough to win the popular vote.Also my opponent claims that making the smaller states power makes it more democratic. This is clearly false. A democratic system has equal representation, not disproportionate representation. 3. My opponent makes two claims here, that the law prevent biased voting and that it is not practiced. However, since an objective court could prosecute electors on this issue, the hypothetical is the issue here. Also, my opponent still claims that removing democratic pillars for a good reason is just, but that is simply not true. Democracy is the best system, and should be incorporated in all possibilities. 4.My opponent claims that FPTP systems are better because of their simplicity. Simplicity is not a measure of effectiveness, and this argument should be disregarded. A simpler system is not always a better one. 5. My opponent misses the point of my fifth point. The reason (at least partially) for no third party victors in US history. The example of teleportation is not effective because teleportation is not a part of physics, and the laws of the universe would have to rewritten for it to occur. The Electoral College is not as major as these laws. 6.My opponent claims that the US shouldn't focus on being too democratic since it was never based on pure democracy. Yet, those democratic aspects that they mention are the aspects being damaged by the Electoral College. My opponent again claims the large states would remain supreme, but this is the same argument he made previously, and should be disregarded with the same evidence of population distribution. 7. My opponent claims that people in swing states have an incentive to be more educated voters because their votes are more important in an election. This means my opponent agrees, some people are more important than others in the Electoral College. This is a fundamental issue that cannot be stated enough. The breakdown of democracy comes from the idea that some people are more important than others. This line of reasoning goes against all of democracy. 8.My opponent claims since the territories don't pay federal income tax, they shouldn't get a vote. Yet, not only territories don't pay that tax. In 2013, 43% of households didn't pay federal income tax, mainly the working poor, the elderly, and veterans. They all have their right to vote, and unless they are suggesting taking away their vote, this argument doesn't come into play. Also, only American Samoa or Swain\"s Island have non-citizenship, the rest the territories grant citizenship. Attack 1.My opponent cross applies his argument so cross apply my attack from my second point. 2.My opponent yet again conflates simplicity and effectiveness, and also claims, that the STV is too complex. STV is a simple system that simply shifts one candidate for a ranking system. For example, say in this last election someone loved Gary Johnson but knew he was going to lose. Instead of voting for a candidate they don't like, but one that could win, they could show their support for Gary by making him the top vote. 3. My opponent claims the Electoral College is good because the end justifies the means. This is not the same as their original argument, that it would take too much effort. This is therefor a new argument and should be treated as such. If the end justifies the means, end not being the correct one in 40% of the last 5 elections, shows the means bring the wrong ends. They also claim prohibition was unjust but refuse to see that the argument about Prohibition was the precedent for removing amendments to the Constitution 4. My opponent makes the same claim that the smaller states need the boost for it to be fair. Cross apply my previous attacks on this argument,while also seeing yet again the Electoral College is inherently anti-democratic by making some people count for more than others. 5.In the obvious victor argument my opponent claims that when the votes don't match the electorate, that is good because it is efficient. Yet, my opponent still shows the ugly side of the Electoral College in this statement, since that efficiency comes at the expense of democracy. That is the core aspect of this debate, whether or not it is better to have a democratic system or an efficient one (even if the system isn't actually efficient). In my round 3 speech, point 2, I also point out how close election can occur in the electoral college, which shows that the argument about higher efficiency isn't even necessarily true. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to imagine a race where someone won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College. If the system is so efficient, then these problems would not occur. 6. My opponent claims they never committed a straw man, but that was the whole point of their sixth point. Their argument was the pro was against Federalism, and that is why the Electoral College is bad under the pro. Yet, as I have shown, the issues is not with its Federalism, but with the inequality and ineffectiveness of the system. In terms of the debate about the founding fathers, I never mentioned slavery, but only that they didn't believe in voting as a right in America for most people. The idea of voting is a Constitutional issue, via the 14 and 19th amendments, and so both points still remain. 7. My opponent conceded this point, while stating that this is not enough to tip the scales towards the pro. Yet, this is absolutely enough. Beyond Lincoln, there are four others who lost the popular and won the Electoral. (J. Q. Adams lost both but became president) Rutherford B. Hayes was president during the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, Benjamin Harrison was one of the most inactive presidents ever, Bush started the War on Terror, and Trump; who hasn't actually has a presidency to judge yet, but in the election cycle constantly enforced the ideas of Stop and Frisk as well as purposeful torture and killing of Middle Eastern Civilians. None of these, save for Lincoln, were good presidents, and so we have to see that this fundamentally shows by itself why the Electoral College should be abolished. 8. My opponent claims that I engaged in a straw man when I claimed the Electoral College doesn't stop rigged elections, but makes them systematic. Yet, there was no straw man, I simply showed there was proof to fulfill the burden. Also, I mentioned how undemocratic that way of thinking is, and my opponent has no response because it is inherently stripping some people of equal voting rights. In his voting points, my opponent admits the Electoral College is less democratic, and asks why that is so wrong. Yet, the democratic aspect of equal voting rights is at stake here, and that is indeed a part of the democracy of America. Also, my opponent claims that my case was \"lackluster\" because it was \"dismantled.\" They confuse attacking an argument with defeating it, as I have shown none of their attack stick when under close inspection. His voting issues are flawed. Vote Pro b/c it: 1. Upholds Equal Voting Rights 2.Is more Efficient 3.Helps the country be better", "title": "In the United States, the Electoral College should be abolished.", "pid": "45570f76-2019-04-18T12:33:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.65777587890625}, {"text": "Alchemist for suggesting this very interesting resolution, and 1harderthanyouthink for organizing this tournament. Increases voter turnout I doubt that my opponent would challenge this argument. Compulsory Voting (CV) would lead to a significant increase in Voter Turnout. When Australia implemented CV, the voter turnout increased from 57.99% in 1922 to close to 95% in every election afterwards [1][2]. In Belgium, the voter turnout is around 90% [3]. On the other hand, the voter turnout is much lower in countries that don't have CV,. For example, UK's turnout was 66.12% in 2015 and only 35.4% for elections regarding who would represent them in the EU parliament [4]. The United States doesn't fair much better when only 36.4% voted in the elections in 2014 [5]. Low voter turnout leads to unequal participation Arend Lijphart writes that \"Political equality and political participation are both basic democratic ideals. […] In practice, however, as political scientists have known for a long time, participation is highly unequal. And unequal participation spells unequal influence–a major dilemma for representative democracy […] in which the \"democratic responsiveness [of elected officials] depends on citizen participation\", and a serious problem even if participation is not regarded mainly as a representational instrument but an intrinsic democratic good. \" [6] In a democracy, we ought to strive for equal participation. As Compulsory Voting clearly increases voter turnout, it can be seen that it easily solves the dilemma of unequal participation. Unequal participation has dire effects on the less fortunate and less represented Georg Lutz and Michael Marsh write: \"The standard view is that low turnout produces a class bias in electoral outcomes. Most studies of participation have found that socio-economic status (SES) is strongly correlated to participation. Education, income, age and sometimes gender are highly significant predictors of whether somebody voted. \" [7]. For example, in Switzerland, class bias between the least and most highly educated citizens was 37 percentage points [6]. It's inherently less democratic when a class of people has more influence than another. Key explains the impact: \"The blunt truth is that politicians and officials are under no compulsion to pay much heed to classes and groups of citizens that do not vote. \" [8] Democracy is about the \"will of the people\" and Compulsory Voting better achieves that will than voluntary voting. Low voter turnout leads to polarization It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that \"Research and case studies show that when turnout is low, more-ideological candidates are chosen because the restricted voter pool allots disproportionate influence to more-ideological voters\" [9]. Morris Fiorina writes that \"But with the prospect of low turnouts, it is the most motivated—and militant—elements at the edges of the ideological spectrum who will receive the most attention. \" In a democracy where everyone is inherently equal, we should strive for a system that would call for equal representation and equal attention to everyone. Compulsory Voting better achieves that goal. Also, polarization leads to legislative gridlock. David Jones writes: \"party polarization, in conjunction with varying partisan seat arrangements, affects the relative inability of government to enact significant proposals on the policy agenda\" [10]. He concludes that \"Divided government per se does not cause gridlock. Instead, the results show that higher party polarization increases gridlock. […] On the other hand, divided government is just as productive as unified government when party polarization is low. \" Less focus on getting the votes, and more focus on policy This argument is also a clear and a simple one. Joe Garecht writes: \"Get out the vote operations (GOTV) can mean the difference between success and defeat on Election Day, especially for the local campaign. GOTV means those operations that your campaign performs to ensure that voters who plan to vote for your candidate go to the polls on Election Day\" [11]. For example, in a provincial election in Alberta, Canada, a political scientist says that \"the key to victory for the party that wins Tuesday's Alberta election will be its ability to get out the vote\" [12]. In other words, the political party or candidate that is more efficient, and more organized has a better chance of representing the people than the other party, even if the people may otherwise prefer the other party. I argue that this is undemocratic. People look for representatives based on their policies and promises, and not based on their organizing skills and ability to get out the vote on election date. The pressure on candidates to Get out the vote significantly puts less funded politicians at a disadvantage as they may not have the capacity to get the vote out compared to other well funded candidates. Compulsory Voting would solve this problem. Educates and engages the public about the political process \"Political parties in compulsory voting environments may expend more effort educating voters or countries with compulsory voting may also possess or develop a political culture which encourages greater engagement in politics, or compulsory voting may compel the media to place a greater effort on educating voters. There are, in other words, many plausible mechanisms by which compulsory voting may be associated with increased political engagement\" [13]. A study shows that \"electoral policies that increase incentives for participation […] will not only increase voter turnout; they will also motivate an increase in the types of political information that are necessary for making a good vote choice\" [14]. Having a better understand of the political process suggests that people will make better informed decision when it comes to selecting who should represent them in an election. Thank you. Sources [1] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.idea.int... [3] . http://www.idea.int... [4] . http://www.idea.int... [5] . http://time.com... [6] . http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu... [7] . http://www.andreasladner.ch... [8] Key, V. O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press [9] . http://cacs.org... [10] . http://www.baruch.cuny.edu... [11] . http://www.localvictory.com... [12] . http://www.cbc.ca... [13] . http://individual.utoronto.ca... [14] . http://cess.nyu.edu...", "title": "August Tournament - Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory", "pid": "992b0216-2019-04-18T14:30:54Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.6556396484375}, {"text": "Opinion polls also distort the political decision making process: during elections, polls swing faster then politicians can adapt their strategies. The result: politicians are following every swing of the polls and engaging in “political marketing” instead of really developing a party philosophy and trying to honestly engage the citizens. Also, in between elections, polls ruin the process: the executive launches policy to try and create a better public opinion in stead of real policy. Symbol politics, in stead of real politics, is the result.", "title": "Opinion polls also distort the political decision making process: during elections, polls swing fast...", "pid": "76ca096e-2019-04-19T12:44:12Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 213.65469360351562}, {"text": "my case remains unrebuted.", "title": "Emotion manipulation equals votes", "pid": "61f30d03-2019-04-18T15:48:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.65184020996094}, {"text": "Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined[1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don’t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don’t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won’t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012[2], and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users,[3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box. [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004 [2] Office for national statistics, ‘Statistical bulletin: Internet Access – Households and Individuals, 2012’, 24 August 2012 [3] NMA Staff, ‘UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year’, New media age, 6 August 2010", "title": "Voting at a lower age would increase participation", "pid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 213.65000915527344}, {"text": "Voter ID cards are unfair and ineffective in preventing voter fraud. The main concern with requiring an ID card, other than voter registration card, would be the additional costs incurred just to use the inherent right granted to all Americans to vote. While not posing a strong disincentive preventing voters from paying one-time fee to exercise their future right to vote, the principle of paying to vote is unfair and should not be advocated. As a counter-plan to solve the problems of the 2000 and 2004 elections, the solution should be a federal mandate requiring paper trials for all election precincts. A paper trail would allow voter fraud to be caught most efficiently. More of a concern than having individuals vote under a fake identity is the possibility of having electronic voting booths have their votes switched without being able to prove otherwise.", "title": "A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote.", "pid": "f2c72c91-2019-04-18T19:54:40Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.64700317382812}, {"text": "Thanks for the quick response Mr. Voices. Let's look to my points and whether my opponent adequately refutes them. 1) IRV increases strategic voting My original argument was that ranking your preferred candidate as number 1 can make him/her lose and ranking your least preferred candidate last can help him/her to win. This makes no sense. People have to vote strategically under IRV as well to prevent their votes from being wasted or having a counterproductive result. My opponent says that you can just leave the box blank. But this doesn't answer the argument that \"ranking a candidate higher can actually cause the candidate to lose, and ranking a candidate lower can cause the candidate to win.\" If you leave the box blank, that's equivalent to ranking the candidate last. It doesn't change the problems with IRV. 2) Extra candidates My argument was that IRV is stupid because it's possible that candidate A beats candidate B in a head-to-head election, but if candidate C enters the race, suddenly candidate B beats candidate A. That makes absolutely no sense. Parties will run fake candidates to split the vote of popular candidates so they don't make it to the final 2. My opponent just nitpicks an assumption I make in the scenario I gave, but that's the point of giving hypotheticals: it simplifies the issue so it's easier to understand. And it's not that far-fetched. Median voter theory states that voters will prefer candidates who are closer to them on the political spectrum. So if this is the political spectrum: Liberal Conservative Then it's not that far-fetched to believe that if candidate A loses, all of his supporters will instead vote for candidate B. This proves that fielding extra candidates DOES split the vote, potentially causing the winner in a head-to-head election to instead lose in the first round of vote counting. 3) The candidate with majority support can lose My opponent's response has something to do with doing a poll under the current system. However, the point of this objection is that under ALL voting systems, the person who is preferred by a majority should win (assuming you believe in democracy). However, if you remember the example of John, David, and Peter, the majority preferred John to David, but David wins because Peter knocks John out of the race in round 1. Yet 60% of voters preferred John to David. A \"first past the post\" system better upholds democratic values. 4) People won't research all the additional candidates. My opponent says that this happens now. However, NOW there are usually only two viable candidates. Under instant runoff, your choice of who to rank second or third could entirely sway the outcome of the election. This requires a level of research that people do not do. The two party system simplifies the electoral process for people. I wonder how the majority of voters will choose their rankings, given that few people do research on candidates. It's a double bind: either people rank third party candidates without researching them (which undermines democracy) OR they do the responsible thing and don't rank anyone but the Democrat and Republican, which is functionally the same as the current system. Best case, my opponent is advocating for the current system. Worst case, he is advocating for people making uninformed rankings that can completely alter the outcome of the election. 5) Ballot counting My opponent advocates hand counting. However, his source's speculative claim doesn't seem to be true. You have to pay people to count the ballots by hand. You also have to print a different type of ballot than the ones we currently use with machines. I would like my opponent to prove we can afford such a system. In addition, hand counting leads to its own problems. In Republican states, it is likely Republicans would be counting the ballots. When there are marginal ballots where it's unclear who someone voted for, Republican vote counters are going to be biased and award more marginal ballots to the Republican candidate. Bryan Pfaffenberger, a professor at the University of Virginia, points out, \"By taking paper out of the voting process, mechanical voting machines make it impossible for anyone to invalidate a ballot. A complex interlocking system – a technological achievement – prevents overvoting, in which a voter casts votes for more candidates than the law permits. Above all, the voting machine's virtue was precisely that it left nothing for partisan election officials to haggle over.\" He continues, \"Returning to [hand counting] might work well in areas with lots of oversight, but in contrast to other stable democracies, this movement has made little progress in the US. Throughout most of the country, today's election system has more in common with that of the 1890s: It's inadequately supervised, insufficiently professionalized, and all too often staffed with openly partisan officials. Under these circumstances, what voting machine backers believed a century ago still holds true: It just isn't wise to let people count ballots.\" http://www.csmonitor.com... My opponent also doesn't answer the following arguments: *Federalism: each State has the right to adopt its own system. The federal government cannot mandate how they apportion votes. *Electoral college: IRV doesn't work well with winner take all. In states that award electors proportionate to a candidate's share of the vote, you're not \"throwing your vote away\" if you vote third party. That person still gets electors. If all states adopted proportionate systems, that would be preferable to IRV. *Multi-party presidential systems are bad. The Kellogg School (at Northwestern) found that in all of history, there has only been ONE stable multi-party presidential system. Most presidential systems with successful third parties stagnate because the legislature can't get anything done. We can barely get anything done with two parties who always disagree. Imagine if we had 4 or 5 disagreeing. *The Guardian's analysis of the 2010 UK election shows that IRV does NOT increase the number of third party candidates that win. So IRV doesn't accomplish my opponent's goals anyways. *If you don't want to throw your vote away, vote for one of the two major parties. This solves. Even under IRV, Ross Perot would have still lost. The only way IRV could have possibly changed the outcome is that Bush might have beat Clinton because IRV might have screwed up the election. The lack of third parties has to do with our form of government (presidential vs. parliamentary), and NOT with the way the votes are counted.", "title": "The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting.", "pid": "538dd198-2019-04-18T18:14:33Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.6129913330078}, {"text": "The concern with mail-in voting surrounds the verification of voter identity as well as voter signatures. This requires a fairly well developed balloting infrastructure, standards, and administration. But, in the state of Florida, there is no past experience with mail-in ballots, making the risk of voter fraud very high.", "title": "A mail-in ballot system entails risks of voter fraud", "pid": "e10d3563-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00076-000", "bm25_score": 213.61135864257812}, {"text": "This is my first debate, so forgive me if I\"m not exactly sure how it works. Here is my best case for single day polling: I submit that voting should be on one day only and as a secondary statement submit that the day could be moved to Saturday, if needed. No absentee mail in ballots should be allowed either. 1. Internet access is widespread in America (about 75% at home according to US census) that people who cannot make it to a polling location on a specific day can still vote. People who do not have access to the Internet certainly have reasonable means to find access (friend, library, school, work). Anyone who claims they absolutely cannot get to the Internet for any reason probably means they did not get to a connection because they did not value the vote. http://www.census.gov... 2. A single day vote may actually increase voter turnout. If the day is made special like Super Bowl Sunday, perhaps turnout will increase over the current apathetic levels. Last year, television ratings for the Super Bowl were about twice as high as the rounds that led up to the single day game. The reason is that it was made special, the weeks preceding the game lead up to the Super Bowl, and it was limited time frame. Those factors bring in the casual fan. On an anecdotal level, ask people next year after the game who did not watch to provide you a reason. My educated guess would be they did not watch because sports does not interest them, not because they could not find a television or device to watch it on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.usatoday.com... 3. Inconvenience is not the major reason people don\"t vote. As it is now, most states have absentee ballots that allow citizens to mail in their ballots over the course of weeks in some cases. Yet, voter turnout is still low. With the option of mailing in a ballot or showing up at the polls, participation is not low because people cannot get to a physical location on a Tuesday, it is low because the non-voters don\"t care to vote for a variety of reasons. Some major reasons are: people feel like the government has for whatever reason let them down, they don\"t follow politics so they don\"t care to vote and the Electoral College technically elects the president so why bother? 4. I would be in favor of moving the single day from Tuesday to Saturday. Since more people work on weekdays than weekends, the Saturday date could increase voter turnout as well as provide opportunities for local celebrations and parades. If an election day were ever to bring in the casual voter like Super Bowl Sunday brings in the casual sports fan, the aforementioned civic celebrations might be the only avenue. 5. I will admit that computers can be hacked and online voting on a single day could open the process up for fraud. However, I would submit that just because a problem exists does not mean the activity should always be avoided. When cars became faster, engineers designed seat belts, they didn\"t avoid driving over 20 miles per hour. Election fraud is rampant now anyway (will the word Florida suffice?). Also, online identity theft occurs but people still shop online and go on social media sites, they just need to be more careful. Since we won\"t be eliminating all online activity just because it can be dangerous, why would we avoid online voting?", "title": "Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day", "pid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.5868682861328}, {"text": "In a nutshellWhen the electoral college (EC) and the national popular vote (NPV) produce the same outcome, EC is an unnecessary complication in the process. When outcomes differ, NPV's outcome is right and EC's outcome is wrong. Either way, you have a reason to choose NPV and none to choose EC.How to choose one system over anotherYou are choosing between policies. This calls for a well-reasoned justification that follows from the purpose of having a policy in the first place. Ruthlessly filter each of our arguments through the question: \"does this persuade me that one policy fulfills its purpose better than the other policy?\"You will find that NPV is justified by an uncontroversial principle and a coherent, mathematically valid argument, whereas EC is an unnecessary political compromise justified only by points that are fallacious individually and do not form a coherent argument collectively. And there is no way to derive EC from a solid theoretical foundation without doing incredible mental gymnastics.The purpose of the election is to ...... represent the will ...The purpose of any kind of election is to make a decision that represents the will of the voters. (To aggregate preferences, in more formal terms.) There is simply no other reason to have an election, except to deceive people by creating the illusion of democracy.The fairest, most obvious, and least arbitrary way to formalize \"the will of the voters\" is the criterion of majority rule: if over half the voters prefer option A over option B, then A should defeat B.Therefore, if NPV satisfies the criterion of majority rule when EC fails (over half of voters prefer A over B; NPV selects A over B; EC selects B over A), then you should choose NPV.... of the citizens.The difference between EC and NPV is:EC: voter = person (\"elector\") hired by state government to vote.NPV: voter = citizen.A system should count citizens, not hired electors, as voters.Citizens surrender their liberty to the government. In exchange, the government serves them. Why ask the citizens what they want, if not to legitimize the government's actions and to help it effectively fulfill its end of the social contract?On the other hand, there is no justification to represent the will of a few hundred state employees who were hired simply to vote. Pro might say \"EC represents the will of the states themselves.\" If so, then why should states have electors proportional to their citizens? Because big states matter more than small states? Because issues are more important if they matter to more citizens? That is actually the intuitive idea that is formalized as majority rule. Therefore, by the same logic that justifies the design of EC, NPV is right and EC is wrong.When NPV and EC produce different results...In US history alone, it has happened 4 times, most recently in 2000 when Bush beat Gore.Simple example of how this can happen:States are X, Y, and Z; each state has 5 citizens and 1 elector; candidates are A and B.X: A A A A AY: A A B B BZ: A A B B BIn NPV, A wins 9-6. In EC, B wins 2-1 because Y and Z have their electors vote for B.Interestingly, political science textbooks use similar examples to illustrate gerrymandering.... NPV's result is right and EC's result is wrong.This is self-explanatory. The right result is the one that represents the will of the citizens. There is no reason to think that throwing away hundreds of millions of citizens' data points, and electing the president based on a smaller data set that only vaguely resembles the citizens' data set, represents the will of the citizens more accurately.Gerrymandering is a form of political corruption in which politicians creatively assign citizens to districts to win absurd victories that wildly contradict the will of the citizens. It defeats the purpose of democracy to divide citizens into groups for no purpose other than to change the outcome. What makes the electoral college any different?", "title": "Electoral college", "pid": "d0766dd3-2019-04-18T14:43:55Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.58546447753906}, {"text": "Campaigns for ballot measures often have unfair resource advantages", "title": "Direct democracy", "pid": "281ab12-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 213.58526611328125}, {"text": "Norman Ornstein. \"Vote - or else.\" New York Times. August 10th, 2006: \"Mandatory voting comes with a price: a modest loss of freedom. But this would be more than balanced by the revitalization of the rapidly vanishing center in American politics.\"", "title": "Benefits of mandatory voting outweigh costs to freedoms.", "pid": "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00071-000", "bm25_score": 213.5843048095703}, {"text": "The people would still be voting through endorsements. But Instead of an election being determined by 3% of the population, it is determined by a national congress, and everyone is weighted against each other heavily. Also if you consider an endorsement a vote this will increase turnout. One of the problems with our system is that people simply can't get to the polls on the appointed day. Then that raises the issue of does that state/ city have absentee voting or not. Also what about people who are working , can they take time off of work? With this system, endorsements are registered on your time not the governments time. Yeah the system would be robust but it would be more efficient in the lives of the individual in the long run. We all understand that sometimes people are just too caught up in life to research all of the candidate's and pick the best one. When thats the situation your faced with voting for a candidate based upon a scant amount of information, or withholding your potential harming or regrettable vote from the election. With this system when you vote for president you will be voting for your Electors whether they follow your party affiliation or they run without a party your voting for them based upon them representing your shoes in that congress. And then if you do find the time to really research into these candidates, you can go and give them your endorsement to bolster up his case before the congress, - and you do that on your own time. I think an elected congress that represents the people and is dedicated to choosing the right person for the job would do wonder for our country and take a load of the citizens, and at the same time it is more representative, because a small percent of the population isn't choosing an official that will serve the entire community.", "title": "United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out.", "pid": "5c32174c-2019-04-18T19:57:01Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.5748748779297}, {"text": "v", "title": "Technology to give all a vote", "pid": "fdc412af-2019-04-18T14:03:15Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.5690155029297}, {"text": "v", "title": "Technology to give all a vote", "pid": "fdc412af-2019-04-18T14:03:15Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.5690155029297}]}
{"idx": 31, "qid": "33", "q_text": "Should people become vegetarian?", "qrels": {"57f0866c-2019-04-18T13:10:45Z-00005-000": 2, "8781b711-2019-04-18T18:56:49Z-00008-000": 2, "d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00000-000": 2, "d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00001-000": 2, "e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00018-000": 2, "e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00145-000": 1, "e511ec5-2019-04-19T12:45:01Z-00046-000": 0, "e700e467-2019-04-18T15:48:20Z-00001-000": 2, "ebd53e8-2019-04-18T14:14:21Z-00003-000": 2, "d05cb29f-2019-04-18T18:23:28Z-00000-000": 0, "ebd53e8-2019-04-18T14:14:21Z-00005-000": 0, "f36764da-2019-04-18T16:39:30Z-00003-000": 2, "2f5fdbe4-2019-04-18T13:01:15Z-00001-000": 0, "8e65f903-2019-04-18T15:34:23Z-00001-000": 2, "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00007-000": 2, "8fa5c306-2019-04-18T18:47:35Z-00005-000": 2, "9c5e5ad8-2019-04-18T16:53:17Z-00005-000": 1, "5941421a-2019-04-18T15:20:27Z-00003-000": 2, "829468d-2019-04-18T17:21:53Z-00005-000": 2, "ebd53e8-2019-04-18T14:14:21Z-00001-000": 0, "34abd0bc-2019-04-18T16:27:49Z-00000-000": 0, "ccecc0ad-2019-04-18T15:37:21Z-00004-000": 0, "c48d65ec-2019-04-18T12:22:24Z-00001-000": 0, "3471caff-2019-04-18T14:09:31Z-00007-000": 2, "2e8eda76-2019-04-18T19:56:37Z-00001-000": 2, "27bae40-2019-04-18T14:07:02Z-00000-000": 2, "e2ab2756-2019-04-18T18:05:26Z-00002-000": 2, "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00004-000": 2, "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00006-000": 2, "18dd4096-2019-04-18T11:17:01Z-00004-000": 0, "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00021-000": 0, "c48d660b-2019-04-18T12:21:47Z-00001-000": 0, "129ce23f-2019-04-18T15:31:47Z-00003-000": 2, "6b550e4f-2019-04-18T17:11:00Z-00002-000": 0, "7eabc63c-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00003-000": 2, "7eabc63c-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00002-000": 2, "5e63f3a1-2019-04-18T15:53:17Z-00003-000": 1, "a118f0cf-2019-04-18T17:22:25Z-00003-000": 1, "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00003-000": 0, "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00007-000": 2, "b8b38790-2019-04-18T16:39:21Z-00005-000": 0, "68766b9f-2019-04-18T19:10:37Z-00000-000": 0, "916864f7-2019-04-18T11:10:13Z-00002-000": 1}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Many people disagree over the topic of Should People Become Vegetarian as it is controversial issue. My opinion on the issue of Should People Become Vegetarian is that people do not have to become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that raising beef is one of the most efficient way to produce food and access to get protein for humans. This is a good thing, because with the rapidly increasing population, we need as much food as we can provide that also provides us with the nutrition we need. Inevitably, we must agree that not everyone should be vegetarian, because we need to provide everyone food and this is one of the most efficient way.", "title": "Should People Become Vegetarian", "pid": "7eabc63c-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.4843292236328}, {"text": "And so forth..", "title": "All people should become vegetarian", "pid": "107900c0-2019-04-18T19:16:33Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.14852905273438}, {"text": "Ho Hum..", "title": "All people should become vegetarian", "pid": "107900c0-2019-04-18T19:16:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.95712280273438}, {"text": "I don't think everyone should HAVE to become one; everyone should have say in what they eat or not. 5 Reasons Why They Shouldn't: 1. Humans have been eating meat for millions of years and it is an essential part of our evolution. 2. Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals (such as birds, mice, and rabbits) that live in agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. 3. Meat is the most convenient source of protein. 4. Research has shown that many plants feel fear. 5. A meat-centred diet can help with weight loss. It takes fewer calories to get protein from lean meat than it does from vegetarian options.", "title": "Everyone should become a vegetarian", "pid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.43165588378906}, {"text": "I'll be arguing that the opponent's claim that \"humans should become vegetarian\" is not adequately supported and cannot be upheld. I'll be stating now the assumption that \"vegetarian\" refers to a person who doesn't eat animal meat. I'll furthermore clarify that the word \"should\" implies a moral, ethical and/or pragmatic desirability factor. As such, he is making an objective claim and possesses the Burden of Proof. I look forward to opening arguments.", "title": "Humans should be vegetarians.", "pid": "57f0866c-2019-04-18T13:10:45Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.42269897460938}, {"text": "I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong. It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets. Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?", "title": "Everyone should be vegetarian.", "pid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.35035705566406}, {"text": "Just need help with the possible arguments", "title": "Everyone should become a vegetarian", "pid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.24497985839844}, {"text": "Many people disagree over the topic of vegetarianism, as it is a very controversial topic. There is little doubt that all people should become vegetarian. This claim is justified by the fact that vegetarianism is much better for the environment. According to procon.org, producing one hamburger clears 55 square feet of rainforest. Every year, the U.S. imports thousands of tons of Brazilian beef, most of which was raised on rainforest-cleared land. This is a disaster. As intelligent beings, it is ridiculous that we are clearing rich, biologically diverse lands in order to create more flat, dead land for beef production. Our rainforests are precious and dwindling, and eating should not mean consuming meat abundantly, without thought for the consequences. We have moved on to the age where we are conscious of our effects in the world, the age where our desires aren\"t above the needs of our planet. Vegetarianism is a choice that reflects that.", "title": "Should People Become Vegetarian", "pid": "7eabc63c-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.04937744140625}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "THW become Vegetarians", "pid": "d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.91249084472656}, {"text": "Humans should become vegetarians because meat eating and the killing of farm animals (cows, pigs, etc.) is morally incorrect, evolutionary incorrect, and unhealthy. Meat Production also causes issues regarding pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use; all of which are unbeneficial to the increasing human population.", "title": "Humans should be vegetarians.", "pid": "57f0866c-2019-04-18T13:10:45Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.90728759765625}, {"text": "In conclusion, there is no reason for everyone to go vegetarian. It effects the enviornement, can create dangerous situations and force people into poverty.", "title": "Everyone should be vegetarian.", "pid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.8635711669922}, {"text": "But because of everyone that eats meat there is a huge effect on the animals. Not only are they killed but also for e.g. Chickens are fed steroids and other harmful chemicals in order for them to grow fast enough to sustain our wants. There are some chickens who are built so much out of chemicals that they don't even have heads yet can produce eggs. This isn't natural. Animals are being harms because of our selfishness. Therefore by making everyone vegetarian we will stop this cruelty to animals.", "title": "Everyone should become a vegetarian", "pid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.70709228515625}, {"text": "There are many reasons that people have for becoming a vegetarian. I believe I have heard all of them, but none of them have seemed to hold up against logical scrutiny. From health issues to ethical issues, all of the arguments that have been attempted have some major flaw. In this forum, I will attempt to point out the fallacies in all of these arguments. My challenge is for someone to give me a logical reason to become a vegetarian. I, in turn, will review the reason and give a refutation.", "title": "Vegetarianism is wrong. Eating meat is the way to live.", "pid": "d0e3a01f-2019-04-18T19:52:17Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.67288208007812}, {"text": "You're right, they don't provide most of the meat for the public. It is a very minimal amount. They have quite a small farm with not a lot of workers, so it does make sense, the part about it not being eaten by many people. I do agree with it being sick and inhumane for them to pump chemicals into the animals; in fact, I wish there was some kind of law passed that makes it illegal to do that. The thing is, there isn't one. I don't see why they even do that, and I completely agree with you that they shouldn't. I'm completely at loss as to what to say for the rest, as you've been a brilliant debater with brilliant arguments and you've made me agree with lots of things I didn't before. I have a feeling you might win this.", "title": "Everyone should become a vegetarian", "pid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.58358764648438}, {"text": "Round 1: Rules and position clarification. Round 2: Opening Statements. Rounds 3 and 4: Evidence/Rebuttals Round 5: Closing statements. I will be arguing that humans should become vegetarian.", "title": "Humans should be vegetarians.", "pid": "57f0866c-2019-04-18T13:10:45Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.53074645996094}, {"text": "I'll let the challenger make the first statement.", "title": "The World Should Become Vegetarian", "pid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.427734375}, {"text": "I sincerely believe the world should not become vegetarian, for one, it's just not natural. Swearing off something you were made to do, something your body needs.", "title": "The World Should Become Vegetarian", "pid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.3684844970703}, {"text": "First of all you can't force people to eat what they don't want to eat second of all someone has to keep animals in check and that is the human society if all meat eaters stopped eating meat there would be a huge overpopulation of animals third of all human is the most important race and takes priority over all other animals fourth of all many humans depend on meat products dietarily and hunting for financial reasons", "title": "Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan", "pid": "2d6e4294-2019-04-18T16:03:38Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.34262084960938}, {"text": "If the chickens have been built like that, the chances are that they are not self-aware. If they are, as you said, built so much out of chemicals they don't have a head, that means they have no head to have a brain. Without a brain they cannot think, nor be aware of what it happening to them. Many farms don't actually kill the animals; they wait until they die of natural causes. That way the animals get to live a full life, instead of being killed earlier for food.", "title": "Everyone should become a vegetarian", "pid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.34193420410156}, {"text": "However, people still crave meat, why is that? Because it's natural. If humans weren't made to eat meat they wouldn't crave it. Also, a lot of countries entire industry is built in the export or import of animal for slaughter, and raising the animals ourselves is a lot better than going out into the wild and depleting natural species. And, human consumption of meat plays a vital role in the ecosystem, we diminish overpopulating species.", "title": "The World Should Become Vegetarian", "pid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.24725341796875}, {"text": "sure thing", "title": "The World Should Become Vegetarian", "pid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.20057678222656}, {"text": "While it may be true that raising beef is more efficient way to produce food, it is not an environmentally friendly choice. Overgrazing livestock is extremely destructive to the surrounding environment. Overgrazing causes soil erosion and harm to native plant and animals. Also, grazing has been listed as a factor of endangerment in the Endangered species act. By refusing to participate in an industry that abuses the earth, one could effectively help in the restoration of U.S. land now being used for beef productions. In my opinion, it is more important to have responsibly produced food than it is to have cheap and fast food.", "title": "Should People Become Vegetarian", "pid": "7eabc63c-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.197265625}, {"text": "While my opponent makes some very strong points, that killing animals for food does affect the environment. But according to debate.org, being vegetarian does not necessarily help the environment either. It says that in 2003, there was a study done by scientists in Oregon State University, about six animals per acre, that lives in an agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. Although, it isn\"t as much as killing animals for food, if you add this up, that would be a lot of animals killed during harvest for food. So, even if you do not eat meat, because of the pesticides and other chemicals used while growing food, it kills a lot of animals. We definitely should eat less meat to help the environment, but animals also die when we harvest food.", "title": "Should People Become Vegetarian", "pid": "7eabc63c-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.17318725585938}, {"text": "I apologize to my opponent for forfeiting the last round. I did not get my argument posted in time. My conclusion is that if everyone went vegetarian, it would save a lot of animal's lives and it would give less money to huge industries. :)", "title": "Everyone should be vegetarian.", "pid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.15695190429688}, {"text": "Yep.", "title": "The World Should Become Vegetarian", "pid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.1538543701172}, {"text": "In our society, we now have vegetarians. Humanity sees every good side in vegetarians. However, not everything good is good. I believe that becoming vegetarian has much more harms rather than benefits. THW become vegetarian Definitions: This house- America Become- begin to be in the next 3 years Vegetarian- a person who does not eat meat, and other animal products. Rules apply: 1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate 2. Sources should be within the character limits 3. No round structures apply. However, no new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere (No trolling, swear words, conceding on purpose, etc.) 5. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 6.BoP is shared Round 1 -Acceptance and/or questions regarding the resolution. (NO ARGUMENTS PRESENTED) Any questions, please ask in the comments.", "title": "THW become Vegetarians", "pid": "d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.13723754882812}, {"text": "That isn't actually true. The amount of farms that actually allow the animal to live out its full life is very minimal. Why do you think organic meat is so much more expensive than \"normal\" meat. When I say normal I mean the meat that is full of steroids, and chemicals. And if we are debating on which one have the most feeling. It's safe to say that animals much more than plants. If people wanted to have their portion of meat they could eat soya food, and other sources of protein such as nuts etc. it's a matter of privilege. We once had the privilege to eat meat, but because we abused that privilege by using animal cruelty to get our food as quick as we want it. We should have that privilege taken away from us. Yes meat tastes nice, but it is a privilege that we do not deserve due to past actions.", "title": "Everyone should become a vegetarian", "pid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.0930938720703}, {"text": "In this debate, if you accept it, you must prove that being vegetarian is better than eating meat. I will prove otherwise. Accepting this debate, you are accepting a few rules.1. In the first round, you write your opening statements, and in the last you write \"thanks for the debate\". (only applies to opponent)2. No plagiarism.3. No using quotes as most of your argument, unless you are quoting in order to refute.4. No profanity5. No forfeiting6. No concessions before round 3. ACCEPTING THIS DEBATE YOU ARE ACCEPTING THE RULES ESTABLISHED. If any rule is broken, the culprit will recieve a 7 point deduction unless forgiven, can prove they didn't break the rule or for other special reasons that will be discussed if such occcurs.", "title": "Everyone should be vegetarian.", "pid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 214.97772216796875}, {"text": "It would be a progressive step for the human race for as many people as possible to begin following vegetarian plant based diets. I think this is something that will inevitably happen over the next few hundred years.", "title": "The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian.", "pid": "b66b3ad1-2019-04-18T17:41:33Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.94927978515625}, {"text": "Remaining Round 4 Sources[4] http://michaelbluejay.com...[5] http://www.onegreenplanet.org...My opponent forfeit their previous round, therefore my evidence stands unrebut. In conclusion, humans should become vegetarian and expel the killing of farm animals because it would promote kindness and compassion. Humans have arrived at the point in which meat isn't required in order to survive, and poorly preapred meat can result in obesity and high blood cholestoral. Furthermore, raw meat can cause sickness for humans, whereas it doesn't cause as much sickness for omnivores and carnivores. Lastly, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to prove that livestock causes pollution, deforestation, and excessive land use.I enjoyed this debate despite my opponent's forfeit. Thank you to all viewers and voters of this intriguing discussion!", "title": "Humans should be vegetarians.", "pid": "57f0866c-2019-04-18T13:10:45Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.92160034179688}, {"text": "Well, even though it IS minimal, at least it's something. One of my friends' parents own a farm, and they always wait until the animals die. Yes, they have to wait a long time, but they feel that they should. You do have a point with some of the other sources of protein there, so I won't argue with that. There is, however, another point I'd like to bring up. You don't think we should eat animals such as chicken. But what about fish? They are animals who's life is cut short for our food, yet vegetarians are still willing to eat them. I don't really agree with it being called animal cruelty. They are killed quickly and painlessly, so it can't really be cruelty. Cruelty is when the animals are tortured and in pain, or not being fed. The animals are fed, because otherwise there wouldn't be enough meat on them.", "title": "Everyone should become a vegetarian", "pid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.85928344726562}, {"text": "Hello and thanks to whoever accepts my debate. Some of the many issues we currently face regarding the environment includes global warming, water and air pollution all of which are directly connected to eating meat. There are many wasted resources, as massive amounts of land, food, energy and water are required to raise animals for food. An area of a rainforest the size of seven football fields is destroyed every minute for those purposes. Vast amount of energy are used for the farming of animals. The operation of factory farms, operation of slaughter houses, transportation of meat to grocery stores and the refrigeration required to keep the meat frozen in shops all require energy in very large amounts. A United Nations report from 2006 found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases then all cars, trucks, planes and ships in the world combined. Greenhouse Gases, we know, can lead to major disasters such as floods, tsunamis and hurricanes. A lot of water is used for farming animals. Watering crops, water used for drinking by the animals, cleaning filth in slaughterhouses and factory farms are all ways that water is used. You save more water by not eating 0.5 kg of beef then you do by not showering for an entire year. The usage of water to raise animals for food puts a strain on our already limited supply of water.", "title": "All people should become vegetarian", "pid": "107900c0-2019-04-18T19:16:33Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.84280395507812}, {"text": "My opponent cannot seem to find fault in my argument. Well, thanks anyway for debating me.", "title": "The World Should Become Vegetarian", "pid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.84156799316406}, {"text": "ok", "title": "The World Should Become Vegetarian", "pid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.8401336669922}, {"text": "Vegetarianism is much more \"natural\" than raising living, breathing creatures for slaughter. I have been vegetarian for a little over a year, and I feel better than I have my whole life, so my body obviously does not need meat. If humans converted the land that they use for meat to gardens, the world would have more food and world hunger could be greatly diminished. Breeders feed their animals tons and tons of corn and grain each year, and for only a few pounds of meat, which is a complete waste of food and life.", "title": "The World Should Become Vegetarian", "pid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.8063201904297}, {"text": "People crave meat because animal slaughter has been going on for hundreds of years and they have become used to it. However, that does not make it okay to do. The countries that you speak of could use all that land that houses animals as large gardens instead, which would produce more food, raise ethical citizens, and have a healthier society overall. The overpopulation of animals is occurring because of humans. They raise animals in large numbers, which quickly pushes the population way beyond it's natural number. If we stopped eating meat, the demand would go down and so would the overpopulation of animals.", "title": "The World Should Become Vegetarian", "pid": "ac45b77d-2019-04-18T13:38:21Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.77581787109375}, {"text": "When robots take over they may kill us as a result of not being vegan. Come on people, do the right thing.", "title": "People should become vegan as a result of possible future advances in artificial intelligence.", "pid": "7e9ebc8d-2019-04-18T16:00:51Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 214.77330017089844}, {"text": "No attempt made by opponent", "title": "Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan", "pid": "2d6e4294-2019-04-18T16:03:38Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.71115112304688}, {"text": "I will accept. Lets make our topic becoming vegetarians. I will be Pro and you will be Con.", "title": "A healthy debate for two.", "pid": "d1edb1b6-2019-04-18T14:21:08Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.6493682861328}, {"text": "Eating animals is part of our life. We eat animals because it helps out bodies and our health. But there's alternative ways to eat other food then just meat. We should just eat vegetables,fruits,pasta. We could eat anything but we choose to eat meat. We kill animals but we know it's wrong. Animals are just like us. They need water and food just like us. We're pretty much killing our own kind. Acting like cannablisms. Those animals are in need of help. We need to stop eating meat so we can save more animals in the near future. If we do so the earth would be a better place. So we should be vegetarians.", "title": "Why People Should Be Vegetarian", "pid": "970346b5-2019-04-18T16:22:22Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.62762451171875}, {"text": "One reason to go vegetarian or Vegan is that it's good for the environment. I strongly believe that and know for a fact that factory farms are taking away water and using it for there large unnecessary quantity of animals. I find it horrible to eat and innocent creature that once had a soul and a beating heart.", "title": "People should stop eating meat.", "pid": "c6d799ed-2019-04-18T14:24:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.61793518066406}, {"text": "I am a vegetarian, and in looking at people's profiles I noticed that a lot of people seem to be against vegetarianism. Would someone who is against it please debate me on this and explain why? I don't understand how you can be against people choosing not to eat animals.", "title": "Vegetarianism", "pid": "2e8eda57-2019-04-18T20:03:07Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.556396484375}, {"text": "Rules: 1. Polite conduct at all times 2. A picture or cartoon with every argument (just to be entertaining :D ) I will be arguing that people should eat a lot less meat or become vegetarian, Con will be arguing that meat is beneficial to the human diet. .. .", "title": "People should eat much less meat", "pid": "f67363ae-2019-04-18T17:04:18Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.55592346191406}, {"text": "However most people think that we are in need of meat, in my opinion, it's wrong and people should be vegetarians. First, I want to say that people, who don't eat meat, but eat eggs, drink milk (it's also production of animals), are healthier. According to research of KEDEM, vegetarian diet helps to reduce probability of death from such diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Besides, vegetarians feel themselves better. Bill Clinton, who was a vegetarian, once said to interviewer - \"All my blood tests are good, and my vital signs are good, and I feel good, and I also have, believe it or not, more energy.\" I think our health is a important reason why we should be vegetarians.", "title": "Vegetarianism is a good idea.", "pid": "eb7cbdce-2019-04-18T17:08:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.52809143066406}, {"text": "Yes, I know what global warming is. The mass killing of animals contributes to global warming because they need factories to produce the products made from them, and those factories contribute to global warming. Also, the workers at the slaughter houses are usually lower class people who are paid poorly for a job that they really don't want. It is scientifically impossible to eat meat while on a vegetarian diet, because that would defeat the whole purpose of the vegetarian diet and thus would not be called a vegetarian diet. A lion usually does not shove the zebra into a cage and torture it. I have been a vegetarian since birth, and I am perfectly healthy. I get protein and other vitamins and minerals from a variety of plant based sources.", "title": "Everyone should be vegetarian.", "pid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.50588989257812}, {"text": "\"Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding.\" ??????????????? So becoming a vegetarian is immoral and wrong? I challenge that that theory..... ;)", "title": "Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding.", "pid": "da18aa91-2019-04-18T15:04:21Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.49473571777344}, {"text": "Thanks for the debate!", "title": "Why People Should Be Vegetarian", "pid": "970346b5-2019-04-18T16:22:22Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.49029541015625}, {"text": "1. The other options I speak of are technological breakthroughs in resource management across the board. Too few people are going to change their eating habits in time, the issue will necessarily blow up on us as it has to in order to enact real change, and the concept here I'm pointing out is a form of \"strategic failing.\" The cultural conversation might more easily shift from \"eat differently\" to \"how should we expect our legislatures to invest\". 2. A \"non-meat majority\" on the food pyramid doesn't make the minority go away any more than this would justify making laws that help only white people because another ethnicity is in the minority. 3a. Simply alternating between veggie and meat friendly places would be a good compromise since as I pointed out the strain is symmetrical. I'm not aware of all the other veggie centric options when going out to eat. I do sympathize with the plight of having limited options on many menus. 3b. I'm not necessarily talking about me, but it would be easier to be more pro-active on the political front than change my desires for meat consumption. Those who are able, driven, and willing should definitely pursue this particular issue in the realm of political change. Important decisions on how to spend our tax dollars to make the world a better place need to be made. There are many big political issues (perhaps too many) that require this kind of attention and those who have the capacity to specialize in each one need to make certain kinds of change amicable to the average person who may share the same values to whatever degree, but can't reasonably be expected to always do something about it. 3c. ...", "title": "Ben Should Become a Vegetarian", "pid": "8fa5c306-2019-04-18T18:47:35Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.387939453125}, {"text": "Thanks for the response. In this debate, some of my refutations shall be later explained in my later arguments. If such occurs, it will be shown. (ex. [argument 69])REFUTATIONS\"I think that everyone should become vegetarian because killing off all of these animals is cruel, harming the environment, contributing to global warming, and just plain wrong.\" Here is precisely where you are completly false. Killing is wrong, however if it is neccesary for humans [argument 1]. So in a way, it is not cruel to kill animals if it is neccesary and aids you body. Furthermore, workers at slaughter houses kill animals, not the consumer. So the consumer is not killing the animal. It is not harming the environnement, because it is done with animals breeded specifically for meat. How does such effect the enviornnement? Simple, it doesn't. And it has no relation whatsoever to global warming. I doubt you even know what global warming is. Global warming, to say it quickly is when the atmosphere becomes thicker due to green house gases, preventing the heat from UV rays from leaving the earth, thus heating up the earth. [1] How do killing animals have anything to do with global warming?\". It has also been proven that vegetarian diets can reduce the risk of heart disease, and are healthier than omnivorous diets.\"Being omnivorous, you can still have a vegetarian diet, and eat meat in moderation. Because of such, we can have these benefits in a omnivorous diet, while still being alowed to eat meat.\"Many people think that it is just part of nature, but since when is nature considered as shoving animals into cages and pens so small that they can't even move?\" It is natural because it is important for humans. This is just like saying if a lion eats a zebra it's unatural because the lion killed the zebra.ARGUMENTSArgument 1: Humans have omnivorous digestive systems. [2] Meat has plenty of protein, which is important for stregthening the bones and muscles in the body. There is also many of B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and more. Eating the correct amount of meat, we are staying healthy, and gaining many healthy nutrients. So meat helps stregthen out bodies and provides various imporant nutrients that are difficult to find in only vegetables. So being vegetarian, we wouldn't have all these benefits, being omnivorous, we gain all these benefits and more.Argument 2: Being omnivorous, you are now open to eating any possible meal. Because of such, you would have a greater variety of possible things to eat, whereas being vegetarian, you have a difficult time finding specific foods. So if everyone was vegetarian, the amount of possible foods would be less.Argument 3: Many people would lose their jobs if everyone went vegetarian. Butchers, slaughterhouse employees and livestock farmers would lose their jobs and land. This would bring millions into poverty. If every went vegetarian, the amount of people living in poverty would increase.======================================================================================================= In conclusion, forcing everyone to go vegetarian would not be beneficial. Many would lose their jobs, have toruble getting the important nutrients they need, and have a smaller variety of possible meals, making them pickier. My opponent presented no proof whatsoever on her arguments, and I already proved them all wrong.Sources:1.http://www.nrdc.org...2.http://authoritynutrition.com...;", "title": "Everyone should be vegetarian.", "pid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.373779296875}, {"text": "Vegans/vegetarians should be crucified. These people won't eat animals, and think that they're \"saving them\" or some crap. they think their choices actually make a DIFFERENCE. They keep bragging, on and on, but guess what? NO ONE CARES. these people are weaklings who are too scared to eat animals, and we can't let them reproduce so we won't have newer generations of p*ssies.", "title": "Vegans should be crucified", "pid": "3cc9c03f-2019-04-18T11:39:41Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.3719940185547}, {"text": "This is my first debate, so I would like to start with something simple and pretty straight forward. There are three reasons why becoming vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is both beneficial to the person and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is healthier. All required nutrients may be obtained easily with a little attention, and a vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholestrol and very little saturated fat). 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contribute to the species extinction from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. For the environmental impacts of animal agriculture: http://www.vegetarisme.be... For the American Dietetic Association's position on the vegetarian diet: http://www.eatright.org...", "title": "People should not eat animals.", "pid": "7b65bdc-2019-04-18T19:55:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.36782836914062}, {"text": "First, you can't base your theories on our \"cavemen ancestors\" We live in a new era where development is key. Just because cavemen ate rocks doesn't mean we should start serving rocks to each other. And if you really believe that meat tastes good go ahead just remember that meat from mcdonalds promotes cancer.Yea, that McChicken can kill you Vegetarians in your mind might be anorexic, but you can't base you reasoning of stereotypes. Vegetarian people become vegan for all kinds of reasons. If you go back and see my claim it says the lifestyle is better not necessarily the people who Choose it. Animal cruelty only begins because there are so many people who demand to eat meat that no one cares for the animals. It works this way demand goes up then care for animals goes down. I apologize for plagiarism i truly thought that using the statistics and Harvard study results was permitted even after I credited Harvard. Please truly pick who you think had the more organized argument and good refutation. May the best man/woman win. Thank you for your time.", "title": "A vegetarian lifestyle is better than one of a meat eaters.", "pid": "5941421a-2019-04-18T15:20:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.36363220214844}, {"text": "Animals have feelings, and they should be treated like equals. They have souls, and thoughts, and emotions. They do not deserve to be killed for the sake of being turned into a cheap, greasy hamburger. There could be more jobs created, because the demand for tofu and other protein sources would go up. There would be less poverty because of theses jobs, and they would pay more. Soybeans and other legumes have just as much protein as a variety of meat sources.", "title": "Everyone should be vegetarian.", "pid": "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.36146545410156}, {"text": "Again, I cannot argue further as you forfeited the round.", "title": "Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan", "pid": "2d6e4294-2019-04-18T16:03:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.33534240722656}, {"text": "I may be a right winger but i think it is great if someone wants to be a vegetarian. Also its great and honorable to treat animals with the love and respect they deserve.", "title": "Vegetarianism", "pid": "2e8eda76-2019-04-18T19:56:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.29217529296875}, {"text": "First of all forcing an animal to eat items that messes up the way their body works is sick. Forcefully producing offspring that are so deformed to the extent that they lack basic needed body parts is animal crulty. It's wonderful to hear that your friends, dad is not following out this system and that he take care of the animals he has been blessed with. But I want to ask you a question. Does this man produce chicken for a big company. Is his farm one of the places that give majority of the animals that we find in our local stores. The answer is more than likely.. No. The reason why I asked this is small farms like that don't affect what the public eat to a large extent. The people that follow out this form of animal crulty is those that work on large farms with hundreds and thousands of workers that work long hours each day. It's the company's that then give there produce to other company's and eventually end up on our dinner plates. It's these people that don't have time to wait for the chicken to live a long and happy life. It's these people that need the chicken to be bing NOW. It's these people that pump chemicals etc. into the animal. And this does not only happen to chickens it could also be done to any of place that we get our meat from for example, a cow or an ostrich. The point that I want to get to is that these people produce the food we end up with, unless we are rich and can spend money on organic food. The two problems here is A) we end up eating food that is poisonous to a certain extent B) the way we get our food is through animal crulty As I have said before. This is a privilege. We abused it. So it's time to live without it. To respond to what you said about the fish. Well if we follow this system out (making everyone a vegeterian)we will not offer fish as food just like how we don't offer dog as food. Just a note on the side line: thanks for debating with me. You have helped me to a great extent.", "title": "Everyone should become a vegetarian", "pid": "272dfd04-2019-04-18T16:21:30Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.27059936523438}, {"text": "I think that vegetarianism is the only moral choice in the 21st century because eating meat is becoming a huge problem now. First, to produce all that meat, large areas of land have to be used to grow the animals, when they can actually be used for something more important, like planting trees to save the nature or other stuff. Also, lots of people are becoming overweight, and that can be a large problem of the 21st century. There will be twice as many people in hospital, and that can be disastrous. what do you think?", "title": "Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century.", "pid": "180c0226-2019-04-18T15:39:49Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.2665557861328}, {"text": "Yes, being a Vegan is definitely better than being a non-veg. You may say that meat has proteins, calcium, and so on. But if you take a closer look, vegetables and milk has the necessary vitamins, too! This is supported by the number of vegans in U.S.A which adds up to over 2.5 Million people, according to https://opinionessoftheworld.com... So aren't these people healthy? They do have the necessary nutrients and vitamins for the day. Besides, why would you want to kill innocent animals that suffer pain and still eat it? So, guys please consider this debate and change your lifestyle. It may be difficult at first, but slowly you can be a full veg. Start of with two days per week, then gradually change yourselves. I beg you to become a vegetarian. If any queries, you can ask me through this debate session. Thank you and may god bless you!", "title": "Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg", "pid": "ebf0ab1b-2019-04-18T12:58:35Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.260986328125}, {"text": "I accept your challenge and will debate with you on whether or not being a vegetarian is a good life-style. Seeing that opponent has already chosen pro, I would logically take con and be against the life style of that of a vegetarian. I am against vegetarianism because it discourages people from eating the other food groups; it prevents them from getting the right amount of nutrients only available in other food groups; and vegetarians still eat meat - they claim to be herbivores, but are, just like the rest of us, omnivores as many of the foods they eat are still eaten by carnivores. I believe that it is a negative lifestyle that negatively affects one's health and should not be used unless one is extremely healthy or ill.", "title": "Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle.", "pid": "8e65f903-2019-04-18T15:34:23Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.2585906982422}, {"text": "Humans don't need meat; eating it is an immoral choice", "title": "Vegetarianism", "pid": "e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00033-000", "bm25_score": 214.230224609375}, {"text": "I accept that eating meat may have been a necessary part of our evolution as a species, but I think that as time passes we will have to stop eating meat. It is far more efficient to use land to grow plants to eat, rather than growing plants to feed to animals who then go to slaughter after months/years of rearing. The earths population is increasing at a rate faster than ever, and soon there won't be enough land left to rear animals on. I am not a vegetarian personally, but I have my own personal rules on what I will and won't eat, which are another story and unrelated to this debate! I don't believe eating vegetables will make people smarter or stronger, but I definitely don't think it can make you any weaker or less intelligent. As far as I know any nutrients needed by the human body to function properly can be found in a vegetarian diet, and any harder to find vitamins or minerals can be bought as supplements. Therefore I can't see any negative effects of vegetarianism, and I can see a couple of positives. I'm not saying people should just give up meat overnight, people have favourite meals they wouldn't want to give up. I am saying I find it hard to imagine a future, 1000 years from now, where people still eat meat on the scale they do today. I think meat will eventually be at best a hard to come by rarity, seen by most as a bizarre barbarism of the past.", "title": "The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian.", "pid": "b66b3ad1-2019-04-18T17:41:33Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.1920928955078}, {"text": "Ok I give up. I got nothing. Good debate.", "title": "Why People Should Be Vegetarian", "pid": "970346b5-2019-04-18T16:22:22Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.17794799804688}, {"text": "\"First of all you can't force people to eat what they don't want to eat\" - This point is irrelevant to the argument; I merely state that everyone SHOULD become lacto-vegetarians/vegans and that we would have a better world and a better society if this is to be achieved. At no point did I mention anything about forcing people. \"second of all someone has to keep animals in check and that is the human society if all meat eaters stopped eating meat there would be a huge overpopulation of animals\" - The first comment is not explained clearly; for what reason does someone need to be keeping animals in check? Also, without the murder of animals, what is preventing us from keeping these animals in check? I can't argue back until you make that clear. The second statement is a common assumption that is often mistaken by meat eaters. There would be no overpopulation of animals; with the number of farm animals currently living in the world I can understand why it may seem so but that is only due to the mass breeding of livestock animals that takes place in order to provide more animals to be killed for their meat or to be kept for their produce (dairy/eggs/wool). Without the excessive breeding managed by the farming industry, the overpopulation of animals will most certainly not be any more of a problem than it is today. Whilst on the subject of doing what is best for the environment; bringing a halt to meat eating would greatly reduce the impact of climate change. \"There are three times as many domestic animals on this planet as there are human beings. The combined weight of the world's 1.28 billion cattle alone exceeds that of the human population. While we look darkly at the number of babies being born in poorer parts of the world, we ignore the over-population of farm animals, to which we ourselves contribute...[t]hat, however, is only part of the damage done by the animals we deliberately breed. The energy intensive factory farming methods of the industrialised nations are responsible for the consumption of huge amounts of fossil fuels. Chemical fertilizers, used to grow the feed crops for cattle in feedlots and pigs and chickens kept indoors in sheds, produce nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas. Then there is the loss of forests. Everywhere, forest-dwellers, both human and non-human, can be pushed out. Since 1960, 25 percent of the forests of Central America have been cleared for cattle. Once cleared, the poor soils will support grazing for a few years; then the graziers must move on. Shrub takes over the abandoned pasture, but the forest does not return. When the forests are cleared so the cattle can graze, billions of tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere. Finally, the world's cattle are thought to produce about 20 percent of the methane released into the atmosphere, and methane traps twenty-five times as much heat from the sun as carbon dioxide.\" Those are the words of Peter Singer and, with my knowledge from in depth research, I could not put it any better. In 2009 researchers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency published their projections of the greenhouse gas consequences if humanity came to eat less meat, no meat, or no animal products at all. The researchers predicted that universal veganism would reduce agriculture-related carbon emissions by 17 percent, methane emissions by 24 percent, and nitrous oxide emissions by 21 percent by 2050. Universal vegetarianism would result in similarly impressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. These figures have not and cannot be proven for certain without being tested, but for those of you disagreeing that it should be tested - have a look at our world now; look at the increase of global warming that has taken place over the last few decades - we are risking the future of our planet for our own greed and desire for meat. On the subject of solving the issue of starvation: Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, and it takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh; on average it takes 21 pounds of protein fed to a calf to produce a single pound of animal protein for humans. We get back less than 5 percent of what we put in. According to the USDA and the United Nations, using an acre of land to raise cattle for slaughter yields 20 pounds of usable protein. That same acre would yield 356 pounds of protein if soybeans were grown instead\"\". It should be no surprise, then, that food for a vegan can be produced on only 1/6 of an acre of land, while it takes 3 1/4 acres of land to produce food for a meat-eater. By ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make so much extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition. The meat industry is thus highly inefficient and, on top of the vast amount of land, resources, water and fossil fuels wasted, and the harmful gas emissions, farming (factory farming in particular) is also wasting extremely high amounts of energy that - if we transfer to vegetarian/veganism - could be stored and used to support more important causes. So, in conclusion - being a more efficient and environmentally friendly option - bringing a halt to eating meat would be the better option even if we discard the idea that we should not have the right to violate the animals. Yes, with such a large meat industry a forestalling of this could not happen over night but gradually as more people stop eating meat, the farms and factories will stop breeding so heavily and will require a lower energy consumption; this energy and space will then be transferred to produce more plants in order to meet the demands of the markets and, eventually, we could achieve it. Back to your arguments: \"human is the most important race and takes priority over all other animals\" - Here you have provided a statement but have given no evidence to back it up. What makes humans the most important race? We have priority over all animals merely because we are far more intelligent and thus the more dominant of species, but by no means does this mean that we should kill them. Anyhow, all the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter the fact that: in suffering the animals are our equals. They feel pain and suffer just as we do and, therefore, it just as evil to inflict pain upon an animal as it is on a human. \"many humans depend on meat products dietarily and hunting for financial reasons\" - Again you have not explained your statement and in doing so you haven't given a proper argument that I can defend. Humans don't depend on meat products for their diet; they just see it as the easiest and most desirable option. I cannot name specific examples as you have not given me any examples to defend against but there are so many vegetarian/vegan alternative foods that offer the same nutritional values as meat. And hunting for financial reasons? That is no excuse to hunt animals, if anything that proves my argument further as those particular people are murdering animals as a means to one's end. It's absurd to think that people are acting immorally like that just for the money - and this can't be used as an excuse. That would be like justifying prostitution because people only do it for financial reasons, or contract-killing etc. Besides there are plenty of other jobs paying equal wages that do not require such unnecessary violence.", "title": "Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan", "pid": "2d6e4294-2019-04-18T16:03:38Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.17205810546875}, {"text": "Thank you for the acceptance, I look forward to a nice and clean debate. Moving on, I would first off like to remind my opponents that they would have to prove the benefits of why becoming vegetarian is moreover a benefit than a harm for I am doing the exact opposite. C1) Violation of one's rights It's pretty straight forward. Forcing others to eat something takes away a person's freedom to eat what they want to eat. Let us look at our status quo. In our modern day society we have people who are vegetarian, people who eat all sorts of food, lactose intolerant, and many more \"styles\" of what and how people eat. If we supposedly do make everyone eat meat in America, what is taken away from the people? Freedom. When we are practically forcing our citizens to eat something that they are 1) Not use to or 2) Doesn't want to eat we are violating and taking away the citizens right for something that is vital to our life. Our world gives us limited freedom and rights I agree, but we are now taking away a freedom and choice for food. This of course violates ones limited freedom. This is not right for our society to decide what we eat now. C2)Feasibility Pretty straight forward. Making people vegetarians are not feasible enough in our country. Because my opponents are proving that we should enforce America into becoming vegetarians, how would they do it? What if they do eat meat? Would they go to jail or get arrested? What would happen? C3)Health Issues Vegetarian: 1. A person who does not eat or does not believe in eating MEAT, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.[1] The definition of Vegetarians includes that they do not eat meat. Becoming vegetarian certainly means that there will be much less protein intake. Having protein is a must in your regular food chain. Protein is makes up the building blocks of our body and essentially all we do when we eat meat is to recycle the flesh and to use it to reconstruct our own. Vegetarians may tell me that you still can get protein from beans and eggs. But here is the real problem here. We as humans can't live off of just beans, eggs, cheese etc. Vegetables and plants do not have same amino acid profile as meat does to us and simply isn't bio-available enough to be able to use efficiently. Lack of protein in our diet brings out many harms. We are slower to heal wounds and scars on us. Our skin will become unhealthy. We would struggle to develop muscle tissues easier and become weaker and our digestion function suffers. [2] Aside from protein, there is on big harm on discarding meat in our food chain and that is Vitamin B12. You can only get this source of vitamin from meat, unless you count earth's ground and dirt as \"food\". B12 is a very crucial substance and lack of meat can cause serious problems such as nerve damage, low energy and problems utilizing calcium which can lead to osteoporosis and arteriosclerosis in the future for people. [3] [4] Conclusion: Today if we put on a scale, my side sees much more weight on the harms. Even if my opponents explain on how becoming vegetarian is very healthy, we have still proved that meat is crucial. As well as it can be a problem to obesity, we see a much bigger health issues from a society without meat. As well as it harms the people, it harms our freedom of one thing that we should have full access too. With our status quo we see no major health problems being just the way we are, vegetarian or not. There would be no need to change what we already is succeeding in for our future. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.healthguidance.org... [3] http://www.mnn.com... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...", "title": "THW become Vegetarians", "pid": "d98175c5-2019-04-18T14:27:13Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.1433868408203}, {"text": "Why can't religion influence your decision? Is religion itself immoral?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Extend my arguments....Pro forfeited therefore I win by default. VOTE ME", "title": "Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding.", "pid": "da18aa91-2019-04-18T15:04:21Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.1359405517578}, {"text": "Why can't religion influence your decision? Is religion itself immoral?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Extend my arguments....Pro forfeited therefore I win by default. VOTE ME", "title": "Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding.", "pid": "da18aa91-2019-04-18T15:04:21Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.1359405517578}, {"text": "\"Some of the many issues we currently face regarding the environment includes global warming, water and air pollution all of which are directly connected to eating meat. There are many wasted resources, as massive amounts of land, food, energy and water are required to raise animals for food. An area of a rainforest the size of seven football fields is destroyed every minute for those purposes.\" For the purpose of this round I will treat these statistics as true (because they are largely irrelevant) - you may want to link references to your claims however (for any future debates too). \"Vast amount of energy are used for the farming of animals. The operation of factory farms, operation of slaughter houses, transportation of meat to grocery stores and the refrigeration required to keep the meat frozen in shops all require energy in very large amounts.\" Yes we use energy because those processes require it, and the eating of meat being of value to a large majority of individuals. Your standard of action however is unclear. Should we save energy for something else? In which case your argument is moot as energy used is used, regardless of the reason and there are far worse options for energy consumption than fulfilling requirements for survival. See we can't all be farmers, and we don't all own necessary or viable land to cultivate our own produce. Demanding we cut a source of nutrition from somewhere merely requires an additional source to be found, meaning we still use the land for something, we still need additional land as per populace growth, the same as with animal farming. Indeed hypothetically if I had enough land and the ability to reclaim water, decide to be green conscious and plant trees to cover the gas, why shouldn't I farm animals, even if it's at a level to support only myself. Why would *I* then have to be vegetarian? \"A United Nations report from 2006 found that the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases then all cars, trucks, planes and ships in the world combined. \"Greenhouse Gases, we know, can lead to major disasters such as floods, tsunamis and hurricanes.\" Eh debatable - natural cycles of salinity levels are also thought to contribute - as is debatable the nature of greenhouse gases on our environment itself, as well as its outright negatives (we increase rainfall and water is an issue?). The solution however is not to remove those things of value which do not in any meaningful way lead to a negative predictable consequence (knowing if it will impact or when and where hurricanes will occur) - but to be rational when choosing where to live where certain natural disasters are less frequent. :) http://www.thaindian.com... http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov... Hurricanes will occur whether we are here or not, and we may as well try and stop volcanoes for the gases they produce, if they are such a concern. \"A lot of water is used for farming animals. Watering crops, water used for drinking by the animals, cleaning filth in slaughterhouses and factory farms are all ways that water is used. You save more water by not eating 0.5 kg of beef then you do by not showering for an entire year. The usage of water to raise animals for food puts a strain on our already limited supply of water.\" The same argument can be levied against any non pure survivalist action that requires water, even pets. The issue is you have no satisfactory standard for why one should do this, and not any other action that would reduce water consumption, and under your premises any and all non basic water usage should be deemed negative. Nor does it follow even if the premise is accepted, that the solution is to choose an arbitrary element to ban. As humans, we have the distinct unique condition of using our minds as the basic tool of survival. The solution is not, in the case of water, to reduce our standard of living in the vague hope of a future benefit for future some people some where. The ideal situation is to engage those minds willing in finding ways to increase water sources for consumption. Nature is there for us to use. Your argument however reduces to a very basic contradiction. You propose two standards for evaluating action: the environment and the self.However once you recognise the self as the ends of action (for to be good it must be good to someone, not some abstract environment) you must recognise the self as primary over the environment. Either you hold the environment as your primary standard of action (with us as a 'negative' in which case your death, mine, everyones, is the proper conclusion) or you recognise either implicitly or explicitly that an individual is their own ends for ones action, in which case, while one may consider the environment in ones dealings - it is not primary, and actions cannot be demanded of others in sacrifice for it.", "title": "All people should become vegetarian", "pid": "107900c0-2019-04-18T19:16:33Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.12185668945312}, {"text": "I believe ANIMALS ARE NOT TO BE KILLED FOR HUMANS. My first point is that we shouldn't eat animals because obviously they are slaughtered unfairly. Millions of INNOCENT animals get tortured and slaughtered every year just for humans. Some are even skinned alive. Would you eat a dog or cat?? Well whats the difference? And if you think they are killed humanely.. Think again. http://www.youtube.com...", "title": "We should be vegetarian", "pid": "6b550e4f-2019-04-18T17:11:00Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.1074981689453}, {"text": "first off I've been a meat eater all my life only cause that's how I have been raised. anyways I do love the concept and further agree that being vegetarian is the way to go. why put an innocent animal to death. others have the concept that humans are top of the food chain, is anyone truly sure that this is accurate. and picture if that isn't the case, would the meat eater then have the logic to see that he is creating a cycle in life that could be damaging to himself and others around him? imagine the Garden of Eden.", "title": "time to be vegetarian, why eat animals!", "pid": "d3e762f6-2019-04-18T16:43:07Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.1055145263672}, {"text": "Why can't religion influence your decision? Is religion itself immoral?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Extend my arguments....Pro forfeited therefore I win by default. VOTE ME ;)", "title": "Vegetarianism is an idea that should not have a religious binding.", "pid": "da18aa91-2019-04-18T15:04:21Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.0946807861328}, {"text": "Without animals to eat, we cannot get the nutrients we need. if we did not eat animals, we would be weak and feeble! What a waste of a life.", "title": "Vegetarianism: we should stop eating other animals.", "pid": "8aed976f-2019-04-18T19:15:00Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.08644104003906}, {"text": "I am arguing the case that eating meat products, eggs and honey is morally wrong and everyone should stop. I am also against the hunting of animals for materials and experimenting on animals for science development but if I were to include these topics in this argument it would be extremely long. Also, my largest concern is currently for the eating of farm animals because there is such a large amount of people that ignore this topic. From recent discussions, I have found that the common problem with many meat-eaters today is that they are taking upon a blindness towards what they eat and ignoring the fact that the meat they eat was once a living animal, with interests and emotional value. Or, perhaps people feel that with such a large meat processing/selling industry existing, their forbearance of meat is not going to have an impact on the quantity of animals slaughtered and sold. However, many others have seemed to argue that the food chain provides us with justification for killing animals and that it is our natural instinct to do so. Moreover, cases have been argued that Genesis 1.26 states that we have 'dominion' over the animals, or that we could not provide the world with enough food for a healthy diet without the meat industry. I'm going to keep this fairly short as it is only the first argument. I will go in depth with the following if you have any objections. First of all, let's stick with the obvious principle that - although we are a very different species to farm animals, with a higher level of intelligence - these animals can feel pain and they can feel comfort (whether they can experience happiness, I am not YET debating) and in that respect they are equal to humans. I'm sure if we all reason with ourselves, everyone (other than the sadistic minority) can understand that an act that inflicts pain on a living being, whether human or inhuman, is less moral than an act that creates comfort for the being - and less moral than if you were not to act upon the being at all. Presuming that you agree, this proves that the act of having these animals slaughtered is intrinsically wrong. Maybe you still think that the consequence of this act is of such importance to human survival that it overrules the immorality of the act itself. If this is the case, I can tell you, as Peter Singer makes clear (I will explain in a later debate), that the human population can easily survive without the meat industry - in fact, it would even be more efficient and solve tragic issues such as starvation of the less fortunate. Moving on to those with the mindset that they are not going to make a difference to the meat industry themselves by becoming vegetarian/vegan. This has no relevance to my argument title because I state that 'Everyone' should become vege/vegan and this concerns only the individual. Anyhow, I thought I'd include it for the benefit of those reading. By eating the meat because you think that it is going to be produced continuously no matter what you do, you are buying in and supporting the cause for killing animals and you are, therefore, placing yourself in the wrong. However, on this subject I like to use the maxim of Immanuel Kant's 'Categorical Imperative' theory that states that in order to ensure that an act is morally right, we must first universalise the action. Imagine a world where everyone had this mindset; eating meat purely because they felt that, as an individual, they would not contribute to the prevention of animal slaughter. Now think of a world where everyone had the opposite mindset; believing that something different can happen: that, as an individual, they can make a difference. After looking back on my rather lengthy discussion already, I've decided to approach the last to arguments at the same time. Many Christians believe that animals have been put on Earth by God under our control; some even see the animals as a gift to feed us. The food chain is also used commonly in attempt to justify eating animals; other animals eat each other so why are we not entitled to? Well, no other species of animal are nearly as intelligent as humans; no other animals know to plant seeds in order to grow food, nor might they know that killing other animals is wrong. I have not yet thought researched deeply about a solution to the rest of the food chain, but this argument only concerns humans anyway. Peter Singer states: \"If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans?\" This quote, alone, sums up my first point on the issue. We seem to feel that we own the right to use these animals as our resources just because we are more intelligent and more powerful, yet when it comes to the less intelligent and weaker people of the HUMAN RACE, the majority of our society will disagree that it is fair for someone more powerful to murder one of the weaker. In relation to this idea, the cruelty that we show to animals is influential towards how we treat other people and if you really are absolute that a human life is more valuable than an animal's in every manner then this is a point to consider. St. Francis of Assisi says that \"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.\" The way we treat animals is very likely to have an impact on the way we treat man. Stats show a sharp correlation between animal abuse & other crimes, including rape, robbery, murder, sexual homicide, domestic abuse and more. Studies show 100% of sexual homicide perpetrators (like Jeffrey Dahmer) started by abusing animals and, although his sort of abuse differs slightly to the slaughter of farm animals, it all still reflects the same principles of animal cruelty. EGGS/HONEY: My objection to eating honey is simple. Bees work throughout the hot weathered seasons, storing this honey so that the colony can feed from it during winter when they can no longer collect pollen from plants. Then the humans come along and steal it from them, just to provide a luxury item for us to eat - which is not necessary. The wrongdoing in the theft of this honey, the selfishness and greed, as well as the inconsideration for the bees' survival through the colder seasons should be clear to you. By eating eggs, we are supporting the poor conditions that chickens live through when producing the eggs. A large majority of eggs (apologies for not having stats, I have to finish up soon) come from conventional, caged hens. Up to 10 hens are crammed into 18 by 20 inch cages. These conditions barely allow the chickens to move around or spread their wings; they are trapped, deprived from their interests, free will and veterinary attention. As for the males, they are either thrown away in dumpsters left to die or ground up alive in meat grinders as chicks; having their will to live snatched away in order for us to feast greedily on the unneeded luxury of eggs. Now, linking back to the earlier argument that the infliction of pain promotes less good than leaving the animals alone entirely, the process of obtaining eggs is morally wrong. Although Uncaged eggs and free-range eggs seem like a more humane alternative, the chickens still go through deprived lives, as I will discuss in the next round if you choose to argue against this subject. Overall, in purchasing eggs to eat, you are in effect paying for the murder of hundreds of millions of baby animals.", "title": "Everyone should become Lacto-vegetarian/vegan", "pid": "2d6e4294-2019-04-18T16:03:38Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.07815551757812}, {"text": "Topic:A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet. I'll take on the Pro position of the debate, meaning I'll argue for vegetarianism.Definitions:A vegetarian is someone who does not eat any meat or fish, but does not necessarily abstain from eating animal derivatives like eggs and milk.By \"ethical\" I mean morally right (as opposed to wrong) conduct. This includes examining the issue from both ecological and animal rights standpoints, as well as the implications to us as humans.By a \"meat-eating\" diet, we'll just assume the average U.S. consumer (rather than a strict organic meat-eating person). Rules:1. This first round is just for acceptance, please do not begin with your argument.2. Please cite your sources. Don't just say \"you can't survive without meat\" unless you back it up with a reliable link. Also, it is best if you tell us why this source is credible.Well, that's pretty much it. If you have any questions, feel free to use the comments. :)", "title": "A vegetarian diet is more ethical than a meat-eating diet", "pid": "872fb369-2019-04-18T17:52:20Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 214.04913330078125}, {"text": "Look, by being \"against\" vegetarianism, I only mean that I am not one. I am also \"against\" the Patriots, but I would never argue that people don't have the right to root for them. I am against Vegetarianism because I do not think it is a moral imperative to be a vegetarian, reducing vegetarianism to the personal decision to eat bad food. Here's the point, I have defended a consistent CON vegetarianism stance. If this position was not acceptable, why not try having a thesis statement longer than one word or an opening argument longer than 2 sentences? Also, why not try actually making arguments? I'll debate something real when you do.", "title": "Vegetarianism", "pid": "2e8eda76-2019-04-18T19:56:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.0205535888672}, {"text": "I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian!Debate Rules:1) Accept the debate first2) Then watch the video (hint: You do not need to watch the whole video)3) If you forfeit or become overly abrasive - you shall lose the debate4) List further opinions-arguments in the comments**Voters Must Read Comments Before Voting**http://www.youtube.com...", "title": "I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian", "pid": "625b4e3a-2019-04-18T16:35:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.01747131347656}, {"text": "I accept and I am glad for this opportunity to debate with my opponent. I am not sure if the first round was for acceptance or not, but I will assume that it is, and will thus leave it to my opponent to present his case as various contentions. I await a \"formal\" (so to speak) round of arguments, eagerly!", "title": "We should be vegetarian", "pid": "6b550e4f-2019-04-18T17:11:00Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.00469970703125}, {"text": "If you are irreligious does not mean that you think life has no meaning. How prejudice. My point still stands. Would you eat a dog? What about a cat? Also people have the RIGHT to CHOOSE to be a vegetarian or not. Being a vegetarian is a choice.", "title": "Vegetarianism", "pid": "2e8edb11-2019-04-18T16:22:57Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.98289489746094}, {"text": "As I thought. Pro has changed their tack. And now adopted the word \"should\" and ditched the word \"is\". A seemingly innocuous change, but a change that actually alters the context of this debate completely. A vegetarian diet is to be preferred is a completely different proposition to, a vegetarian diet should be preferred. Under these circumstances I do not feel obliged to respond to Pro's third round evidence. My second round assertion that approximately 78% of the Worlds population ate a meat inclusive diet was derived from the Wikipedia article, vegetarianism by country. This evidence alone is enough to negate Pro's opening proposition. As it clearly indicates that approximately three quarters of the world's population prefer a meat inclusive diet. (Presumably no one is forcing these people to eat meat) Whether or not three quarters of the world's population should prefer a meat inclusive diet is another issue altogether. The same studies also stated that approximately 1.75 billion people were vegetarian out of necessity, rather than by choice. It is highly likely that given the chance, some of these people would also prefer to be omnivorous. But should they? Well, who has the authority to make this sort of judgement?...... And of course, that wasn't what we were discussing.", "title": "A vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet", "pid": "a82d5442-2019-04-18T11:23:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.9491424560547}, {"text": "We kill plants but we know it's wrong. Plants are just like us. They need water and food just like us. We're pretty much killing our own kind. Acting like cannablisms. Those plants are in need of help. We need to stop eating plants so we can save more plants in the near future. See, it works this way too.", "title": "Why People Should Be Vegetarian", "pid": "970346b5-2019-04-18T16:22:22Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.9482421875}, {"text": "I must disagree. We have discovered the nuke, yes, but that is only cause for us to get smarter and find a way to basically un-invent the bomb. We've grown to an age were we use the smarts from being a predator and are applying it to new ways, specifically invention. But it is not always positive. In some ways we have hurt ourselves more. This is what I mean by taking away peoples stupid choices. People now are making very dumb choices. The reason seems to be general laziness. Our society has developed to a point were we are competent in our survival skills. We sit around, we eat constantly, we pollute the Earth. There are some cases were it may be better that the peoples choices be limited for their own good. Lowering the availability of meat to be thrown around willy nilly may benefit the people, even if they don't like it so much. We need brains more now than ever, meat will help that, with a balance of plants, but never the less. That is just my opinion however, not in regards to whether people have the right to eat meat or not. I still say we are given a right by our nature to eat meat. We are omnivores, able to eat meat and vegetables. We can survive on a vegetable only diet, but it will have negative intelligence effects. I have shown that we as a species have benefited from meat, and it is very probable we will continue from its consumption. My opinions on meat limitation and animal rights are my own and given out only to quench the curiosity of panthercub21, and should have no effect on the peoples vote. Darth_Grievous_42 out.", "title": "Vegetarianism", "pid": "2e8eda95-2019-04-18T19:50:43Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.9447021484375}, {"text": "I accept your challenge. Good luck to my opponent. First of all, please choose your exact definition. It's either vegetarian or vegan; there's a difference. But for this purpose, because it was indicated in the title of the debate itself, I choose vegetarian. Yes, there are certain vegetables that are rich in calcium and proteins. But there have been surveys, one of which I will give you a link to, that clearly show that vegetarians lack in zinc, a mineral that helps in cell production, protect the liver from chemical damage, formation of bones, etc. Also, red meat, specifically beef, provides your body and mind with Vitamin B12, which the blood uses to create erythrocytes (red blood cells) and more or less maintain the nervous system. One effect is that without this, it can cause memory loss as well. Science also shows us that heart disease is caused by unsaturated fats, specifically polyunsaturated, which is found mainly in vegetable oil. Pretty ironic, huh? And don't tell me that you can substitute meat and dairy with merely soy. Only fermented soy products such as miso, tempeh, natto and tampari are actually qualified as healthy. The other soy foods that you vegetarians consume are predominantly tofu, in which is actually ingrained an anti-nutrient, which carries out the nutrients out of your system. Now, to your point about killing innocent animals. Personally, I like to think of myself as an animal-lover and environmentalist. But if we all become vegetarian, we'd also be killing those animals. If a great portion of the U.S. became vegetarian, then, of course, we'd consume way more plants than we usually would in this present day. We would deprive those animals of food, given that most of the food that we non-vegetarians eat are grass-fed. Plus, if we consume more enormous quantities of plants as a result of becoming vegetarian, then we'd dispossess herbivorous animals of their main source of food as well, now would we? And I don't think that would be very beneficial to the environment, either. Unfortunately, life for multiple species cannot go on without consuming life of other species as well. http://www.mnwelldir.org... May God bless you as well. (Are you Catholic? If so, hi five!)", "title": "Being a Vegetarian is better than being a Non-veg", "pid": "ebf0ab1b-2019-04-18T12:58:35Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.94053649902344}, {"text": "I am trying to say in this that if you don't eat animals because you are allergic, t makes you feel physically sick, you don't like the taste etc. that doen't matter. I would even go as far as to say If you really want to be a vegetarian I would be happy just contentiously disagreeing with you but I find this debate worthy because I disagree with the people who think that I should be a vegetarian because of the moral issue of eating meat and that I am wrong to enjoy and eat a lot of meat with no guilt. Please if you have those views that I should be a vegetarian then please accept this debate. I am a first time debator in this website and would like to add that I would love to have someone accept this request soon and I may not write much, personally I don't have much experience but I doubt I will run out of space. Soo.... what do you think. Oh, and please try to remove as much biases when voting. Oh, and finally, I wrote vegetarianism is wrong as the subject because I do think it's wrong and it is about it. I just hope I didn't confuse anyone into thinking differently from what's written above.", "title": "Vegetariaism is Wrong", "pid": "2626df18-2019-04-18T18:47:30Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.91311645507812}, {"text": "Pro Statement : 1. \"Eating meat is becoming a huge problem now. \" a) First, to produce all that meat, large areas of land have to be used to grow the animals, when they can actually be used for something more important, like planting trees to save the nature or other stuff. b) Also, lots of people are becoming overweight, and that can be a large problem of the 21st century. There will be twice as many people in hospital, and that can be disastrous. Rebuttal : 1) I state in the case that eating meat is not a huge problem now. It's just a small case. Pro is like to excess the problem like it's a doomsday or what. ( no offense ja, Hehehe. .) a) I think that there are a distinction between a land of nature for planting trees (forest area) and a land of nature for grow animals (savannah or steppe (lots of grass and water)). If there are forest that have been cut down, it mostly used to build a resident for people to live. The area of forest is not good to grow livestock animals. If you think that being vegetarian would save nature, it would be a wrong way of thinking. You still need to do both of your solution, maybe either do the reforestation, planting trees or be a vegan. b) Overweight already have a source of problems. The main problems is a no good lifestyle. In detail is like Eat a high Calories food, like meat, fried food and No body training. To prevent overweight, they need to change their lifestyle into a good one, like more body training and eat a healthy foods like vegetables. But Vegetarian is not really the urgent decision to do in this 21st Century. Disastrous can be happened if your lifestyle is no good. Arguments : 1) Freedom of Choice i can said that you have choose to be a vegetarian. It's your choice, no one can blame you to have this choice. I think it's a good choice for someone who wants to let go desire of killing or hurt animals. But, it still not a good choice if the goal is to prevent land expanding or overcome overweight. 2) Comparing method i can show another method that maybe in compare with this vegetarian thing, because of so many method, vegetarian become a no more or less effective choice than the other method. a) doing a \"fast\" (no eating in full a day or half a day) b) Meditate c) Yoga d) body exercise, workout e) etc. .. all of this method is in term to do a good lifestyle 3) Pro's Burden a) show that vegetarian is good in ethical way b) show that why vegetarian is the only choice c) show that 21st Centuries is differ than the previous or the next term to do or not doing vegetarian as lifestyle Thank You :D", "title": "Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century.", "pid": "180c0226-2019-04-18T15:39:49Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.9112548828125}, {"text": "Humans with vegetarian diets are more likely to suffer from fatigue, apathetic behavior, and a lack of concentration. These could negatively affect proficiency in school and the ability to perform well at the site of someone's profession. Other conditions include frequently becoming ill, frequently becoming depressed, and malnourishment.", "title": "A strictly vegetarian diet can promote health problems.", "pid": "e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00136-000", "bm25_score": 213.8979034423828}, {"text": "Are you for or against a vegetarian lifestyle? Pro means that you are for it while con means that you disapprove. Note that in the first argument, I would prefer if you simply stated your side as I am doing now. I am pro vegetarianism and believe that it is a very positive lifestyle.", "title": "Vegetarianism: A Positive Lifestyle.", "pid": "8e65f903-2019-04-18T15:34:23Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.88742065429688}, {"text": "The type of vegetarian that we are debating about is someone who is lacto-vegetarian that means they eat dairy products; but no eggs or meat. There are many reasons for being vegetarian and not only because you feel that have had the animals deserved a better life. There are health benefits from being vegetarian as well as solving many world food shortages. Also becoming vegetarian would help the world as well as you, like global warming could e reduced (assuming this is an accepted theory), and if everyone became vegetarian there would be better water supplies throughout the world, being vegetarian can also save you money. Being vegetarian is healthy, Vegetarians are usually lean and strong, because knowing that they cannot eat some things, the watch their diet more than the average person does. Vegetarians rarely have vitamin deficiencies because the foods that they are leaving out don't have many vitamins to start with. Also within meat there are bad things such as fat and drugs that the animal has taken in. I an average stake contains 9.5 grams of fat [1], that is over half of your daily guidance, which clearly is a good reason for not eating too much meat to start with. On top of this the animals that you are eating as a non vegetarian are being filled with drugs and chemicals to make them grow faster, these when consumed in large amounts can make you feel ill and drowsy. There are many other illnesses that you can get from meat, like Osteoporosis, Kidney Stones and Gallstones, Diabetes, Multiple Sclerosis, Arthritis, Gum disease, and acne can be caused. This is all because of poor animal fodder. If you were under the impression that meat is good for you there is another problem that faces you which is an excess in protein. The average American eats 400% of the RDA for protein which can cause excess nitrogen in the blood that causes host of long-term health problems [2]. If you are a vegetarian and you don't eat meat, then you also save money, meat is more expensive than vegetables and other vegetarian foods. Also because you are healthy, for the reasons of being healthy see above, you don't have to spend as much money on healthcare as you otherwise would have had to. Reasons to become a vegetarian based on environmental factors is that the production of meat costs more fossil fuel emissions and other bad gasses then producing vegetables. We can also conserve water by eating more vegetables and less meat. \"It takes 3-15 times more water to produce animal protein as it does plant protein. \" [2]. To help human food resources we can eat more grains. This is because for 100 acres of land we will produce enough beef for 20 people the same amount of land and we can feed 240 people. With the excess food we can feed a lot of starving people. [3] [1] . http://www.weightlossresources.co.uk... [2] . http://www.britishmeat.com... [3] . http://www.flex.com...", "title": "Vegetarianism: we should stop eating other animals.", "pid": "8aed976f-2019-04-18T19:15:00Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.87879943847656}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "Vegetarianism", "pid": "2e8edaf2-2019-04-18T17:50:40Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.87562561035156}, {"text": "If humans are animals, why defy our animalistic instincts?", "title": "Vegetarianism", "pid": "e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00068-000", "bm25_score": 213.86688232421875}, {"text": "I partially watched the video as asked, but found that it had little impact on my feelings towards meat. I was already well aware of the bitter things that occur in slaughterhouses to put food on our plates; I find it is a necessary evil to maintain a healthy lifestyle with all the nutrients you need to survive. Vegetarians must take extra precautions to gain every nutrient the human body requires. [1] The resolution was that Pro would turn me vegetarian. This has not happened; I will continue to eat meat. Thank you for the quick debate. [1] - http://www.medicinenet.com...", "title": "I Can Make You Become a Vegetarian", "pid": "625b4e3a-2019-04-18T16:35:50Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.84410095214844}, {"text": "Vegetarians are generally more health-conscious. This is the primary reason why they are healthy; it is less a cause of vegetarians avoiding meat. Similarly, obese people are obese because they are not health-conscious, more than because they are meat-eaters.", "title": "Vegetarians are healthy due to their health-consciousness not vegetarianism.", "pid": "e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00141-000", "bm25_score": 213.8294677734375}, {"text": "Life- the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. Plants are in fact alive. So are bacteria, fungi, protists, and of course, animals. It's not really set in stone whether plants feel pain or not, as there have been a few studies showing both. Alright, let's go back to 7th grade science. Animals must eat other animals to keep the populations in check. If there are too many predators and not enough prey they die of starvation. If there are too many prey, the predators reproduce fast, growing their population, and then eat most of the prey. It's an endless cycle. So, it's natural for us to eat animals. It's not wrong. Thank you.", "title": "Why People Should Be Vegetarian", "pid": "970346b5-2019-04-18T16:22:22Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.81805419921875}, {"text": "Since when is meat \"needed\" to function in society? There are a lot of very famous vegetarians, like Paul McCartney, that prosper in society. I don't think that vegetarianism has absolutely anything to do with functionality in society. Also, I find it very interesting that you chose to debate this with a 13 year old. Thank you for this debate; I thought it was very engaging.", "title": "Vegetarianism is better than omnivores", "pid": "33b817a-2019-04-18T16:22:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.80506896972656}, {"text": "Humans are omnivores, we are designed (naturally or by God your choice) to consume meat. It would be Natural if we didn't treat our animals like how we do today. It is 100% natural to hunt and eat it raw like what lions do, but it is also good if you want to eat meat to go to farms who use animals that died of natural causesYou state that we are natural omviores but this is really not natural,http://www.rabbitfur.org...http://2.bp.blogspot.com...Meat is not the cause or even a leading cause of obesity in the United States, What do Most fast food resterants sell? Meat! You cant go to Mcdonald's and get a veggie burger. Yes The Fast Food Industry is the leading cause of obiesty but they all serve meat and fries!", "title": "Vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle than meat", "pid": "c97ab4d9-2019-04-18T16:30:21Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.7991180419922}, {"text": "Animals are independent creatures that don't exist to serve humans", "title": "Vegetarianism", "pid": "e3d235e2-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00064-000", "bm25_score": 213.798095703125}, {"text": "I agree that the population is growing, but eating meat would adapt if the population got \" Too \" big for the current food market. We would do what humans do whenever they can't make enough of a product for the demand. Improve the different aspects in that products life cycle so it meets the demand. A total meat industry reform is much more sensible than changing not only the way the whole world eats but our culture. I understand you don't mean a change overnight but even if the idea caught on it would harm the economy through job-loss and closing meat production facilities. If somehow the world did change over to vegetarianism it would lead to an over dependence on nutritional supplements. Iron and protein tablets would become like oil. Pharmaceutical companies would become large empires who charge people ridiculous amounts of money for something they need to survive. Does that seem like a better world to you?", "title": "The human race would be better off if everyone decided to be vegetarian.", "pid": "b66b3ad1-2019-04-18T17:41:33Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.796142578125}, {"text": "I am a vegetarian for ethical reasons and I believe that the killing of animals for meat is wrong. This debate is about whether it is right for human beings to eat other animals.", "title": "Vegetarianism", "pid": "2e8edaf2-2019-04-18T17:50:40Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 213.791015625}, {"text": "First, thanks for accepting my challenge. Thanks also for putting a lot of information on the table. I suspect you realize that I won't be able to respond to every single \"fact\" point for point, but I don't think this is necessary - I think what is necessary is to show why, given the facts, vegetarianism is not required to lead an ethical life. Therefore, the first step is to decide what the relevant facts are. This is where the information you copied and pasted from the cited website comes in handy sometimes, but I'm afraid it has to be left at \"sometimes.\" There are many inaccuracies. I'll start off by pointing out that the very absolute statement #1 is wrong. Collagen is a protein naturally found only in animals, and it is the most abundant protein in those animals. Ingesting this is nutritional, especially for the joints. Many people with arthritis and other joint diseases take collagen and powderized shark cartilage capsules as supplements. It seems self-evident to me that there are many differences between plants and animal, and there are many similarities between animals and humans, that make eating animals (at least occasionally) very sensible. I don't think that following this sense can be unethical. I will admit that the most compelling case against eating animals to me is the supposed environmental effect and contribution to global warming. However, the greenhouse gas statistics that are often cited as gospel is very questionable and has been challenged. Here is a press release in the telegraph on this challenge coming from an academic at UCD. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... I guess an underlying point I'm trying to make is that, the vast majority of your \"argument\" is not even complete sentences, and therefore doesn't necessarily help in coming to a conclusion on the issue. Usually it helps if an argument is sentences, (yes based in information and fact), and linked by logic, into paragraphs with a conclusion. I therefore assumed that you were trying to first put a lot of relevant facts out there, but I was discouraged to see that you simply copied and pasted information from a Hindu believers' website with dubious information. Therefore, I continue to fail to see how eating meat is NECESSARILY unethical when it is a good (and perhaps the only nutrient-based) first-line of defense against joint disease. And the key word here is necessarily: I was wondering, when I created the debate, whether vegetarianism is a NECESSARY choice to be ethical. It seems to me that this positive effect I mentioned (among others), combined with the fact that animal slaughtering is NOT necessarily brutal to the animal, suggests that vegetarianism is not necessarily the only way to adhere to a certain set of sufficiently ethical guidelines.", "title": "Vegetarianism is a Necessary Lifestyle Choice to Lead a Perfectly Ethical Life", "pid": "39d70d06-2019-04-18T18:53:26Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.78652954101562}, {"text": "I believe that global Vegetarianism would benefit our nation and bring back a sense of humanity again. I remember when I was told how meat was made and felt very disgusted at how we slaughter innocent animals although we have plenty of other food options and sources. Other food sources may include: grains, nuts, vegetables, fruit, carbohydrates and in certain Vegetarian diets dairy products and eggs are also consumed. Going Vegetarian benefits the animals as 2.5 million innocent animals are being slaughtered everyday in the UK alone and most are killed in extreme conditions and are treated with lack of respect beforehand. Between the years of 2010 to 2012 the numbers of Vegetarian adults and children, between 1.5 and 18, has increased significantly. In 2010, 583 children and 548 adults reported as being Vegetarian across the UK. In 2011 this figure increased to 1095 children and 1031 adults. Rising to 1582 children and 1491 adults in 2012, shows that Vegetarianism is becoming a more and more common necessity in people's diets. In this debate I will be arguing that Vegetarian is the way to go and the position of Con should argue that it is not. I hope this will be an interesting debate. Good luck. Sources: https://www.vegsoc.org...", "title": "Vegetarianism globally would benefit the nation.", "pid": "dcbaec56-2019-04-18T14:28:53Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.78244018554688}, {"text": "Nice reasoning. But plants aren't that special. It's bad to eat plants but it ain't a living creature is it. When you kill it does it make sounds of pain. No plants don't because plants don't feel pain. Animals do. There living things and plants are too but there not that important. We could just plant more and more plants and they will just keep producing. Animals though they do make more of there kind but if we keep the rate of killing animals there will be no more meat on this planet.", "title": "Why People Should Be Vegetarian", "pid": "970346b5-2019-04-18T16:22:22Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.77609252929688}, {"text": "Ok so if we all go vegetarian then how are people like Justin Rivera sitting right next to you supposed to gain weight with out using the pills and shakes. huh? Also why don't we just get rid of all the unhealthy meats. All of them are not harmful to us so why go vegetarian because some meats are harmful to us? Then about people dieing from animals, if people weren't stupid and didn't swim with the sharks or try to pet bears then less people would die from animal attacks so therefore unlike what you think there are more benefits and animals then there are disadvantages.", "title": "Animals need to be abolished.", "pid": "d188b434-2019-04-18T19:48:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.7723388671875}]}
{"idx": 32, "qid": "34", "q_text": "Are social networking sites good for our society?", "qrels": {"c7bc79f5-2019-04-18T17:08:23Z-00001-000": 0, "7a949437-2019-04-18T19:29:40Z-00003-000": 2, "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00003-000": 2, "58177ab3-2019-04-18T19:34:39Z-00003-000": 2, "58177ad2-2019-04-18T19:34:18Z-00005-000": 1, "58177ad2-2019-04-18T19:34:18Z-00003-000": 2, "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00000-000": 0, "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00006-000": 2, "5c2b6729-2019-04-18T16:41:01Z-00003-000": 0, "5ce7f08b-2019-04-18T19:47:32Z-00003-000": 0, "5d5ca6ac-2019-04-18T17:11:56Z-00004-000": 0, "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00005-000": 2, "60a2bf9d-2019-04-18T11:58:14Z-00003-000": 1, "612baac2-2019-04-18T17:00:36Z-00000-000": 0, "6d8da8ae-2019-04-18T16:44:59Z-00002-000": 0, "6ea9a438-2019-04-18T15:38:58Z-00003-000": 0, "7f8d09f3-2019-04-18T13:28:15Z-00000-000": 1, "862bd0ff-2019-04-18T11:42:52Z-00002-000": 2, "8fd1f0f9-2019-04-18T19:34:28Z-00001-000": 2, "8fd1f0f9-2019-04-18T19:34:28Z-00003-000": 1, "91581604-2019-04-18T19:14:10Z-00002-000": 2, "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00005-000": 0, "4cb138a2-2019-04-18T19:27:54Z-00004-000": 2, "4c26d847-2019-04-18T18:51:36Z-00000-000": 0, "4c26d828-2019-04-18T19:20:17Z-00001-000": 0, "ab3e066e-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00009-000": 1, "a977ed0e-2019-04-18T13:15:34Z-00005-000": 0, "a79965ba-2019-04-18T16:59:18Z-00007-000": 1, "a5deb511-2019-04-18T13:31:14Z-00000-000": 1, "a394d5db-2019-04-18T16:20:57Z-00003-000": 0, "df3b86f3-2019-04-18T18:41:07Z-00002-000": 0, "e663279e-2019-04-18T14:09:42Z-00002-000": 1, "f359b0bb-2019-04-18T19:27:59Z-00001-000": 0, "fb0073bc-2019-04-18T12:47:53Z-00007-000": 0, "98574a64-2019-04-18T14:02:22Z-00001-000": 0, "ff33548-2019-04-19T12:46:27Z-00003-000": 0, "ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00003-000": 2, "61dc5834-2019-04-18T18:31:58Z-00001-000": 0, "19ef6a93-2019-04-18T19:33:50Z-00000-000": 1, "2e54c887-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00000-000": 0, "2e54c887-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00003-000": 2, "c86547b-2019-04-18T19:08:33Z-00001-000": 0, "47b299d1-2019-04-18T19:09:12Z-00002-000": 1, "4befcae3-2019-04-18T17:19:09Z-00004-000": 0, "4c26d828-2019-04-18T19:20:17Z-00000-000": 0, "ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00004-000": 2, "9b0de0b2-2019-04-18T18:30:48Z-00006-000": 0, "38441d06-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00010-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Social networking sites are good for our society!", "title": "Social networking sites are good for our society!", "pid": "6ea9a438-2019-04-18T15:38:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 220.3500518798828}, {"text": "I am for social networking sites and I think that they are good for our society. Con must argue against. Acceptance first.", "title": "Social networks are beneficial to our society!", "pid": "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.72389221191406}, {"text": "yeah vote me", "title": "Social networking sites are good for our society!", "pid": "6ea9a438-2019-04-18T15:38:58Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.6849365234375}, {"text": "Today social networking and internet has become one of the most important part of our life. But is it reakky good for us. I dont think so. According to me social networking has caused many problems in our life. It has harmed a lot than helping us.", "title": "social networking is bad", "pid": "4befcae3-2019-04-18T17:19:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.181396484375}, {"text": "Topic- Are social networking sites good for our society? I say that the social networking sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children\"s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Students who used social networking sites while studying scored 20% lower on tests and students who used social media had an average GPA of 3.06 versus non-users who had an average GPA of 3.82 Having distractions like these in your surroundings have shown difference in the children's mental behavior and studies. They spend most of their time on social sites, reducing human interaction. They think what they are doing is interacting but clicking on your iPhones and iPads is not interacting. Today, a significant number of pre-teens have their mobiles and laptops. Do they even need them? They have 400 friends on Facebook but they know only 50 of them. Interacting is good but they get obsessed with it. So, leave your distractions behind and go and talk up to the people in your lives and then notice how amazing it is to literally talk to people rather than texting or IMing them.", "title": "debate with yourself", "pid": "528fb34-2019-04-18T16:00:42Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.11802673339844}, {"text": "Social Networks are basically things like: FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, TAG, ZANGA... - They are good because they increase communication opportunities Nowadays, just calling and text messaging is not enough. There has to be some sort of quick communication occurring online, and that is what social networking does. - They stimulate our economy Social networking websites are able to advertise to their users based on what it looks like they or their friends would like. That comes in handy because it saves consumers money and increases production opportunities. - They allow idividuals to expand their social horizons Normally, becuase we are human, we would want to stick with our \"cliques\" or circle of friends. Social networking sites reccomend individuals that you are not \"freinds\" with yet in an effort to increase your friends.", "title": "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "58177ab3-2019-04-18T19:34:39Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.71636962890625}, {"text": "I will just post something to get a win since he forfeited so yeah due to forfeit I at least win 100% on conduct My argument will be simple I am not gonna waste 115-30 minutes researching and preparing a difficult speech if I have no opponent this will be just a regular speech because that is all I need to win. cont 1: threats from social networking sites A survey on mic.com shows that at least 50% of rapes happen from info posted on social media about where they live. Yes it can be avoided if they hide this info but many teenagers are not considering this, or kind of like your house catching on fire, don't believe it will happen to them. cont 2: Some teenagers make social media their life On fox news they interview some people who stay on as long as 16 hours a day because they feel like social media is their life. Their are even some who get the 2 worlds mixed up and have to go get therapy. Ok that's all I am posting if opponent returns I will add more stuff but its not worth wasting time if no opponent just a argument at all is what I need to win so that's all ima do a simple argument.", "title": "Social networking sites are good for our society!", "pid": "6ea9a438-2019-04-18T15:38:58Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.564697265625}, {"text": "Of course it is beneficial since it has influenced our lives in many ways and it has become a part of our life. It lets you get updated with recent activities of your friends and more importantly recent social affairs. It provides you an option for participating in the social activities and a scope to bring a change in the society.", "title": "All people should join at least one kind of social networking site.", "pid": "ff6f8975-2019-04-18T17:08:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.55413818359375}, {"text": "First of all, social networking sites can help you gain confidence. Social Networking sites such as facebook, google +, and twitter lets you talk and argue or communicate with millions of people. The ones who cannot gain self confidence in real life could practice their self-confidence in the social networking sites. Since there are more people you can connect and communicate in the social networking sites, you can practice your self-confidence with different kinds of people you can't meet in you neighborhood. For example, I myself practiced my self-confidence in social networking sites, and it helped me greatly.", "title": "Social networking sites are beneficial", "pid": "cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.46536254882812}, {"text": "With this new medium, have come many new opportunities and new uses. It offers a beneficial place for students to learn about job openings, increase their connection with friends and improves relationships and it helps students learn about society. If students do not know how to use the mediums available now, they will not know how to apply for jobs, or stay connected, or learn about news of the world right at their fingertips.", "title": "Social networking is good for students", "pid": "37f600fc-2019-04-18T15:26:22Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.39935302734375}, {"text": "thank you and good luck Now to begin, social networking websites are meant to increase communication. When you use a system such as that you are accepting terms of agreement. These terms cover a whole basis of rules and liabilities. I have recently moved a great distance and these sites such as myspace have helped me keep in contact with my old friends and my new ones. Some of these are even a stress reliever for most kids. Kids will come home and go on and talk with there friends for hours and if they had a bad day, this may just help them with that. Also these sites increase creativity, basically by creating your own profile you are making your own PERSONAL site. It could be private or public. Now about privacy. Not everyone can get into your account if you don't want certain people to get in your account then you put it on private. Your friends aren't going to try and lower your self esteem or push you to the brink of suicide and if they do then you need to reconsider if they are really your friends.", "title": "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "58177ad2-2019-04-18T19:34:18Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.3914337158203}, {"text": "I am here to affirm and convince that \"Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good\" in today's society. Social networking websites such as popular Facebook and Twitter cause issues with occupations and careers, relationships and marriages, education of our future leaders, and a total breakdown in communication. This is going to be a 5-round debate, and I look forward to challenging my opponent in this controversial topic. May the debate begin!", "title": "Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good", "pid": "2e54c887-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.36598205566406}, {"text": "As The 'Con' has said, I didn't say they 'allowed' people 10+, but 13, honestly, I know that people go on when they are 9- / +! It is disgraceful! Social networking websites are causing alarming changes in the brains of young users, an eminent scientist has warned. Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred. The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day. But while the sites are popular - and extremely profitable - a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe they may be doing more harm than good. Educational psychologist Jane Healy believes children should be kept away from computer games until they are seven. Most games only trigger the 'flight or fight' region of the brain, rather than the vital areas responsible for reasoning. Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, said: 'We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia. 'I'm not against technology and computers. But before they start social networking, they need to learn to make real relationships with people.'", "title": "Social networking sites are harmful.", "pid": "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.2900390625}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "Social networks are beneficial to our society!", "pid": "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.28677368164062}, {"text": "You can't say like that. These sites have influenced our lives so much that people always read bools also only which saves their money. We can consult to doctors abroad through video chat. These sites are very helpful to us so we should see them as a good sign of the progress of the nation. But I also agree with your point that it is killing people as some children use these sites for bad purposes but what can we do? We can do that parents of these children should keep a check on them and then you see how these social networking sites will appear as important as they are now.", "title": "All people should join at least one kind of social networking site.", "pid": "ff6f8975-2019-04-18T17:08:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.26528930664062}, {"text": "This is following PF rules - Increases physical harm So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. It does not benefit our society. -Increases emotional harm People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt.", "title": "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "58177ad2-2019-04-18T19:34:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.24647521972656}, {"text": "Hello and welcome back to the debate; Social Networking Sites are Harmful. EleaDEVILnor has tried but unsuccessfully to convince you other wise. Thank you. I will start with some facts I found whilst strolling the library. 200 University of Maryland students gave up online media as part of a new study in 2011. When asked how they felt during the brief disconnection, students' descriptions of frantic cravings for the technology, anxiety and jitters mirrored those typical of people going through withdrawal from drugs or alcohol. If people have become so addicted to social media, as the Maryland study suggests, it makes you wonder: Is social networking good or bad for us? Bad I say! We have always known that computer networks would destroy the world. We just thought they'd get super-intelligent first. Instead, we got social networks, which act as a stupidity X-ray. You suddenly see through the intelligent people your friends pretend to be to the LOL-ing Farmville players underneath. Some smart people decided to study these networks, and found that they're a big threat to society. At least the rise of those machines forced us to band together and do things. Debate closed. Thank you. EllieBub :) I enjoyed this debate EleaDEVILnor, you are a good component! EllieBub", "title": "Social networking sites are harmful.", "pid": "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.23403930664062}, {"text": "Social Networking sites are a tricky thing to debate because of the various pros and cons. I decided to take this debate on however. First off, many people are reunited through social networking site. Second, many people find life long companions through dating websites. Third, people can keep in touch with family from all across the world. These are a few of the pros.", "title": "Social networking sites On Balance have had a positive impact on the United States", "pid": "f359b0bb-2019-04-18T19:27:59Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.22067260742188}, {"text": "Hey guys. I am radicalguy44 and in this debate I will prove that social networking websites do more harm than good. I would like the PRO to start, and please make this an LD style debate! Good luck PRO!", "title": "On Balance, social networking websites do more good than harm", "pid": "c86547b-2019-04-18T19:08:33Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.20030212402344}, {"text": "In my argument I as (Con) will tell you how social networking is good and beneficial. You stated that \"Social networking sites nowadays are used for stalking, committing cyber crimes and other frauds\" Now sites such as Facebook, twitter and instagram have privacy settings. This is where you can choose what information about yourself can be publicized. Some people choose to give out there personal info, this is there fault, not the social networking's fault. How is it beneficial? People use allot of social networking sites to connect with people. I will be giving you some examples. *Social networking sites spread information faster than any other media. *Law enforcement uses social networking sites to catch and prosecute criminals *Social networking sites help students do better at school *Social media sites help employers find employees and job-seekers find work These are just a few beneficial examples.", "title": "Social networking sites boon.", "pid": "ab9f69d4-2019-04-18T15:31:53Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.12330627441406}, {"text": "actually social networking is a superb thing. it keeps us in touch with our relatives in foreign and also helps to interact with our friends. it also allows us to share pics of our life and to share the joy!!!!!!!", "title": "social networking is bad", "pid": "4befcae3-2019-04-18T17:19:09Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.048583984375}, {"text": "Social networking sites are claimed as harmful to people but then why do they still use them. My reasons are as follows: 1. One of the most effective ways to promote your work, organization, or even themselves through social networking sites. There are enough places, such as Linked in and MySpace, where you can promote your business, organization, society and individual talents. The first advantage is that social networking sites will assist in the launch of a comprehensive strategy to promote the brand. 2.Social networking websites to promote friendship, take a break, travel partners, and even a spouse. The main idea is to create a platform where people from counties and cultures can meet and share a part of their lives with other people. \"Social networking sites like Orkut, Hi5, Facebook, and has a lot of popularity because people preferred to forget their man-made boundaries and reach approximately a person in a particular community or site. Meanings of words used to describe this topic: Social networking: 'the development of social and professional contacts; the sharing of information and services among people with a common interest.' Good:'excellence or merit' Harm:'physical injury or mental damage' Going off those meanings I would say when people say that 'social networking sites do more harm than good' that if their children or brothers, sisters even go on social networking sites that they are saying that either they have been physically harmed by social networking or they have been mentally harmed which would cause them to go slightly loopy and they wouldn't be able go on the site. So how do you define 'harm'.", "title": "Social networking sites are harmful.", "pid": "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.01109313964844}, {"text": "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Today, I am against the resolution, Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social networking sites have had a negative impact on the United States. My first conjunctions is as followed; --Social Networking is potentially going to harm to persons using them. One example of this is Megan Meier, who took her life after an old friends mom posed as a boy on myspace and began harassing her. When a social networking site does nothing to protect users of it's site, we see it as unfit. Just as we would see a mother unfit to raise a child if she didn't protect it from danger. ** I can't wait for someone's reply**", "title": "Social Networking", "pid": "4c26d828-2019-04-18T19:20:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.9757843017578}, {"text": "Well, seeing as how i'm the only one who posted, it seems pretty simple who you should vote for.l", "title": "On Balance, social networking websites do more good than harm", "pid": "c86547b-2019-04-18T19:08:33Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.9349365234375}, {"text": "Thanks for judging :)", "title": "Social networking sites are beneficial", "pid": "cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.92990112304688}, {"text": "I believe that social networking sites cause more harm than good because studies have proven that people (generally teenagers) are more likely to bully through social media than other forms of media or the more traditional methods of bullying. SOURCE: http://www.meganmeierfoundation.org...", "title": "Social networking sites cause more harm than good", "pid": "3c5fdcf2-2019-04-18T14:44:38Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.91529846191406}, {"text": "Con has failed to continue this debate and explain as to why social networking is bad. Therefore I have explained in great amount why it is good. Thanks for the debate!", "title": "Social networking sites boon.", "pid": "ab9f69d4-2019-04-18T15:31:53Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.89541625976562}, {"text": "This is following PF rules - Increases physical harm So many teenagers and adults have lost their lives as a result of social networking web sites. Because of a website, mothers have had to bury their children. It does not benefit our society. -Increases emotional harm People say a lot of irresponsible things while online. It results in unneeded and unwanted feelings that get hurt. Most of the users of social networking websites are teenagers. At that age, they are still kids, therefore, unable to determine who their true friends are. As a result, they are linked to the wrong people. So, reconsidering who their friends are would not actually help them. Because the resolution states \"That, on balance\" that means that the bad has to outweigh the good, or vice versa in order to win the debate. That being said, staying in contact with friends, and so many people dying cannot compare to each other. Thus, I stand Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a negative impact on the United States.", "title": "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "58177ad2-2019-04-18T19:34:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.8900146484375}, {"text": "Alright, thanks radicalguy for posting an interesting topic, and lets get this started! As a sidenote, I am a bit pressed for time these days, so i'm apologizing in advance for the inevitable brevity of my case. I affirm the resolution resolved, \"On balance, social networking websites do more good than harm\" I'll start off with definitions. Social Networking Site: \"A social network service focuses on building and reflecting of social networks or social relations among people, e.g., who share interests and/or activities. A social network service essentially consists of a representation of each user (often a profile), his/her social links, and a variety of additional services.\" My value for judging 'good' and 'harm' will be utilitarianism, a value which we can both meet common ground with. My criteria will be social connectivity/harmony and the spreading of information, both of which are values intrinsic to the betterment of the human race. Without strong communities, and without common knowledge being spread amongst the people, we never could have achieved he technological and sociological wonders that we cherish today. Contention 1: Social networking strengthens social bonds, leading to a myriad of positive outcomes. Sub Point A: The strengthening of social bonds aids the development of social harmony. Sites such as Facebook and MySpace are used as means to build up friendships, have conversations, and compete in small games in a positive atmosphere. This new vehicle of interacting with other people inevitably leads to making better friends and having more people to interact with, allowing people to exchange ideas even when they cannot meet in person. They also make the process of forementioned socialization streamlined and expedient. Sub Point B: These sites allow for international correspondence, leading to international fraternity. Years ago, the standard means of distant communication was by letter. Of course, the obvious flaws were the time involved and the need for a specific address. The advent of the e-mail made messaging instantaneous, but a specific destination was still requisite. With the creation of Facebook and Myspace however, it is possible to link to and find people from all across the globe and communicate in a streamlined manner. Really, all these sites are trying to do is simplify and improve the capability of communication around the globe. The implications are staggering. Bonds of friendship crossing borders, even continents is something our predecessors would not have dared dream of. But it most certainly exists. Also, it provides a medium for communication for distant people who already know each other. For example, I recently moved from MA to CA, and wanted to stay in touch with my network of friends. Would e-mail have been functional? Of course. But Facebook allowed me to stay in touch with friends with unparalleled proximity. In the negatives world, I would have been confined to stiff e-mails instead of Facebook's fluidity. In their world, NO SOCIAL NETWORKING WOULD EXIST. Contention 2: Social Networking Sites Aid in spreading information and current events. Through being updated constantly through the thoughts and musing of others on a live basis, it leads to the assimilatiof knowledge of current events. How I learned about MJ's death? Facebook. Chilean Earthquak? Facebook. Now, while the negative would say that sites like Google News or the New York Times could be used, people go to Facebook much more often just because it has a positive atmosphere. Long have educators attempted to educate the masses while simultaneously entertaining, them, and these sites do just that. They make events which would once have been nerdy to orate about socially relevant and requisite to prosper in the comments section. Sub Point A: Social Networking Sites help spread different opinions and thoughts about an issue, leading to mental diversity. By allowing near instantaneous response and analysis of world events, fresh perspectives and vantage points can be seen, allowing for lively debate and introspection. For example, I have a friend of mine who converted from Christianity to Atheism after a long and philosophical theological discussion. Contention 3: Social Networking Allows and Encourages the creation of grassroots clubs and movements. With the feature of easily being able to find mutual friends and send out messages with intuitive responses, Facebook allows for the expedient creation of clubs and organizations joined together with mutual goals such as spreading political awareness or fund raising. The expediency of recruitment and the ability to organize events and hierarchy are once again improved by social networking. For all these reasons, you must affirm. I am now ready for Cross Ex.", "title": "On Balance, social networking websites do more good than harm", "pid": "c86547b-2019-04-18T19:08:33Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.779296875}, {"text": "As my opponet forfeited his round all my points stand. Go CON.", "title": "That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "570da76a-2019-04-18T19:28:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.68731689453125}, {"text": "Yes it allows us to interact with people but also exposes our personal information. For example, the con side just mentioned that we can share our photos with each other but those photos are seen by other people also and some of those people are criminals or you can just can say bad guys who can use to that photo for a bad purpose. Social networking reveals our personal information.", "title": "social networking is bad", "pid": "4befcae3-2019-04-18T17:19:09Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.6633758544922}, {"text": "I believe that social media does more harm than good for our society. It is supposedly makes us more connect; however, I argue that it actually is making us more anti-social.", "title": "Social media does more harm than good", "pid": "fb0073bc-2019-04-18T12:47:53Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.62965393066406}, {"text": "I am neutral on the topic as well i did not feel to extend my point because I am not passionate on the topic. I believed you had good points so I said touche. Since both of us are neutral can we have a tie?", "title": "Social networking sites On Balance have had a positive impact on the United States", "pid": "f359b0bb-2019-04-18T19:27:59Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.56846618652344}, {"text": "I am for this! These Social Networking sites are bad for the young ones under 14, I think they shouldn't lie. But as they do, they get Cyber-bullied! It is wrong!", "title": "Social Networking Sites are Harmful", "pid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 216.54690551757812}, {"text": "Neilson/Netratings has issued a study showing that the top 10 social networking sites saw traffic growth of 47% and over the last year. Myspace has seen the biggest growth 367% more users. Social networking sites are becoming a way of life as the number of individuals logging on to these sites grow each year. Social networking sites contribute to the economy and education. Therefore I stand (www.socialsoftware.webblogsinc.com/2006/05/17top-10-social-networking-sites-see-47-growth/) Resolved: Social networking sites on balance have a positive effect on the United States For this debate I clarify the following defintions on balance as net result or overall effect (www.investorwords.com/3410/on_balance.html) positive to be admitting of no doubt or irrefutable fact (American Heritage second College edition) 1.Rape, Suicide, and identity theft can be avoided The negative aspects of social networking sites can be easily prevented as well as avoided. The site has resources on it. One example of these resources is blocking your site from the public, ensuring that only your friends can see your see your personal information and pictures. You can also only talk to people you actually know, thus preventing people who do not know you from talking to you. You should only post pictures that do not show your neighborhood and where you live. You shouldn't give any personal information out on these sites such as your address, phone number, email addresses, or other information that can lead to you getting into a bad situation. \"It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.\" Josiah Charles Stamp once said. With social networking sites people need to be responsible if you're choosing not to be safe then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. If you still think that these sites are bad news then you can choose not to go on them. 2.The use of YouTube and social networking websites has now moved into the realm of educational development Social networking sites can be used in an educational sense. Now online there aren't just teens, these sites have expanded, many colleges are opening up and posting lectures on YouTube and campus life videos. Berkley has posted videos with lectures, tours of campuses, and athletic events. The population on YouTube is increasing and many more institutions are using YouTube for a health outreach. Women's health today and lectures from Mini Medical School and Osher Lifelong Learning Institution, which are popular in today's culture. Women's health Today videos have more than 300,000 views. This is an increase in the reach of this unique and valuable programs said Burstan. (March 2008, Positive Presence on YouTube. 3.People are gaining political knowledge by going on candidate's social networking sites. (Msnbc.com and Foxnews.com) \"As the country's most trafficked Website, Myspace will play a power role in the upcoming election. Our digital candidate banners will be the yard signs of the 21st Century and our political viral videos and vlogs are the campaign ads of the future, By empowering our users with easy-to-find information, offered in a way they can relate to it, Impact will ignite their involvement in the political process.\" Said Chris DeWolfe, Ceo of Myspace. Myspace has influence people all over the world with the 10million plus accounts. Former Presidential candidate Senator Hilary Clinton has a myspace page with 52,000 friends, while Barrack Obama has 100,000 friends. Ron Paul, Joe Biden, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, and many other political candidates have my spaces to influence voters. This allows people to get more involved in the political process and activities. This is good for the country because it increases the voter turn out. In many states they had record number of new younger voters that turned and about 77% of people who had a MySpace voted because they were influenced by this candidates' sites on Myspace. (Study done by Fox news late November) Showing that the social networking sites have an influence on the younger generation of America. According to com Scores report (2006) 68% of Myspace users are 25 and older. The average age of a myspace user is 35. Most myspace users are 35-54 and are accounted for 41% of Myspaces users. Teens Only account for 12% of the audience. (mashable.com) 4.Social networking helps the economy Almost all social networking websites are usually run as a business. The person or people who started the site are hoping to make money, usually through advertising. They enable the economy as any business does, through the transfer of money form one person to the other. The consumer may not have been able to meet the product in the real world and we are seeing more products making it into the market place from ads on social networking sites. Social networking sites give a new place for people to advertise and inform people about their product. Companies are asking, 'How can we make our workforce more productive?' \" says Kevin Martin, an analyst at market researcher Aberdeen Group. Corporations increasingly are \"exploring and experimenting\" in the use of social networks to improve business operations, says Gina Bianchini,CEO of Ning, a social-networking site for businesses and consumers. It makes revenue from Google AdSense and premium services. \"There's been a definite shift the last two months,\" she says. \"There is a genuine interest now rather than a casual curiosity before.\" I'm not talking about just sticking an ad on the site, but people are creating a page on the networking site so they can tell people about their product or services. These people can then connect to the product if they want more info and become \"friends\" or fans on the page. Conclusion On balance social networking sites have a positive effect on The United States due to education, the economy, and voting.", "title": "Resolved: On balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "4cb138a2-2019-04-18T19:27:54Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.46945190429688}, {"text": "i will start by saying this . have a fair and fun debate. i do believe that social networks help and that in the end of the day: they help!!! they help get jobs and friends", "title": "social networks are more harm than good", "pid": "c4b5d675-2019-04-18T17:50:23Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.46798706054688}, {"text": "Alright, because my opponent forfeited his round, that means he cedes ALL my points. Essentially, because my opponent has no offense and no defense, no matter what happens in the third round I have already won this debate as per LD rules.", "title": "On Balance, social networking websites do more good than harm", "pid": "c86547b-2019-04-18T19:08:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.46458435058594}, {"text": "Good day, Con, this is the second round, and I hope this debate will turn out very great. Before I state my second and third argument, I will present a rebuttal for your arguments. First of all, I agree with the fact that Social Networking sites are beneficial, but it is also detrimental, since I have seen cyber bullying a lot in these days. But, rethink your first argument. Because of growth of the society and the growth of technology, people likes to post their 'non-exciting moments' too, because they have got time to be in somewhere they can rest. For example, draw a picture in your mind that you're in a nice, cozy cafe. People like to take pictures of themselves resting, and it is very true and real isn't it? They do not use a program to make it all false. Why do they need to when they're just trying to post in a real way? Now I will state my second and third argument. P2: Social Networking sites can be diverse. As I said in the first argument, social networking sites such as facebook, twitter, google+ lets you communicate with millions of people around the globe. Now, as you know, each one of them may have different viewpoints over something. It may be the effect of their religion, culture, environment(etc.). Because of this benefit, we can learn to think about others personalities, understand their viewpoints. For example, It can develop social skills such as understatement of the social economy and skills used in the society. Brendesha M. Tynes, PhD, Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois said that \"Online social networking can facilitate identity exploration, provide social cognitive skills such as perspective taking, and fulfill the need for social support, intimacy, and autonomy. Whether constructing their profiles in MySpace, creating a video and posting it on YouTube, or talking in chat rooms, teens are constantly creating, recreating, and honing their identities -- a primary goal of adolescent development. This requires constant reflection on who they are, on who they want to become, and on their values, strengths, and weaknesses. As teens prepare to enter the adult social world, online social environments provide training wheels, allowing young people to practice interaction with others in the safety of their homes.\" Like this, understanding the viewpoints and the minds of millions of people can only be happened with social medias. You can also learn foreign language in some social medias because of hangouts, or diverse groups of people. P3: Educational benefits of social networking sites The first computer was a big pile of big gears. As the history moves on, everything evolved. The technology has been largely improved over the years, and we have moved on to the 'age of technology'. There are touchable screens, mails that send our message around the globe close to the speed of light, we have nano-sized hardwares and computers and it still moves on. The evolution of technology had a big effect on globalized educations. Unlike the past, teachers and students now can browse infinite amounts of ideas from the internet. The viewpoints are very different, and we learn to look at an object in most ways to understand it better. With technology, people can instantly browse ideas and major documents just in their smartphones. Look at the case of Samsung Galaxy 5 LTE*3. It can instantly download in 0.4 seconds. That is amazing, and think about the way students can browse ideas that fast. It helps students to talk more specifically about their schoolwork. Also, it urges students to try out new technology. In return, they get massive amounts of education skills. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) said that \"Almost 60 percent of students who use social networking talk about education topics online and, surprisingly, more than 50 percent talk specifically about schoolwork... With words, music, photos and videos, students are expressing themselves by creating, manipulating and sharing content online... Only a minority of students has had any kind of negative experience with social networking in the last three months; even fewer parents report that their children have had a negative experience over a longer, six-month period.\" As you see, there are many benefits according to NSBA. Getting a good school experience lets them to have great jobs. And thats not all. Since it can let people who are owning a large company see your educational record fast, they can soon get interested in you. According to Nicole Ellison, PhD, Assistant Professor of Telecommunication, Information Studies, and Media at Michigan State University, \"I believe the benefits provided by social network sites such as Facebook have made us better off as a society and as individuals, and that, as they continue to be adopted by more diverse populations, we will see an increase in their utility. Anecdotal evidence of positive outcomes from these technologies -- such as political activities organized via Facebook or jobs found through LinkedIn -- is well-known, but now a growing corpus of academic research on social networks sites supports this view as well... Social technologies never have predictable and absolute positive or negative effects, which is why social scientists dread questions like these. In considering the effects of social network sites, it is clear that there are many challenges to work through -- the increasing commercialization of this space, the need to construct strong privacy protections for users, and safety issues -- but I believe the benefits we receive as a society provided by these tools far outweigh the risks.\" In a instant moment, social networking sites leads you to success - in the fastest way possible. I hope you answer my argument, and let this debate be a great experience to ourselves! Links 2,3 :http://socialnetworking.procon.org...", "title": "Social networking sites are beneficial", "pid": "cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.4105224609375}, {"text": "In case you haven't noticed I am in Intermediate, I just had to get into this website for my group and the opposing teams group! We are only just learning about arguments/Debates! Please! I just need to find the other group that I have to debate against, so I might have to drop out of this debate, because I need to or else I will get a bad grade! So thank you for getting my debate and accepting it! (I edited the other argument!)", "title": "Social Networking Sites are Harmful", "pid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.38897705078125}, {"text": "They have embraced it by the billions! 1.35 billion users are on Facebook. 645,750,000 users are on Twitter and 200 million are on Instagram (Hampton). 72% of all internet users are on social media sites. 90% of 13 to 17 year old have some access to social media (Common Sense Media). And social media is growing dramatically each day. Obviously there is power and benefit to being part of the movement. That is part of the reason why social networking is good for students.", "title": "Social networking is good for students", "pid": "37f600fc-2019-04-18T15:26:22Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.3863525390625}, {"text": "The con just said that i dont use facebook. So there can be many other people who dont use facebook but can be their on other social sites which do not provide such facilities and also there are many people who have friends whom they dont even know. Such friends can be a problem. Even people waste a lot of time on social sites by simply chatting with unknown people on useless matters. Dont you thing this can be harmful.", "title": "social networking is bad", "pid": "4befcae3-2019-04-18T17:19:09Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.33059692382812}, {"text": "In response to your point as to how social media can be used for bullying- yes, it's true that bullying online does occur. But I find it very hard to believe that they wouldn't bully people anyway, and having the bullying transfer from physical attacks that can actually cause very serious damage to a mere text message is in fact a good thing for society. As well as this, you have to consider the fact that social media does more than just stop bullying being physically damaging- it also is used for good. Friendships can tarnish if you don't see them for extended periods of time, but social media allows people to keep their friendships growing strong. Are you suggesting that ridding society of bullying in a way that can cause permanent damage is a bad thing? Are you suggesting that keeping friendships strong is not worth doing?", "title": "Social networking sites cause more harm than good", "pid": "3c5fdcf2-2019-04-18T14:44:38Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.31301879882812}, {"text": "I understand Pro feels strongly about this issue.I have a facepage account myself and I can tell you that they are not beneficial. For example:i) I experience psychological and mental stress every time it says I have a notification and it turns out to be someone inviting me to play Farmville. I estimate a 90% collapse in my mental well being (non-recovery) every time this happens ii) The people I hate keep bugging me !!iii) I am addictediv) Some nutters get to go on them.v) The Labour party have a fakebook page.VI) FACEBOOK is a social networkVII) FACEBOOK creates barriers in the way of genuine social interaction [1].VIII) FACEBOOK encourages bragging. Every post you do is \"look at me, I did this\" \"look at me, I discovered that if you turn the camera the other way, you can take pictures of yourself\" etc etc etc [2]IX) FACEBOOK is the cause of our loss of identity. We constantly feel the need to impress others through our pictures, our statuses, the pages we like, etc. The problem comes when we wear this mask so much that we lose who we really are [3]. Then people only know us for the mask, and to not surprise them, we continue it.End of argument.Source[1] (The first video)[2] ibid[3] ibid", "title": "Social networks are beneficial to our society!", "pid": "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.26162719726562}, {"text": "Social networking via Facebook, Twitter, etc., is as good as, if not better than, face-to-face interaction and socializing.", "title": "Social Networking", "pid": "4c26d847-2019-04-18T18:51:36Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.2514190673828}, {"text": "As, the voters you may see that my opponent did not extend his case but I will ask you to extend it for him. I will also ask you to extend my points. An once again to clarify I stand neutral on the resolution. But at the same time negate it as the word negate means to deny truth of, so by being neutral I am negating the resolution.", "title": "Social networking sites On Balance have had a positive impact on the United States", "pid": "f359b0bb-2019-04-18T19:27:59Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.24459838867188}, {"text": "I affirm the resolution.", "title": "that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US", "pid": "7a949437-2019-04-18T19:29:40Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.23289489746094}, {"text": "The 'Pro' is here, And I am a GIRL! I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied. We now live in a digital age, when being wired in seems as normal as breathing. Social networking Websites like Facebook and MySpace cashed in on the computer-toting generation by creating online 'social graphs' that allow younger (10+) to socialize in cyberspace. Now, with thousands of professionals flocking to these sites as well as to business applications like LinkedIn, some feel it's becoming necessary to use social networking sites to stay fresh in a new age of business interaction. The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a r�sum� with a head shot. Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. \"The most effective networking is face to face,\" says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. \"There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online.\" Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past. A good old-fashioned handshake or happy-hour cocktail will do more to seal the deal than any MySpace profile or open e-vite. This may be the digital era, but successful business networking online remains a thing of the future. Help from ( http://www.businessweek.com... )", "title": "Social Networking Sites are Harmful", "pid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.22711181640625}, {"text": "He again forfeits!", "title": "That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "570da76a-2019-04-18T19:28:12Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.21551513671875}, {"text": "Social networking has a POSITIVE impact in the United States. Without it, -our economy would not be where it is today -communication opportunities would be smaller -socially we would be closed to trying new things Going on to refute my opponent.. - although social networking sites are just a tool, without them.. businesses would not be able to assemble as they wish advertisements would not be able to appeal to consumers the general public would be unable to communicate as efficiently - because social networking sites promote people who have brains and can think independently, it can still have a direct effect Although the person has the impact, they would be unable to achieve what they planned to if the tool was not present As a result, PRO should recieve the winning vote", "title": "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "58177ab3-2019-04-18T19:34:39Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.203125}, {"text": "Another forfeit? Yeesh...", "title": "Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good", "pid": "2e54c887-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.18765258789062}, {"text": "Reflecting on my opponent's arguments, I consider my position is untenable and I feel I must concede this debate and duly urge the voters to Pro. Thank you.", "title": "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "ff6dab30-2019-04-18T19:31:40Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.17535400390625}, {"text": "I'm sorry, these aren't all my arguments. Intro As technology has evolved, mankind has made means of communication more convenient, efficient, and powerful. Thus, we have reached a new era of expressiveness, and that is why I affirm the resolution that, on balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States. I will prove to you why social networking sites serve as a superb medium of communication that positively impacts social capital among its users, helps the American business as well as provides jobs. Point One: Social Capital What is a social networking web site? It is a revolutionary web service centered around building online communities for people that share common interests. With it, people can first create their own user profiles, and then create their own virtual community, with as many affiliates as they would like. As we live through life, friends come and go, and sadly, some we may never get a chance to see again. However, with social networking sites, friends can stay in touch no matter how far apart they may be. Since people can share as much information as they like with anyone in their online community anywhere that has internet access, social networking websites increases social capital. It's simple logic, if someone has the ability to share as much information as they like with as many people as they like, more time to talk with Point Two: Jobs Since social networking websites are such a convenient, efficient, and powerful tools, people have come to realize that it can be used for more innovative activities than simply socializing with friends. Since many professionals use social networking websites to help them find jobs, social networking websites benefit the American economy. According to Stanford University researcher Mark Granovetter 50%-70% of American jobs are obtained with the help of social networking websites. That's over 100 million American jobs. According to Mark Mehler from CareerXroads, a person using a social networking sites to get a jobs chances increases from 1/500 to 1/35. Point Three: Business According to Robert Half International from a poll of 150 senior executives from the biggest US companies, nearly 2/3 of them will use social networking sites for their hiring efforts.", "title": "that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US", "pid": "7a949437-2019-04-18T19:29:40Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.1749725341797}, {"text": "こんにちは、 と議論へようこそ。 Hello, and welcome to the debate, Social Networking sites are harmful. Yes they are harmful. I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied. We now live in a digital age, when being wired in seems as normal as breathing. Social networking Websites like Facebook and MySpace cashed in on the computer-toting generation by creating online 'social graphs' that allow younger (10+) to socialize in cyberspace. Now, with thousands of professionals flocking to these sites as well as to business applications like LinkedIn, some feel it's becoming necessary to use social networking sites to stay fresh in a new age of business interaction. The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a r�sum� with a head shot. Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. \"The most effective networking is face to face,\" says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. \"There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online.\" Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past. A good old-fashioned handshake or happy-hour cocktail will do more to seal the deal than any MySpace profile or open e-vite. This may be the digital era, but successful business networking online remains a thing of the future.", "title": "Social networking sites are harmful.", "pid": "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.16981506347656}, {"text": "As much as I want to say no, I must say Yes. I found the group/person EleaDEVILnor", "title": "Social Networking Sites are Harmful", "pid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.15945434570312}, {"text": "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu.... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society. Boyd in 2008, Danah Boyd. [Fellow at Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. \"Is MySpace Good for Society? A Freakonomics Quorum.\" Freakonomics – New York Times Blog. February 15, 2008. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com.... Accessed November 5, 2008. Social media (including social network sites, blog tools, mobile technologies, etc.) offer mechanisms by which people can communicate, share information, and hang out. As an ethnographer traipsing across the U.S., I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression. These sites are tools. They can and have been used for both positive and negative purposes. For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change. This is not to say that all of the products of social media are positive. We can all point to negative consequences: bullying, gossip mongering, increased procrastination, etc. Our news media loves to focus on these. Even the positive stories that do run often have a negative or sensationalist angle, such as those who used Twitter to track the California fires. Unfortunately, those who do not understand social media look to the news, see the negative coverage, and declare all social media evil. It's easy to look at a lot of elements of today's society and cry foul. It's equally easy to look at the new technology that we don't understand and blame it as the cause for all social ills. It's a lot harder to accept that social media is mirroring and magnifying all of the good, bad, and ugly about today's society, shoving it right back in our faces in the hopes that we might face the underlying problems. Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore.", "title": "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.13075256347656}, {"text": "Thank you.", "title": "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "ff6dab30-2019-04-18T19:31:40Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.06495666503906}, {"text": "Greetings pro, and I'm glad I have the ability to debate this with you. I'll start off with first evaluating your main point in this rebuttal, then I'll be going over my own points that allow me to negate the resolution. My opponents first (and somewhat only point) is that social networking sites *can* help you gain confidence. Now as this may be true, and as social networking sites have the ability to boost the self esteem of some, this by no means supports the idea that ALL are benefited by these sites. Not only is this true, but it also must be taken into account that this statement is not always true. When looking at social media today, we see instagram filters used to hide what people really look like, overused editing, and teenagers using \"likes\" as a form of acceptance. Not only does this lead to a lack of self-confidence, but it only makes people even more insecure, yet again proving social media is not at all beneficial, but rather detrimental. Now, I'll be moving on to my case, we're I'll be highlighting my own contentions. C1: Social Networking sites create a false reality and sense of importance. Since the beginning of sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, users of these social networks have too often posted only their most exciting moments, only post pictures when they are with their friends, etc. This flawed reality we too often create not only hurts these users (by using their amounts of likes to gauge their level of acceptance), but it also hurts the viewers of these posts. When average Joes with ordinary lives (like myself) see posts of only the utmost excitement (out of country, at parties, etc.) it creates the average to believe that their lives are not average, but rather much less than average, because they are not able to post exciting memories and moments on Instagram, like their peers. Going further, according to Cornell University's Steven Strogatz, social media sites can make it more difficult for us to distinguish between the meaningful relationships we foster in the real world, and the numerous casual relationships formed through social media. (1) C2: SN leads to decreases productivity Wired.com posted two studies which demonstrated damage to productivity caused by social networking: Nucleus Research reported that Facebook shaves 1.5% off office productivity while Morse claimed that British companies lost 2.2 billion a year to the social phenomenon. (1) Further, Peter Cohan followed up on the study in a February 2012 piece for Forbes.com, using statistics on Facebook's growth during the interim to calculate that Facebook use within the workplace could lead to a 9.4 percent productivity decrease in companies throughout the U.S., a drop that could collectively cost businesses as much as 1.4 trillion dollars. (2) With social networking leading to a lack of productivity, we see that social networking simply cannot be beneficial in a workplace, and also harms the economy. C3: Cyberbullying Ever heard of the #JadaCounterPose trend that flooded social media? Recent events that have taken place, involving 16-year-old Houston teen Jada, reemphasizes the need for social growth. After being drugged, undressed and raped, while attending a friend's party, Jada dealt with onlookers taunting her with photos, hateful words, and chatter. (3) People have continuously, not sympathized, but rather made fun of Jada, posting mimic photos of her \"counter pose,\" etc. This is what social media spurs. Although extreme, it can't be ignored that lives are ruined every day simply because of the negligence users have on social media. In conclusion, although there may be benefits to social media, the detriments that come along with these sites outweigh the benefits immensely. I look forward to hearing your response. (1) http://smallbusiness.chron.com... (2) http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com... (3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "title": "Social networking sites are beneficial", "pid": "cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.06427001953125}, {"text": "To start with, I want to make some clarifications: social networking service: A social networking service is a platform to build social networks or social relations among people who, share interests, activities, backgrounds or real-life connections. * beneficial: Producing or promoting a favorable result; advantageous. ** society: a body of individuals living as members of a community; community. *** Advantges of social networking sites: 1) ALLOW PEOPLE TO IMPROVE THEIR RELATIONSHIPS AND MAKE NEW FRIENDS: 70% of adult social networking users visit the sites to connect with friends and family [1], and increased online communication strengthens relationships.52% of teens using social media report that using the sites has helped their relationships with friends, 88% report that social media helps them stay in touch with friends they cannot see regularly, 69% report getting to know students at their school better, and 57% make new friends. [3] 2) SPREAD INFORMATION FASTER THAN ANY OTHER MEDIA: [5] Social networking sites are the top news source for 27.8% of Americans, ranking close to newspapers (28.8%) and above radio (18.8%) and other print publications (6%). [4] Twitter and YouTube users reported the July 20, 2012 Aurora, CO theater shooting before news crews could arrive on the scene [6], and the Red Cross urged witnesses to tell family members they were safe via social media outlets. 3) HELP STUDENTS DO BETTER AT SCHOOL: 59% of students with access to the Internet report that they use social networking sites to discuss educational topics and 50% use the sites to talk about school assignments. [7] After George Middle School in Portland, OR introduced a social media program to engage students, grades went up by 50%, chronic absenteeism went down by 33%, and 20% of students school-wide voluntarily completed extra-credit assignments. [8] 4) HELP EMPLOYERS FIND EMPLOYEES AND JOB-SEEKERS FIND WORK: 64% of companies are on two or more social networks for recruiting [10] because of the wider pool of applicants and more efficient searching capabilities. 89% of job recruiters have hired employees through LinkedIn, 26% through Facebook, and 15% through Twitter. One in six job-seekers credit social media for helping find their current job. 52% of job-seekers use Facebook for the job search, 38% use LinkedIn, and 34% use Twitter. [12] 5) HELP SENIOR CITIZENS FEEL MORE CONNECTED TO SOCIETY: According to a 2010 Pew Internet & American Life Project study, the 74-year old and older age group is the fastest growing demographic on social media sites with the percentage quadrupling from 2008 to 2010, from 4% to 16%. [13] Seniors report feeling happier due to online contact with family and access to information like church bulletins that have moved online and out of print. [14] 6) OFFER A WAY FOR MUSICIANS AND ARTISTS TO BUILD AUDIENCES: 64% of teenagers listen to music on YouTube, making it the \"hit-maker\" for songs rather than radio (56%) or CDs (50%). For example, pop star Justin Bieber was discovered on YouTube when he was 12 years old, and, in 2012 at 18 years old, Bieber\"s net worth was estimated at $80 million. [16] The National Endowment for the Arts found that people who interact with the arts online through social media and other means are almost three times more likely to attend a live event. [17] 7) OFFER TEACHERS A PLATFORM FOR COLLABORATION WITH OTHER TEACHERS AND COMMUNICATION WITH STUDENTS OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM: More than 80% of US college and university faculty use social media; more than 50% use it for teaching; and 30% for communicating with students. [18] Educators from around the world interact with each other and bring guest teachers, librarians, authors, and experts into class via social networks like Twitter and social networking tools like Skype. [19]Edmodo, an education-specific social networking site designed for contact between students, teachers, and parents, reached over ten million users on Sep. 11, 2012. [21] 8) INCREASE A PERSON'S QUALITY OF LIFE AND REDUCE THE RISK OF HEALTH PROBLEMS: Social media can help improve life satisfaction, stroke recovery, memory retention, and overall well-being by providing users with a large social group. Additionally, friends on social media can have a \"contagion\" effect, promoting and helping with exercise, dieting, and smoking cessation goals. [22] 9) LAW ENFORCEMENT USES SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES TO CATCH AND PROSECUTE CRIMINALS: 67% of federal, state, and local law enforcement professionals surveyed think \"social media helps solve crimes more quickly. \" [23] In 2011 the NYPD added a Twitter tracking unit and has used social networking to arrest criminals who have bragged of their crimes online. [24] When the Vancouver Canucks lost the 2011 Stanley Cup in Vancouver, the city erupted into riots. Social media was used to catch vandals and rioters as social networking site users tagged the people they knew in over 2,000 photos posted to the sites. 10) FACILITATE FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION: People use social media to network at in-person events and get to know people before personal, business, and other meetings. Pew Research Center's Internet and American Life Project found that messaging on social media leads to face-to-face interactions when plans are made via the sites and social media users messaged close friends an average of 39 days each year while seeing close friends in person 210 days each year. [27] 11) GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY: Social media sites have created a new industry and thousands of jobs in addition to providing new income and sales. [28] A McKinsey Global Institute study projects that the communication and collaboration from social media could add $900 billion to $1.3 trillion to the economy through added productivity and improved customer service. 12) EMPOWER INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE SOCIAL CHANGE: Social media shares popularized nine-year old Scottish student, Martha Payne, and her blog, \"Never Seconds,\" which exposed the state of her school\"s lunch program prompting international attention that resulted in changes to her school and the formation of \"Friends of Never Seconds\" charity to feed children globally. [31] Jeannette Van Houten uses social media to find owners of photographs and mementos strewn from houses by Hurricane Sandy. 13) DISARM SOCIAL STIGMAS: The Sticks and Stones campaign uses Twitter to reduce stigmas surrounding mental health and learning disabilities. The Stigma Project uses Facebook to \"lower the HIV infection rate and neutralize stigma through education via social media and advertising. \" [32] 14) PROVIDES ACADEMIC RESEARCH TO A WIDER AUDIENCE: Researchers from a wide variety of fields are sharing photos, providing status updates, collaborating with distant colleagues, and finding a wider variety of subjects via social media, making the research process and results more transparent and accessible to a larger public. [33] 15) INCREASE VOTER PARTICIPATION: Facebook users reported they are more likely to vote if they see on social networking sites that their friends did. During the 2012 presidential election, 22% of registered voters posted about how they voted on Facebook or Twitter, 30% were encouraged to vote by posts on social media, and 20% encouraged others to vote via social networking sites. [34] 16) CORPORATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESSES USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES AND CUSTOMERS: Small businesses benefit greatly from the free platforms to connect with customers and increase visibility of their products or services. [35] Almost 90% of big companies using social media have reported \"at least one measurable business benefit. \" For all these reasons social networking sites have become increasingly popular and useful! SOURCES: *. http://en.wikipedia.org... **. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ***. http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]\"People Use Social Networks to Connect with Friends and Family, Sometimes Brands,\" www. briansolis. com [3]\"Social Media, Social Life: How Teens View Their Digital Lives,\" www. commonsensemedia. org [5]\"Social Media as an Advocacy Tool,\" Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers [6]\"Theater Shooting Unfolds in Real Time on Social Media,\" www. cnn. com [7]National School Boards Association, \"Creating and Connecting: Research and Guidelines on Online Social - and Educational - Networking,\" www. nsba. org [8] \"The Case for Social Media in Schools,\" www. mashable. com [10] \"The Essential Guide to Developing a Social Recruiting Strategy,\" www. jobvite. com [12]\"2012 Social Job Seeker Survey,\" www. jobvite. com [13]\"Generations 2010,\" www. pewinternet. org [14]University of Alabama at Birmingham, \"Move Over Youngsters, Grandma\"s on Facebook,\" www. newswise. com [16] \"Justin Bieber, Venture Capitalist,\" Forbes Asia Magazine [17]\"NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman Announces New Report on How Americans Use Electronic Media to Participate in the Arts,\" www. nea. gov [18] \"How Social Media Can and Should Impact Higher Education,\" Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review [19] \"Skype and the Embedded Librarian,\" Library Technology Reports [21]\"Edmodo Reaches 10 Million Users,\" www. blog. edmodo. com [22]\"'Flocking' Behavior Lands on Social Networking Sites,\" USA TODAY, Sep. 27, 2009 [23]\"Role of Social Media in Law Enforcement Significant and Growing,\" www. lexisnexis. com [24]\"NYPD Adding Twitter Tracking Unit to Police Force,\" www. socialnewsdaily. com [27]\"Social Media Doesn't Mean Social Isolation,\" www. usatodayeducate. com [28]\"How Social Media Saved the Economy,\" www. technorati. com [30]\"Twitter,\" www. topics. nytimes. com [31]\"Facebook, Public Education and Equity\"www. dm [33]\"Going Viral: Using Social Media to Publicise Academic Research\" www. guardian. co. uk [34]\"Social Media and Voting\",www. pewinternet. org [35]\"How Small Businesses Are Using Social Media,\" s1. intuitstatic. com", "title": "Social networks are beneficial to our society!", "pid": "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.0560302734375}, {"text": "touche", "title": "Social networking sites On Balance have had a positive impact on the United States", "pid": "f359b0bb-2019-04-18T19:27:59Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.03851318359375}, {"text": "Social networking is good for students because it helps kids do better in school. Half of all \"students use social networking to discuss homework assignments\" (National School Board Association). According to Georgia Middle School in Portland, Oregon, \"grades went up by 50% after students joined a social networking site\" (Kessler). 59% of students talk about educational topics online (National School Board Association). Because social media exists, students are \"learning practical skills that are necessary for success in today\"s wired world,\" (Huffington). Some people may think social media users have lower grades however, that is only shown as accurate if they are heavy users. Responsible users increase their awareness of news and important events. And as much as it helps in school, it also can help personal relationships. Social networking is good for students because it improves relationships and help students make new friends. Research shows that 70% of adults use social networking to stay connected to friends and family (Solis). Social media can help students \"make friends by allowing them to gain familiarity with others and build friendships online\" (Huffington). According to a study in 2011, a little less than half of the average Facebook users\" friends consist of friends from high school or college (Hampton). Even though some people think that they can lose friends because of social media, \"half (52%) of all teen social media users say using such media has mainly helped their relationships with friends, compared to just 4% who say social media use has mainly hurt their relationships. Similarly, more than a third (37%) say social media use has mainly helped their relationships with family members, compared to 2% who say it has mainly hurt them. In addition, a majority of teens say social media help them keep in touch with friends they can\"t see regularly (88%), get to know other students at their school better (69%), and connect with new people who share a common interest (57%)\" (Common Sense Media). More people use social media sites to stay in contact with friends. It is apparent that social media is beneficial in school and in personal relationships. But there are even other benefits for society. Social media is important because it created a socialistic change. Never before have people been connected in this way. It has caused all ages of people to want to get engaged in the medium. To this day, students are becoming experienced with technology \"developing their creative ability, appreciating new and different perspectives and enhancing their communication skills\" (Huffington). Because there are so many social media users, people have had to re-learn how to communicate with each other. However, some people think social networking is \"ruining the world.\" People believe that everyone spends less time in face-to-face conversations when there are social media sites where people can interact. However, there are also sites where people can meet new people or reconnect with people. Certainly there are other reasons why people think social media is ruining the world such as cyberbullying and decaying writing skills. Cyberbullying is very serious but if students don\"t put themselves in danger or if they tell a trusted adult what was happening, those issues would be less of a problem. Writing skills have changed dramatically because of some of the communication shortcuts encouraged by social media. Students may write \"u\" instead of actually spelling out the word \"you\" on school papers. But research shows that social media is actually helping the world and economy. People use social media to find jobs. New media such as Linked In show that 89% of job recruiters have hired employees through this site (HR Focus). Social media sites have also been shown to empower women and help them find jobs. That translates to high school students as well, who learn about job openings and opportunities through Linked In and other sites. It provides a new opportunity for students to learn about job openings.", "title": "Social networking is good for students", "pid": "37f600fc-2019-04-18T15:26:22Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.00244140625}, {"text": "Unless my opponent has any objections, the parameters for this debate will be as follows: 1. \"Social networking websites\" are defined as web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. 2. \"The United States\" will not be contrained merely to a body of government or a geographical region, but to society, businesses, people, etc. One last note: I would urge the consideration of anecdotal accounts to be considered in a logical rather than emotional fashion. Social networking is a thing of the future, a revolutionary concept that will transform the current world. Social networking has evolved from not only a place to meet your friends and mingle, but to a place where businesses are run, deals are made, and contracts are completed. In addition, the networks enhance communication and encourage people from different parts of the world to converse and interact. Also, the network has its educational benefits as well. Students who use social networking learn important skills to help them survive in the 21st century such as managing websites, editing videos, making use of other technological skills. The use of social networking tools as part of everyday working life has led to an increase in efficiency in the workplace. According to Dynamic Markets, Of those employees using social networking tools in the workplace, 65% say that it has made them and/or their colleagues more efficient. And 45% say that it has sparked ideas and creativity for them personally. Businesses use SNS for collaboration sites on intranets, internal forums within the company, company-produced video material shared on intranets, online social networks like LinkedIn and external collaboration sites on the Web and internal blogging sites. Benefits include increasing an individual's knowledge; giving access to products to problems; harnessing the collective knowledge of employees, customers and suppliers; stimulating team building; and better internal collaboration. In addition, businesses like Best Buy who use social networking increase their employee retention rates by making employees feel like they belong. There are far-reaching educational benefits of social networking. Christine Greenhow, researcher at the University of Minnesota, explains that \"[S]tudents using social networking sites are actually practicing the kinds of 21st century skills we want them to develop to be successful today.\" Also, according to a study conducted by Childnet International, teachers and students alike could set-up online \"study groups\" and students can use them to collaborate together on group projects and assignments. Social networking helps to encourage student engagement and increase participation, encourages online discussion amongst students outside of school, and provides students with a sense of ownership and engagement which often leads to an improved quality of work. Furthermore, Social Networking sites may increase an individual's self-confidence. As BusinessWeek says, \"When people are bullied they often don't feel confident about speaking to people face to face about what is going on - whereas doing it online is quite easy.\" Social networking Web sites can help shy people come out of their shells by teaching them how to interact with others in a safe, online environment. Social Networking has substantial benefits that greatly outweigh and hindrances there might be. Because of this, I ask you to AFFIRM the resolution.", "title": "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "ff6dab30-2019-04-18T19:31:40Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.97283935546875}, {"text": "Hmmm.... Not too clear about who these \"groups\" are... But seeing that Elliebub hasn't posted any arguments... Just extend all of my arguments to here..Question for Ellie: So you are forfeiting this match?", "title": "Social Networking Sites are Harmful", "pid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.95571899414062}, {"text": "I would like to say as much as children should be kept away from the computer it can be used for learning! Meaning that it is not all bad and that quote of what she said isn't right it is just a opinion no supporting evidence in that statement. As sad as it may be you say that some scientist thinks that it may be bad for your brain I want proof of this and if your going to say that. You have no evidence of this and I want proof if your going to say this. Many people may log on at home after they get home what if they forgot what their homework was you can't exactly go ring up your teacher and ask what the homework was you could just ask someone in your class online, so much easier than getting in trouble the next day. Many people believe that t.v's and to much computer can rot your mind and I fully back them up on that statement because it does but do people say the same thing with cell phones no they think it is good that you can text people without the worry of having to call them or walk down to them. Cell phones do most of the same things that social networking sites do like you can communicate with others, play games, make calls and listen to music, so why do people believe that cell phones are good but social networking sites aren't one of the only differences between the two is that cell phones are portable and you can get facebook on their for free. Surely if you think cell phones are good for you then social networking is to. I now rest my case.", "title": "Social networking sites are harmful.", "pid": "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.94390869140625}, {"text": "That's a real shame. .. I was looking forward to this debate. I thought it would be an interesting one. Ah well.", "title": "Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good", "pid": "2e54c887-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.92422485351562}, {"text": "Social networking sites nowadays are used for stalking, committing cyber crimes and other frauds.", "title": "Social networking sites boon.", "pid": "ab9f69d4-2019-04-18T15:31:53Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.9071502685547}, {"text": "As my opponent has failed to refute any of my points while simultaneously not defending his own, I urge a Con ballet.", "title": "that, on balance, social networking websites have had a positive impact on the US", "pid": "7a949437-2019-04-18T19:29:40Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.89553833007812}, {"text": "Social networking has a negative impact on communities. It increases cyberbullying, suicide and obesity.", "title": "Social networking has a negative impact on communities.", "pid": "f0c04fae-2019-04-18T11:22:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.88534545898438}, {"text": "First of all, let us understand what it is we are debating here. We are debating social networking sites. Not just one or two specific sites, like Facebook, or Myspace, but social websites as a whole. So let us put forth a strong definition to fit the topic.Social Networking Site: Any websites which facilitates communication between two or more individuals.So what we are really talking about here is communication between human beings, online, rather than through any other medium (telephone, letter, face to face, ect.) I will be blunt, it is asinine to propose that something which facilitates communication between human beings could somehow be more harmful than good. Social networking websites allow for human interaction over great distances. They allow people globally to connect with one another, share ideas, express desires, form bonds of friendship, and discuss similar interests. We live in an age where if someone feels alone or isolated, quickly using a search engine like Google could bring you to a forum of people who share your same feelings, alleviating the pain of solitude. Social networking sites allow humans a place to retreat to after a hard days work, or a long day of school. Indeed, the only difference between a social networking site and a gathering of friends in a public space is that using the website makes it easier to connect! Would my opponent dare propose that social interaction is harmful? Then how can they make such blanket statements about the vast array of websites which do just this, but allow you to, say, keep in contact with not just your friends, but you Uncle in a faraway place, or a loved one half-way across the globe? Indeed, the very idea is preposterous.As if it were not bad enough, my opponent, in order to justify their claim of social networking sites bringing MORE harm than good (not simply some harm), only gives rise to TWO potential issue; the first one being the medium is public, and can interfere with employment. This proposition my opponent makes is illogical. Let us observe why.1. This is not the fault of social networking sitesMy opponent seems to think that the actions of third parties can somehow justify attacking social networking websites. But this is illogical. To blame social networking sites for something that others do is misplaced blame. The existence of these websites do not force companies and employers to do what they do, they do it of their own desire. And taking away social networking sites will not prevent this from occurring, employers will simply look elsewhere, as they have done, for information on their potential employee. They'll call relatives and references, and gain information about you that way. And in older times, when communities were smaller, they would ask around the town for information. So the actions of employers to seek out information on their candidates for hire is nothing new, and cannot be blamed on social networking sites. All these websites do is give employers another potential source of information about you. In of themselves, these sites are harmless, and therefore without blame.2. This is not a problem with most networking sitesRecalling our definition of social networking websites, most social networking websites will not give rise to his kind of problem, because most websites allow for the creation of \"Usernames\", or names specific to an online site. I am sure, for instance, my opponents name in real life is not \"szack\", nor is mine \"The Chaos Heart\". These are fake names, or online names, made for a specific online environment. Most social websites you encounter on the web will be structured in such a manner, allowing for someone to construct usernames for themselves rather than use their real names. So this complaint my opponent has put forth is all but negligible.3. You could just not use your real name. There is an easy solution to this \"problem\" put forth by opponent, similar to the above critique about usernames. You could just lie about what your real name is. This is actually what I do with my Facebook. This method of networking allows you to hide yourself from unwanted attention, and allow permit those who you wish to see your page to view it. It completely renders my opponents proposed argument meaningless.4. The morality of firing someone is questionableThe morality of firing someone simply because they do not enjoy heir job is highly questionable, and I would argue, morally reprehensible. Someone may need a particular job to survive, even if they don't enjoy it. To fire them for simply not liking what they do, even if they may do it well and efficiently, is disgusting. To this end, we should not be defending such actions in any manner, especially not by criticising institutions like social networking sites. It's that companies fire people based on info they find on these sites that is wrong, not that they can access the information in the first place. My opponents argument is the equivalent of saying it is wrong for someone to go outside, because someone might murder them. Going outside isn't the problem, the problem is that there is someone willing to murder you to begin with. So it is with these websites and companies. The problem isn't the websites, it's the companies willing to fire people based on the info they find to begin with.Now my opponent proposes a second potential issue, which is similar in many ways to the first. That is, it interferes with education, both in terms of studies and application to universities. But these too are illogical complaints.1. Connection in education is goodMy opponent argues, \"Go to Yahoo Answers and see how many people use networking to try and answer their math homework or the science equation...\" But what my opponent fails to point out is how many of these students, as a result of doing this, learn the information and go on to answer future questions correctly, thereby having bettered themselves as students. There is nothing wrong with asking for help, either from professors or peers, and it is something which is often encouraged by educators. Several of these Yahoo Answers give detailed responses on how to solve any particular problem, and are vital resources for which students are able to easily gain the knowledge they need, and further their education. Further more, taking away social networking sites will not prevent this connection to occur; again, like with the example of employers above, students will simply do what they have done in the past. they will form study groups, call one another, discuss things before or after class, ect. Social networking websites then can hardly be held responsible for this behavior, as it is something done without it. Like with the issue above with employment, all these websites do is make getting the information easier.2. The argument of application and universities is the same as before My four above points about employers and jobs can be taken, reworded a little, and used again for this exact argument. This behavior is not the fault of social networking websites, but the fault of universities, who would and have done this with or without these websites. Most of these websites allow for the creation of usernames, and even if they don't, you can simply lie about what your real name is. And finally, the morality of not accepting a student based on something you find on their personal profile is questionable, and therefore, the problem isn't social networking sites, but universities engaging in this behavior to begin with.3. My opponent's own source argues against themMy opponent's edudemic article lists within it 5 major reasons why social networking within schools is a GOOD thing, in addition to the 5 points it makes about the negatives. I do not have enough characters left to quote them, but they are easily read by anyone who clicks my opponent's link.I turn it over to my opponent.", "title": "Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good", "pid": "2e54c887-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.865234375}, {"text": "I am ever so sorry for doing this. our arguments were very good.", "title": "Social Networking Sites are Harmful", "pid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.85208129882812}, {"text": "But it is the question about those people who can have access to these sites. These sites provide many facilities to them. Students can make their own groups share educational information with each other. People van also communicate with their relatives, friends, etc., all around the globe. So it's the question about those people who can afford these sites.........", "title": "All people should join at least one kind of social networking site.", "pid": "ff6f8975-2019-04-18T17:08:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.85206604003906}, {"text": "Thanks again, Dicsync for debating this with me, and thanks judges for viewing and critiquing this debate. I'll start right off by further depending my points, and answering my opponents rebuttal. 1st: My opponent agrees cyberbullying is a real problem, and has to be addressed, yet still continues to argue that social media is beneficial. Interesting. 2nd: Regardless of the \"excitement\" of moments on a persons Facebook, it's the idea that these people tend to hype up their own experiences to yet again value \"likes\" as acceptance. Also, no basis has been provided that allow you to say \"society is growing\" and no proof what people like to take pictures of. Regardless of this, it's not about the excitement of posts, but more about the experiences. I believe I miscommunicated, or you misunderstood, when i said \"excitement,\" as I only meant that people would post about their favorite moments, to brag in a way, whether it be at Disneyland, the White House, or simply in a \"nice, cozy cafe.\" The scenario doesn't change in this situation, as different people like different things. However, it is widely known that people will post pictures/posts simply to impress their audience, and reach this satisfaction. Now I'll be refuting my opponents 2nd and 3rd points. REBUTTAL P2: \"Social Networking sites *CAN* be diverse.* My opponent uses social media as a simple road to communication, whether it be to meet strangers, learn about others, or simply talk to friends. As this may be good, I ask the judges, is this \"social\" interaction as valuable as face-to-face correspondence? My opponent uses social media as not a way to simplify meeting others, but rather a way to hide behind a screen, while attempting to be what we define as \"social.\" Now I understand, there are situations in which social media may be good. But the fact of this rebuttal, combined with previous points, and the educational detriments that come with this (which I'll be covering next paragraph), any benefit that sprouts from social media falls when combined to it's numerous detriments. REBUTTAL P3: \"Educational benefits of social networking sites\" Winston Churchhill once said: \"However beautiful the strategy, we should occasionally look at the results.\" My opponent may try to paint a pretty picture in your head of how beneficial the fast download speed of a smartphone really is in a classroom, but let's think logically and practically about this. As a high schooler, I can confirm that social media is rarely EVER used for educational purposes. The 60% of educational posts most likely sprout from insults to teachers/subjects or even asking for help from others (which would be cheating, another possible problem with social media- but we won't go into that). This percentage is not only ambiguous, but could be inherently flawed. Lastly- all this^ rebuttal was to the intent of that contention, however my opponent did not evaluate \"social media\" during this contention, but rather technology and smartphones, which are not related. Let me add before I move on: \"Connolly cautions that students who use social networking tools might pay significant hidden cognitive costs. Facebook, Google, and other web services simultaneously seize and fragment our attention. They can subvert higher-order reasoning processes, including the kind of focus, concentration, and persistence necessary for critical thinking and intellectual development. Some researchers have correlated heavy Internet use with greater impulsivity, less patience, less tenacity, and weaker critical thinking skills. The need to rapidly shift from object to object online can weaken students\" ability to control their attention. Prolonged Internet use exposes students to interactive, repetitive, and addictive stimuli that produce permanent changes in brain structure and function.\"(1) Remaining argument: My opponent makes the following link: social media > great job. Not only is there no substantial studies or evidence to support this, but it is inherently false, when looking at source (1). My opponent uses professors to support his evidence, using their opinion, and what they \"believe.\" As opinions are great and beliefs are beneficial, no opinion can overcome the substantial evidence of detriments provided in source (1). For all these reasons- vote con. Thank you. (1) http://www.wcer.wisc.edu...", "title": "Social networking sites are beneficial", "pid": "cc128cdd-2019-04-18T15:58:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.84747314453125}, {"text": "I respect ur comment my friend and thank you for giving me such a tough competition. I think that u dont use facebook. there is an option called privacy settings from which we can allow only our friends to see our profile and pics.", "title": "social networking is bad", "pid": "4befcae3-2019-04-18T17:19:09Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.80743408203125}, {"text": "I would like to point out that my opponent has said that social networking sites allow people at 10+, that is a lie sites have restricted people to be at least 13 to be allowed onto these sites and that is because 10 year olds wouldn't know what to do if strangers tried to be friends with them or if they became cyber-stalked and that is because they wouldn't be responsible or mature enough to know what to do in that situation. You also said that people do get harmed form cyber bullying so your saying that everyone that gets bullied on the Internet goes how do I put it crazy? you are just putting it out there that you wouldn't be ashamed to say that someone has gone crazy to many people. harmful shouldn't really be the word used to define social networking sites but then again no word would really suit. When you are on social networking sites you can do many things that are good like talk to friends and family without a problem, or share photos from another country. facebook or titer can be used to say in touch with people all around the world for free or you could just call them for say $1 per minute if they're on the other side of the world, then again it would be nice hearing their voice but they'll hear yours when you get the phone bill, but meh that doesn't matter you could just go on facebook and talk to them. That would be so much easier, guess what else it is.... easy to use for all those technology challenged people simple like a wave of a wand or a swish of the wrist.", "title": "Social networking sites are harmful.", "pid": "5d621fc6-2019-04-18T18:36:07Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.79225158691406}, {"text": "My position should be obvious. I am here to negate the resolution, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that social networking does not cause more harm than good.My opponent may begin their argument.", "title": "Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good", "pid": "2e54c887-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.78253173828125}, {"text": "Arguments Extended. .. ..", "title": "Social Networking Sites are Harmful", "pid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.74020385742188}, {"text": "Do you know that internet do brings more harm than advantages to people living in the modern society nowadays? Now then, people living in modern society, are dependent on internet and social media such as Facebook etc. Thus, nowadays there are more cases happening often over the world such as cyberbullying who had caused suicide among people, using social media whom people had led to it. In addition, internet do bring more harm than good.", "title": "The internet does more harm than good. Do you agree?.", "pid": "8913dcfc-2019-04-18T15:59:11Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.73678588867188}, {"text": "Seeing as my opponent forfeited (and I feel they shall again), I shall not put too much here. 1) Social Networks allow us to connect with all our old friends and family that we lose contact with.2) Social Networks gave way for the innovation of \"social gaming\". Gaming like Farmville could only come about through social Networks.3) Social Networks allow New social movements (NSMs) to form. NSMs are political movements which put huge pressure on the government in order to act in certain ways, usually reactionary to go against laws. They also work against many corporations as well. For example, the 2009 charts led with \"Killing in the Name\", which only came about due to facebook campaigns, and the general pro-piracy movements.", "title": "is social networking sites really a boon or bane", "pid": "4a484e4e-2019-04-18T18:10:35Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.65969848632812}, {"text": "Social networking sites bring privacy into the public doman.", "title": "social networking sites should be banned..!!!", "pid": "629412b6-2019-04-18T18:09:34Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.65682983398438}, {"text": "Social Networking, I believe, can prove to be a distraction to low-performance students. I understand that SN can be used for productive purposes such as group projects and class communication, but it can also be abused and overused. With the growing digital society today, our current generation of students is highly susceptible to its ever-growing influence. Almost anyone in the urban or sub-urban setting in any population dense area has Internet connection and devices that could make use of such i.e. smartphones, PCs, and laptops. Any student has access to this and can be quite handy research materials(Let's not forget Wikipedia and Google) but can also be a way for the student to deviate from his studies. Of course, not all students are the same. There are those who manage their time and know when and when not to use SN without sacrificing precious study time or any time that involves his education for that matter. But we must also consider the ones whose performance is below average. Sure, SN will certainly help him with communicating with his classmates but this will only come to a productive result if he discusses matters involving projects or anything involving his current education. We must consider that low grade students or any other student can abuse SN. They can talk about mundane matters for hours, concerning their lives and their problems. Not minutes, hours. And one more serious matter: Cyberbullying. SN has become the leading medium for Cyberbullying and we all know that bullying has serious effects over the life of a student, especially those who cannot stand up for themselves. The communication brought about by SN is very quick and so will the negative messages come at the same pace. And not only will these messages come almost instantaneously, it can be published to his fellow peers wherein he will be subject to public humiliation both in cyberspace and in the classroom environment. I say that SN should be given time by the student if he is already finished with the work that he has for the day. SN can both amplify and destroy a student's image in his class. Teamwork and peer connection is a crucial element in a student's life. SN must be used moderately.", "title": "Social networking is good for students", "pid": "37f600fc-2019-04-18T15:26:22Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.65167236328125}, {"text": "First of all, I didn't realize that I posted the wrong case. Please disregard the earlier arguments. Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu....... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States economically Reuters in 2008 http://uk.reuters.com...... -Social networking Web sites allow businesses to assemble as they wish. Since people go on vacations and business trips, they may not always be able to assemble freely with the rest of their company because they are far away. Social networking sites allow that to occur, and therefore stimulate their business. -Social networking web sites give advertisements that pertain to their users based on their searches. Therefore, social networking web sites definitely help our economy. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States politically Milliken in 2008 http://www.boston.com...... -In this past 2008 election, The Democratic National Party decided to use social networking web sites like Facebook and Myspace as a means of campaigning. Social networks are so popular among the younger generations. As a result, in the general election, Barack Obama received about 2/3 of the vote of younger voters. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States constitutionally Legal Information Institute in 2008 http://www.law.cornell.edu...... (Cornell University) - The first amendment to the constitution states: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.\" Therefore, social networking websites not only allow such things, but they also promote it, as evidenced by the different groups that people decide to join while they are on such sites. Social Networking Web Sites positively impact the United States socially Valenzuela, Park, & Kee in 2008 http://online.journalism.utexas.edu...... (University of Texas) -If social networking web sites did not exist, people would not be as socially diverse as they are today. Social networking websites like Facebook, recommend people that you may know based on who your own friends are. As a result, you are able to expand your social horizons. -Social networking web sites like Eharmony and Chemistry, allow single individuals to socialize with individuals that the websites feel they might be compatible to, by the way that they answered their questions. Social networking websites like such have the potential to change lives. Since social networking web sites not only positively impact the United States economically, politically, constitutionally, and socially; they also allow the people of the United States to enhance their democracy everyday which is the true essence of the United States of America. Social networks are becoming increasingly popular not only in the United States, but all over the world as well. That is why in a study taken by Indiana University, 88% of respondents used social networking websites. This obviously goes to show that they are far more beneficial than they are accredited for. Responding to my opponents contentions: 1. \"Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an \"electronic footprint\" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired\" -However, that is not the fault of the social networking site. Once they are used correctly, they have a more than positive impact on the United States of America (as a people, economy, as well as a government.) 2. \"Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees \"wasting time\" on their social networking\" - As I stated earlier, once the site is used in the right context with the necessary safety precautions, it has a positive impact. For clarification purposes, wasting 233 million hours is not using the site within the right context. Using the site at an inappropriate time also does not qualify as using it in the right context. - My opponent has given no source to support this claim. 3. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year -Social networking sites are NOT for kids. Most sites set a minimum age like 13-15. Therefore, this point doesn't belong in this debate. [http://signups.myspace.com...] 4. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. [My opponent has given no source to support these statistics. He has not spoke about where these kids he is talking are located, nor has he given an accessible link or citation. If anything, I have reason to believe that his entire case is referring to children in the UK.] As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, \"People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens.\" Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. [My opponent has given no source to support this scenario] 5. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like \"You look just awesome in this new movie,\" and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said \"People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them.\" This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. - My opponent said, \"potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result.\" This is the fault of the individual and not the site.", "title": "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.64459228515625}, {"text": "The answer to your question is... Wikipedia is one of the most authentic sources of information.... And its true that users don't go on checking its authenticity.... But this is what is technology... Mostly the facts on Wikipedia are correct.... With references... And their places of origin.... These websites provide you a wide access to knowledge... And the information with reference is mostly correct....", "title": "Students should use social networking", "pid": "7f8d09f3-2019-04-18T13:28:15Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.63954162597656}, {"text": "'The people I hate keep bugging me !!' Block them.. 'FACEBOOK is the cause of our loss of identity. We constantly feel the need to impress others through our pictures, our statuses, the pages we like, etc.' The same thing happens when you are member of any other social group. For example, at school we constantly try to impress our classmates in order to vote us for president of the class etc. If somebody cares about being popular he/she wants to be popular in every social group thar he/she participates in. If you're interested in being popular you have to try but you should protect your personality and not lose yourself. This is a basic principal you have to respect during your lifetime not only when you spend your time in a social network but in every social interaction. So, this is not a disadvantage enough important to outweigh social netorks' advantages. 'A FACEBOOK encourages bragging. Every post you do is \"look at me, I did this\" \"look at me, I discovered that if you turn the camera the other way, you can take pictures of yourself\" etc etc etc' It's not about bragging. SOCIAL networks has this purpose: to create a small society of people who communicate, share their interests, share photos etc. Actually, this is an advantage and not a disadvantage. This is why social networks spread Iinformation faster than any other media. Because soneone can discover something interesting and share it with other people. For instance, someone can be informed about a concert that is taking place or a new TV series that he/she would may find niteresting. ' FACEBOOK creates barriers in the way of genuine social interaction' This is a problem caused only when we don't use socal media wisely. We should be aware of this danger and protect ourselves. When we use them correctly we have the opposite results. We meet with people that we didn't know and we make new friends, we keep in touch with people who live in other cities or even abroad and since the communication is free and easy we speak more often to people we see everyday. All of these things, improce our social life and as I said in round 2, they facilitate face-to-face interactions. 'I experience psychological and mental stress every time it says I have a notification and it turns out to be someone inviting me to play Farmville. I estimate a 90% collapse in my mental well being (non-recovery) every time this happens' This is not a very serious disadvantage. In fact, this is not about social media. This is about your anticipation to hear from someone. You might feel the same thing when, for example, your phone is ringing and when you answer it you realize that they have called you to advertise a product or ask you to participate in a survey. Another example is when you hear the bell ringing and then, when you open the door you see a stranger who wants to sell you some things. 'I am addicted' This is a very frequent phenomenon, but yet again its cause is not social media but the way you ause them. Since you are aware of this danger, you have to put some limits and avoid spending too much time in front of the computer screen. The fact that you have realized the problem is a very positive sign. Here are some things you can do to protect yourself better: 1) Tell your parents to put a time limit to your computer that will allow you to spend a specific amount of time in front of your screen. 2) ask for help by experts 3) regulate your sleeping pattern (so that you ensure that you won't lose sleeping hours-this is a very frequent symptom of the internet addiction- and you will become more organized and self disciplined* 4) make a list of reasons why you will be happier by using the internet less and remind yourself that you can make it!* As you can see there are many ways to avoid getting addicted or to face the problem of addiction. Of course there are some serious dangers but dangers are everywhere. Social media has to offer too many important benefits for someone to claim that the dangers are enough to make them more harmful than useful. In this case the key is to learn how to get protected and not to stop using them. 'The Labour party have a fakebook page' Don't visit it. 'FACEBOOK is a social network' I suppose that you don't like fb so the solution for you is easy: DON'T MAKE A FACEBOOK ACCOUNT Thank you, I'm a genius, I know:P All in all, your arguments are more personal and most of your peoblems can be solved by deleting your account if you have or not making one. Other people don't find them serious or annoying enough to stop using them: As of September 2013, 73% of online adults use social networking sites.** Furthermore, social media do not include only fb. So, if you want to prevent people from inviting you to play games you can sign up another social networking site. Finally, I can't understand something. Firstly, you are against social networks and then you say that you have an account while you find it extremely annoying.. Does not make any sense.. Sources: *http://m.wikihow.com... ** http://www.pewresearch.org...", "title": "Social networks are beneficial to our society!", "pid": "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.611328125}, {"text": "I believe that social media has created a more superficial way to keep us all connected. Sure we keep in touch with old friends, but it is very limited. It's often times just scrolling through pointless news feeds. It becomes such an addiction that it distracts us from real life. It causes us to not pay attention to the real life interactions around us. I'd also like to argue that it causes an increase of false information being spread and it can also increase cyber bullying.", "title": "Social media does more harm than good", "pid": "fb0073bc-2019-04-18T12:47:53Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.60833740234375}, {"text": "I will be the con. I wish my opponent the best of Luck. My opponent must start his case in this round or the next post directly under mine. This will be much like a public forum debate. Meaning, definitions may be argued, sources may be argued, and contentions may be argued. Thank you to who ever accepts this and have fun :) The Followign will happen Aff will post a case, neg will post a case/refute the case Aff will refute/extend Neg will refute/extend Aff will have the final word but cannot add to their case but may extend things they have said but with no new evidence and refute the neg case.", "title": "Social networking sites On Balance have had a positive impact on the United States", "pid": "f359b0bb-2019-04-18T19:27:59Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.60211181640625}, {"text": "Social Networking is defined as a web-based service that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. There are dozens of great things about social networking, but the main positives are the increase in social capital they provide, the political participation it increases, and the staggering learning potential it offers First, there is Social Capital. Social Capital is an economic idea which refers to connections between individuals and entities. Its economically valuable and it helps people link together and people who trust and assist one another are extremely powerful. the better a company understands their possible consumers, the more social capital. Multiple studies from such universities as Northwestern prove that the more usage a company puts into Social Networking sites, the more social capital they receive. not to mention that social networking is a $15 billion market, from advertising alone. Next, these sites such as Facebook and Myspace, and even debate.org, increase dramatically the statistic of political participation according to major academic studies. our new president, Barack Obama, used social networking tremendously during his campaign and he, obviously, won. his main site was Change.gov, but he also used other large sites as a crowd sourcing tool in order to attract even more of the young people vote. In continuation, social networking sites are not just for teenage socializing, it also contains enormous potential to be a learning cornerstone. in a study performed by the University of Minnesota, the social networking sites were helping students learn 21st century skills such as developing a positive attitude towards technology, editing and customizing content, learning online design, practicing safe and responsible use of info, and sharing creative original work. this show the Internet's overall enormous potential. Thank you, and please affirm this resolution.", "title": "That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "570da76a-2019-04-18T19:28:12Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.57791137695312}, {"text": "Many countries in the Middle East are stopping social network services such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. These countries are prohibiting communication sites such as the Internet for political or religious reasons. I think it is not a good policy to stop social network services. This is a violation of freedom of expression, one of the universal rights that people will pursue. Also, the reason for prohibiting social network services is to prevent spreading the thoughts of corrupt government's atrocities or religious skepticism. But this is a case of violating the principle of freedom of religion as well as being deprived of the right to know as a citizen. Therefore, I think it is not a good policy to stop social network services.", "title": "Restricting social network services in the Middle East is a desirable policy", "pid": "b742544a-2019-04-18T12:07:26Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.5697784423828}, {"text": "Ok, I will concede the definition of on-balance and go with yours. I agree that it means with all things considered and equally weighed. However, I once again offer up my definition of positive being to be admitting of no doubt or irrefutable fact (American Heritage second College edition) I offer a source for my definition, my opponent does not therefore we must go with my definition. in his point 3 of his rebuttal I would just like to say, perhaps there is something wrong with that area, perhaps there is a depressed state of being, a poor culture there, I do not know. However, I do know that social networking sites may have contributed but have not been the SOLE cause of these suicides because suicide comes from a state of prolonged depression and there is counseling for this and perhaps these kids/teens you speak of needed it. Also in response in to his point 4 in the rebuttal. he says Tabloids expose celebrities and that we as common people must not. Well, I am sorry but I thought this was America, We are all entitled to same rights and if the celebrities rights are violated as you claim than ours as common people are allowed to be. National Inquirer does a good job of doing both. his point 7 um ok you use a statistic without a source I'm pretty sure that's not legitimate at all. I use a statistic with a source. The teen audience only accounts for 12% of the population on this sites (mashable.com) His point 8 he has no source again and so it must be striken from the vote. Point 6 he has no source for hackers. Where as it is a known fact that you can set privacy settings and prevent yourself from giving out personal information. . With social networking sites people need to be responsible if you're choosing not to be safe then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. Or perhaps if they are just to unwise to be safe than they should not be using them in general. He drops my economy still and therefore it must be flowed across. He dropped my extension on Democracy/voting/political process whatever you wish to call it so it must be flowed across. His point 5 is something of moraling life and dignity over the things I mention. He states elections happen every four years, this is true. And if this is well true than wouldn't you want more information available to you about the candidate? So you can hopefully get a better feel of life for the next four years? Well You get this via the social networking site. I will fall back on my sources fox news and msnbc.com So, I urge an affirmative ballot based on the economy, political process, and ability to prevent things outweigh the negatives the con presents through suicides and online tabloids of peoples life. In conclusion vote affirmative on the resolution *note it is with the definitions i provided which had a source and must be flowed across* Resolved: that with all things considered social networking sites have had irrefutable factual impacts on the United States. Thank you", "title": "Resolved: On balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "4cb138a2-2019-04-18T19:27:54Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.54061889648438}, {"text": "I will give a short rebuttal wich is the fact that ddo is a social networking site. Are these people antisocial? The answer NO they are far from it with many debates on countless topics. The forums where people comunicate about everything there are even ddo hangouts on google+ where people like you and me socialize. Plus we don't spend all day on these sites and a lot of us go to school or work for the most part of the day where we socialize all the time so I disagree with the fact that social media causes antisocial behaviour", "title": "does social media effect society in a good way", "pid": "9e189cf7-2019-04-18T15:08:59Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.50845336914062}, {"text": "At the moment his words go against the motion that is in my motion.", "title": "Social Networking sites are a boon", "pid": "df3b86f3-2019-04-18T18:41:07Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.5081329345703}, {"text": "Umm...alright then. Hopefully my opponent will be able to respond next round.", "title": "Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good", "pid": "2e54c887-2019-04-18T18:01:19Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.5069122314453}, {"text": "Well, Arguments extended. .. I thank PRO for this debate. .. very interesting for the time that it lasted.", "title": "Social Networking Sites are Harmful", "pid": "5c1e1da6-2019-04-18T18:36:14Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.45457458496094}, {"text": "Thank you for the challenge, and good luck to my opponent. First of all, I would like to point out that all of my opponent's arguments are copy-pasted from the source which she quotes. Also notable is that the title of this article, as seen in my opponent's citation, is \"Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society.\" However, in order to win, Pro must show how social networking sites are beneficial to the United States; if they have a neutral impact, Pro has not fulfilled their burden of proof, and so Con should win. To address Mrs. Boyd's points... Mrs. Boyd contends that \"I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression\" as well as that \"For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change.\" However these claims are not backed up with any statistics. Though I don't doubt the validity of these statements, according to the resolution we are looking to weigh the impact of these points. I would ask my opponent for any statistics that will allow us to weigh this claim. Mrs. Boyd also contends that \"Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore.\" However, what he fails to realize is that these social networking sites are providing a easy venue for these devastating actions to take place. Social networking sites *are* detrimental to the United States. Information put on social networking sites can have far-reaching negative ramifications. 4.5 million web users aged between 14 and 21 are damaging their future education and employment prospects by leaving an \"electronic footprint\" which could compromise their chances of winning places at colleges and companies. Also, imposters posing as you can destroy your reputation or even get you fired. Social networking provides a major distraction for students and employees alike. Students said they are having a difficult time concentrating on their schoolwork because they are more interested in what the social networking sites have to offer. Many college students would rather check their profiles than listen to the teacher, and can easily do so. Other students are also distracted from listening by the miscreants surfing the web. In business, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees \"wasting time\" on their social networking. Sexual predation is a big risk in using the social network sites. Children and teens are not the only users of these social networking websites like FaceBook and MySpace; sexual predators, pedophiles, and other criminals use them as well. The Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire found that nearly 1 in 5 kids had received unwanted sexual solicitations over the Internet. In addition, the FBI found that the number of known Internet predators on social networking websites has more than tripled in a single year. Also a major issue is cyber bullying. Over 40-85% of kids have been exposed to digital bullying, 5% so much so that they are afraid for their safety. Bullying online flourishes through its unrestricted growth. As stated by British Broadcasting Company's Teenage Psychologist Expert, Martha Everett, \"People think they are a million times stronger because they can hide behind their computer screens.\" Cyberbullying can even threaten one's life. For example, thirteen year old Megan Meier committed suicide after being cyber bullied/harassed by her neighbor. In addition, Viruses abound on Social Networking Sites. These viruses, such as the Koobface virus, pose as one of your friends and send messages like \"You look just awesome in this new movie,\" and then direct users to a website to supposedly view the movie, where in actuality viruses are hidden. As Chris Boyd, a researcher at FaceTime Labs said \"People tend to let their guard down. They think you've got to log in with an account, so there is no way that worms and other viruses could infect them.\" This makes them much more likely to click on such links, ending in the flooding of their computer with malicious software. 83% of adults who use social networking sites have downloaded unknown files from other people's profiles, potentially exposing themselves to malware as a result. Also, Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites. Research shows one in six 16 to 25-year-olds publishes information about his or herself on the internet that could be used by an identity fraudster. Scott Mitic, chief executive of TrustedID, speaks of social networking sites as a \"growing pool of valuable information that at some point thieves may consider more valuable than a credit report.\" David Porter, head of security and risk at Detica, is astounded by the fact that that people use social networking websites to publish details about their lives, loves, jobs and hobbies to the entire world that they would not dream of sharing with a stranger. As BBC News puts it, social networking sites are the equivalent of a big red target with flashing in respect to identity thieves. Many pundits argue that social networking sites are highly beneficial in every aspect of society. However, these sites pose as big of a threat as they provide benefit. With the further evolution of these sites, more problems will emerge and soon create an uncontrollable international problem. When push comes to shove, social networking sites are merely a distraction where time is wasted. Because my opponent points to relatively insignificant benefits and ignores the plethora of detriments, I ask you to NEGATE the resolution. Thank you.", "title": "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States.", "pid": "ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.45166015625}, {"text": "relaxation,take away stress", "title": "social networking sites should be banned at the workplaces", "pid": "4c2a61b5-2019-04-19T12:47:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.45101928710938}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "social networks are more harm than good", "pid": "c4b5d675-2019-04-18T17:50:23Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.4268798828125}, {"text": "OVERVIEW I finally got a new computer, and so this is my first debate in a while. I thank Pro for making such an interesting debate, and I hope he will not forfeit in any part. As Con I shall be proving that social networking via Facebook, Twitter, etc is worse than face-to-face interaction and socializing. I do not know how Pro wants the layout to be—but I am assuming that he wants me to first accept it and not provide any arguments. DEFINTIONS Because of the fact that Pro did not provide any definitions I shall be the one in which hands out the definitions. As defined on www.dictionary.com Social Networking: the use of a website to connect with people who share personal or professional interests, place of origin, education at a particular school, etc. http://dictionary.reference.com... Better: Of superior quality, or excellence http://dictionary.reference.com... Good: Morally excellent http://dictionary.reference.com... Worse: More unfavorable http://dictionary.reference.com... Interaction: Reciprocal action http://dictionary.reference.com... Socializing: Make fit for life in companionship with others. http://dictionary.reference.com... Good Luck, Pro", "title": "Social Networking", "pid": "4c26d847-2019-04-18T18:51:36Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.38848876953125}, {"text": "For reference, all of my opponent's previous statements is taken from the guardian (. http://www.guardian.co.uk...) so I assume out of grace they were not trying to win a debate through plagiarism and giving a summary of the debate as it currently is. I await my opponent's first round when they present it in the second, and hope it is just not going to be claiming that it already has been made. I also wish to ask for no plagiarism at this point in the debate. Thank you.", "title": "is social networking sites really a boon or bane", "pid": "4a484e4e-2019-04-18T18:10:35Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.38644409179688}, {"text": "some examples of these are; suicidal thoughts, depression, loneliness, and the need to cyber bully. First off let me explain my point, without any actual human contact your brain will start to thing being alone is normal and good, so the next time you have a choice to hang out with friends or go update your blog. your brain will most likely choose the second option creating a vicious circle pulling more and more people in. No-one can help it but we can fight against it by going outside more and leaving Facebook for another day. We do not need social media to punch a hole to all of our \"Real\" relationships goodbye and good day.", "title": "does social media effect society in a good way", "pid": "9e189cf7-2019-04-18T15:08:59Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.3812255859375}, {"text": "The term \"Online Social Networks\" here refers to -- A web service that uses software to build online social networks for communities of people who share interests and activities or who are interested in exploring the interests and activities of others. For example -- Facebook, MySpace, Orkut, SecondLife etc. Online Social Networks (OSNs) are waste of time for a major percentage of online users; except a few those benefit by advertising their products and spamming everyone else. The information provided by users can be exploited in a multitude of ways; I can elaborate more on those as we proceed through the debate.", "title": "Say NO to online social networks.", "pid": "868b43c1-2019-04-18T19:45:26Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.3752899169922}, {"text": "You see... First of all the test of this system is clearly one... Whether or not it is helping the students... Now the point that it can be misleading..... Yes it can be... But the truth is the purpose behind using it..Why it is being used..... And about the change in the content... On the websites there is a process behind it... i reckon...if someone changes the content... It will be cross checked...", "title": "Students should use social networking", "pid": "7f8d09f3-2019-04-18T13:28:15Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.36569213867188}, {"text": "A number of students at universities in England have and will publish a number of different pictures from nights out, weekends at festivals and images of general stupidity. However, according a study by CareerBuilder, the main reason that employers turn away candidates is because of the nature of the content on their Facebook or Twitter pages. A Facebook page is one which people use to get across their own personal views but if you’re wanting to avoid upsetting anyone then it’s best to keep some things to yourself so as not to cause offense. Because the web is such a big place and pretty much everything is permanent, it’s advisable that you are cautious when posting a status or uploading a photo. It may seem good boasting at the time to your friends about what you did on a night out, but this may be something which your potential employer may not like. This doesn’t rule out the posting of any pictures from your time at college, but at the same time you don’t want to post anything which could harm you in the future.", "title": "social networks are more harm than good", "pid": "c4b5d675-2019-04-18T17:50:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.33892822265625}]}
{"idx": 33, "qid": "35", "q_text": "Do violent video games contribute to youth violence?", "qrels": {"e4cd6b8-2019-04-18T15:15:19Z-00004-000": 1, "e4cd6b8-2019-04-18T15:15:19Z-00001-000": 2, "e4cd6b8-2019-04-18T15:15:19Z-00005-000": 1, "e4cd6b8-2019-04-18T15:15:19Z-00002-000": 0, "e81dfba3-2019-04-18T17:00:44Z-00005-000": 0, "e9b44971-2019-04-18T13:56:01Z-00003-000": 1, "e9e7c17-2019-04-18T11:31:13Z-00001-000": 0, "ed943cb5-2019-04-18T17:04:36Z-00004-000": 0, "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00003-000": 0, "fdaf389d-2019-04-18T17:33:56Z-00001-000": 0, "e4cd6b8-2019-04-18T15:15:19Z-00003-000": 0, "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00004-000": 2, "7a99f4c0-2019-04-18T16:50:24Z-00006-000": 0, "7b564465-2019-04-18T13:46:22Z-00002-000": 0, "7b564465-2019-04-18T13:46:22Z-00000-000": 0, "81c7fb51-2019-04-18T19:58:34Z-00002-000": 2, "8294b441-2019-04-18T17:22:30Z-00003-000": 1, "8440ef2-2019-04-18T12:02:18Z-00000-000": 2, "92fc546a-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00000-000": 0, "92fc546a-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00003-000": 0, "92fc546a-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00014-000": 0, "7768222e-2019-04-18T17:59:36Z-00001-000": 0, "dc226c19-2019-04-18T11:38:07Z-00003-000": 0, "de7919e0-2019-04-18T16:05:16Z-00001-000": 2, "5b766469-2019-04-18T11:30:07Z-00001-000": 0, "3466ccde-2019-04-18T15:56:31Z-00006-000": 2, "4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00017-000": 1, "45462ad0-2019-04-18T13:17:49Z-00000-000": 2, "55e10797-2019-04-18T15:21:42Z-00006-000": 1, "9fe06406-2019-04-18T14:16:46Z-00004-000": 0, "5b6b25e-2019-04-18T18:46:35Z-00000-000": 0, "5b6b2f9-2019-04-18T15:28:19Z-00000-000": 2, "d0e5c093-2019-04-18T18:40:47Z-00005-000": 2, "5c0e8e08-2019-04-15T20:22:19Z-00001-000": 0, "5dce2de2-2019-04-18T15:41:55Z-00001-000": 2, "a5ca39dc-2019-04-18T11:43:36Z-00005-000": 1, "aab37460-2019-04-18T18:06:44Z-00002-000": 0, "aab37460-2019-04-18T18:06:44Z-00006-000": 0, "b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00002-000": 1, "b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00001-000": 1, "b4849efd-2019-04-18T17:56:23Z-00002-000": 1, "117d4c1a-2019-04-18T18:37:03Z-00004-000": 1, "c80f9596-2019-04-18T15:38:23Z-00003-000": 1, "c958dc5a-2019-04-18T17:51:05Z-00001-000": 1, "3307f209-2019-04-18T15:40:14Z-00004-000": 2, "15263802-2019-04-18T16:22:16Z-00003-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys that played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. Violent computer games have long been popular with teenagers, and with the improvement in technology, many violent games have become more realistic. Excessive violent gaming can become a serious problem because teenagers can develop antisocial behavior and become disconnected from reality, according to Laura Berk, professor of psychology at Illinois State University. According to Berk, teenagers who frequently play violent video games are more likely to become withdrawn. She states that addiction to violent games is a cause in itself. A 2010 BBC news report about the risk of computer addiction included an interview with a 19-year-old boy who skipped school and had angry outbursts if his parents tried to stop him from playing a violent video game. The American Psychiatric Association is calling for more research before placing computer games addiction as an international recognized mental health disorder Violence as Normality A research report in the May 2010 issue of \"Psychological Bulletin\" led by Iowa State University psychology professor Craig Anderson found that violent gaming can increase feelings of aggression and antisocial behavior in teenagers, regardless of their sex. Overexposure to violent images found in computer games can lead to the view that violence is a normal way of life. Berk also writes that the Columbine High School teenage murderers were obsessed with playing a violent video game. abcnews.go.com \" Technology", "title": "Violent videogames cause violence in players", "pid": "456d6b3a-2019-04-18T16:19:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 220.62742614746094}, {"text": "Teenagers who play violent video games over a number of years become more aggressive towards other people as a result, according to a new long-term study. Researchers said the study was the first to show a clear link between a sustained period of playing violent games and subsequent increases in hostile behaviour. Girls who play violent computer games during their school years were found to be affected just as much as boys. is clear that there is a long-term association between violent video games and aggression. This is an important and concerning finding, particularly in light of the hours that youth spend playing these games.'", "title": "Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens", "pid": "b4849efd-2019-04-18T17:56:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 220.53305053710938}, {"text": "Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a ‘scary world’, especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer.", "title": "Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people.", "pid": "4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 220.51315307617188}, {"text": "Many researchers (Ask, 1999; Funk, 1993, 1995; Provenzo, 1991) conclude that there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Other influences, such as social environment, family background and peer pressure cause aggressive behaviour. Additionally, even if video games might create violent thoughts, according to researchers there is no reason for these thoughts to display themselves in action more than the aggressive thoughts caused by frustration in non-violent video games, or by the fast pace of action films (rather than their content). The small number of people who would be affected by such aggressive thoughts are people who probably already are habitually violent.", "title": "Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people.", "pid": "4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 220.44273376464844}, {"text": "It's a good thing that the rate of teen violence has been decreasing. But we are not here to debate whether the rate is higher or lower than before. Instead, we are here to discuss whether there is a direct correlation between engaging in violent video games and acting out violence in real life, for teenagers. Psychologists have shown that youngsters spend a significant amount of their spare time playing video games, boys more so than girls. While not all video games contain violence, the most popular ones do. More importantly, playing violent video games has been linked to having aggressive thoughts (http://www.apa.org...). In my opinion, having aggressive thoughts is, for a teenage, the first step toward becoming violent in action. Since violent media games lead to aggressive thoughts and aggressive thoughts may lead to violent action, by the rule of transitivity, for sure violent media games contributes to teenage violence. There is no doubt about it.", "title": "The content of Video Games", "pid": "d94ca2d5-2019-04-18T18:35:58Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 220.40118408203125}, {"text": "Violent juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. [7] [8] A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. [34] Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent movies, books, and violence in their own writings. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings. [35] The small correlations that have been found between video games and violence may be explained by violent youth being drawn to violent video games. Violent games do not cause youth to be violent. Instead, youth that are predisposed to be violent seek out violent entertainment such as video games. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. [36] Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm. http://videogames.procon.org...", "title": "Do games teach kids violence.", "pid": "50c55103-2019-04-18T16:52:42Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 220.32936096191406}, {"text": "Do you even look at what you are posting? Were in that argument does it mention anything relevant to the question once again. Please just leave this argument as all you have been doing is commenting with copy and pastes and not showing your own facts. I don't believe you have actually commented one word which is not a copy and paste. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm.", "title": "Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes", "pid": "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 220.1634521484375}, {"text": "There was a study done with 200 kids, with kids the age of 10 or 11, showing that the longer they played video games, the more aggression was stored up in the kids. Children who played for longer than three hours each day had higher levels of aggression and lower levels of academic engagement. Considering the vast number of children and youth who use video games and that more than 85% of video games on the market contain some form of violence, the public has understandably been concerned about the effects that using violent video games may have on individuals, especially children and adolescents. Now admittedly that video games are not the main reason for mass homicide and school shootings because it all comes from the person's family, environment, and chemical imbalances that they might hold but like you said, \"Video games can assist with the growth and development of our brain.\" While video games can be healthy for brain development they can do just the complete opposite in people, especially in children and adolescents, because their brains are still developing. Scientific research has demonstrated an association between violent video game use and both increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive affect, aggressive cognitions and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy, and moral engagement. Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting. 60% of middle school boys and 40% of middle school girls who played at least one Mature-rated (M-rated) game hit or beat up someone, compared with 39% of boys and 14% of girls who did not play M-rated games. A 2014 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that habitual violent video game playing had a causal link with increased, long-term, aggressive behavior. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that children who play M-rated games are more likely to bully and cyberbully their peers, get into physical fights, be hostile, argue with teachers, and show aggression towards their peers throughout the school year.", "title": "Video Games Lead To Violence", "pid": "46745944-2019-04-18T12:08:45Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 220.0546875}, {"text": "Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a 'scary world', especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer. An Australian Senate Committee established to look at this issue in 1993 concluded 'there is sufficient anecdotal evidence of a linkage…that the community cannot fail to act to control a situation which has the very real potential…to affect young people’1. 1Senate Committee, 1993.", "title": "Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour", "pid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 220.04824829101562}, {"text": "Depending on age the answer differs. Little kids can be influenced by anything. There is a reason video games have ratings. (EC, E, E10+, T, M) CNN reports \"A new study suggests virtual violence in these games may make kids more aggressive in real life.\" Violent Video Games can influence people to be violent.", "title": "Violent video games lead to violent behaivior", "pid": "d4bb089c-2019-04-18T15:33:19Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 220.00193786621094}, {"text": "So this may be short, but I am hoping to get at what voters should consider when looking at this debate. 1. Causation vs Correlation. In my opponents first argument, he stated that video games had some correlation with violent attacks, yet there is nothing that proves that video games were the CAUSE of such violent attacks. I'd like to bring up the quote from my opponent's 60 minutes evidence,\" who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months.\" Now, we look to my American Psychological Association evidence that states that children who showed aggression after exposure to video games expressed said characteristics beforehand. My opponent's quote illustrates my point. Video Games do not increase any violence, as it does not create any new violent characteristics, as my opponent is arguing. That point is mute because we see that there is no link between correlation and causation. 2. Crime My FBI evidence states that while video game sales had quadrupled in the 13 years between 1995 and 2008, the arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9%, while all juvenile violent crimes have declined 49.3%. The statistics clearly point to the Pro argument. This point ties together with correlation and causation, as we see that the point of causation is refuted by statistics. 3. Overall benefit My Journal of Adolescent Health evidence shows that 45% of boys stated they play video games because it helps get their anger out, and 62% stated because it helps them relax. It also allows children to explore real life situations like war and violence without true consequence. So overall, the statistics I bring up clearly show that the Pro side is right today.", "title": "Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence", "pid": "30a5cf73-2019-04-18T18:52:16Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.82208251953125}, {"text": "Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. [2] Video games often reward players for simulating violence, and thus enhance the learning of violent behaviors. Studies suggest that when violence is rewarded in video games, players exhibit increased aggressive behavior compared to players of video games where violence is punished. [23] Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. It is common for victims in video games to disappear off screen when they are killed or for players to have multiple lives. In a 2005 study, violent video game exposure has been linked to reduced P300 amplitudes in the brain, which is associated with desensitization to violence and increases in aggressive behavior. [24] A 2000 FBI report includes playing violent video games in a list of behaviors associated with school shootings. [25] Violent video games teach youth that violence is an acceptable conflict-solving strategy and an appropriate way to achieve one's goals. [26] A 2009 study found that youth who play violent video games have lower belief in the use of nonviolent strategies and are less forgiving than players of nonviolent video games. Violent video games cause players to associate pleasure and happiness with the ability to cause pain in others. [3] Young children are more likely to confuse fantasy violence with real world violence, and without a framework for ethical decision making, they may mimic the actions they see in violent video games. [4] Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. [5] Playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and arousal. [27] A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility. [28] Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts [29]. A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway. A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women [23]. Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape. [30] Several studies in both the United States and Japan have shown that, controlling for prior aggression, children who played more violent video games during the beginning of the school year showed more aggression than their peers later in the school year. [31] Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy in players. In a 2004 study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Professor Jeanne Funk, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings, plays an important role in the process of moral evaluation and is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. [32] When youth view violence in video games, they are more likely to fear becoming a victim of acts of violence. According to a 2000 joint statement by six leading national medical associations including the American Medical Association and American Psychological Association, this escalated fear results in youth not trusting others and taking violent self-protective measures. [33] Violent video games can train youth to be killers. The US Marine Corps licensed Doom II in 1996 to create Marine Doom in order to train soldiers. In 2002, the US Army released first-person shooter America's Army to recruit soldiers and prepare recruits for the battlefield.", "title": "Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes", "pid": "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.81031799316406}, {"text": "Studies have shown that when children are introduced to violence of any form the become aggressive, even if the aggression is short-term, it affects the child's personality, and can cause him or her to show that same type of aggression in real life situations. One report states, \"One of the most severe effects of violent video games on children is that the games are addictive and they tend to keep children engaged for a longer period. Many parents must have observed that their child becomes restless if he/ she does not play the specific game for the specific time every day. This can affect the child's mental stability and make him dependent on the game.\" Clearly the evidence shows that violence from video games can have devastating effects.", "title": "Violent video games lead to violent behaivior", "pid": "d4bb089c-2019-04-18T15:33:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.80126953125}, {"text": "I see you are still not specifying an age. But until you do, I will stick to children's age. But here is something for you. \"The question of whether children's participation in violent video games can lead to an increase in violent thoughts, emotions and behaviors has been resolved, and the conclusive answer is yes. Studies that have provided this answer are based on statistical comparisons between large groups of children who do or don't play violent video games. \" Also as i stated in my previous statement, why do you think there are ratings for games? Game designers even recognize that violence can influence people, especially children. Thank You. Now your argument.", "title": "Violent video games lead to violent behaivior", "pid": "d4bb089c-2019-04-18T15:33:19Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.78196716308594}, {"text": "The most common argument is that video games desensitize your reaction to violence, thus making you violent. But anyone who has the cognitive faculties to purchase, set up and operate modern games consoles won't have trouble with being desensitized. According to records held by the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and Office of Justice Programs, sales of video games have more than quadrupled from 1995-2008, while the arrest rate for juvenile murders fell 71.9% and the arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes declined 49.3% in this same period. It should be the other way around, if that was true. although researchers have often noted the preference of violent video games by many school shooters, given that 97 percent of adolescents play video games such a preference is not overly surprising. It could similarly be argued that oxygen consumption predicts school shootings and crime, because most school shooters likely breathed within 10 seconds before their violent attack (Hey, maybe it does) I'll post more if you actually respond", "title": "Video Games Can Cause Violence", "pid": "1dd4cde4-2019-04-18T16:08:31Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.77456665039062}, {"text": "I believe that video games are shaping many children in a negative way. This is mainly because of games like modern warfare and grand theft auto (purely as an example here). These games -and ones of a similar genre- are introducing violence to a much younger audience than the intended target market of the games. The competitive side to these games and their harsh and explicit nature is teaching children to be a lot more violent towards one another: Even though this is not the specific aim of the game.", "title": "Video games are making children more violent in nature.", "pid": "586cd9b6-2019-04-18T17:05:07Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.74501037597656}, {"text": "Each of the three approaches to proving a correlation between violent video games and criminal behaviour has its flaws. Studies that look for correlations between exposure to violent video games and real-world aggression can never prove that the games cause physical aggression1. Randomized tests, which assign subjects to play violent or nonviolent games and then compare levels of aggression, depend on lab-based measures of aggression that are difficult to compare with real-life aggression. Finally, longitudinal tests, which assess behaviour over time within a group, are a middle ground between the other two but similarly cannot prove it was the video games specifically that leads to increased aggression. In contrast to the claim that the effects of violent video games are worse than those of TV, a Potter study in 1999 found that 'children are more likely to be affected and more likely to imitate aggressive acts if the violence is depicted more realistically.'2 1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate: 2 Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2003, October 16). Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from improve this  ", "title": "Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour", "pid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 219.7369384765625}, {"text": "Paul Boxer. \"It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games.\" NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: \"High-profile events such as teenagers getting inspired by the actions of a violent video game character can be tragic, but they also distract from the large body of knowledge that has accumulated on the impact of violent media on children. Since the early 1970s, scientists have observed very clear, frequently replicated and strikingly robust effects. In experimental studies, children who view violent television shows or films — or who play violent video games — are significantly more likely to behave aggressively in comparison to children who view nonviolent television shows or films, or who play nonviolent video games. In long-term studies, individuals who consume violent media during childhood end up more aggressive as adults, in comparison with peers who consume nonviolent media during childhood. The studies that have produced such findings now number in the hundreds. The effects have been seen in children from urban areas, as well as suburban and rural areas; in the United States, as well as many other Western and non-Western nations.\"", "title": "Youth playing violent games exhibit more aggression.", "pid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00038-000", "bm25_score": 219.7133331298828}, {"text": "97% of teens play video games (99% of boys 94% of girls) according to a 2008 pew study. When the teens (12-17) were asked what their three favorite games were Halo 3 came in second with 104 mentions and GTA (no specific version) came in 8th with 58 mentions. With such a large amount of video game players who are playing violent video games (in their most impressionable years no less) why is it that so few people are psychopaths and murderers/rapists/harassers? Not only that, but as video game popularity has grown teen violence (10-24) has gone down, from 850.8 arrests per 1000 in 1995 to 423.1 arrests per 1000 in 2011*. Correlation of course doesn't necessarily mean causation, but it seems pretty strange that there would be a negative trend if violent games did cause violence, what could possibly be so significant a factor in crime that it would both decrease crime and eliminate video games effect in it. I'd like to see you find this magical element that is reducing crime (and find proof that games cause violence) it would be pretty interesting I assume. *Note: This is only for males, girls have remained pretty much stationary, but this might actually help my case as, again according to pew, males were more likely to play violent video games and to play games frequently. http://www.pewinternet.org... http://www.cdc.gov... Over to you pro.", "title": "Violent videogames cause violence in players", "pid": "456d6b3a-2019-04-18T16:19:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.7130889892578}, {"text": "Now my argument: Example 1: A diagnostic study of more than 1,000 teenagers took place in Poland between 2011 and 2012, aimed at measuring the impact of computer games on young people. Researchers said the results showed that there was a strong link between young people who played games on a regular basis with an inability to control emotions, increased isolation from friends and higher incidences of aggression Source: (. http://www.irishtimes.com...) Example 2: In a study led by Gentile, Lynch, Lander & Walsh in 2004, the authors also stated that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers and increased incidences of fights with their peers. Source (. http://drdouglas.org...) Example 3: There is empherical data showing that video games increase violence among children in the book \"Violent Video Game Effects On Children And Adolescents\" Source: Polman, J. , Orobio de Castro, B. & Van Aken, M. (2008). Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children's aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34(3), 256-264. I feel that these examples show solid fact that there is a definite link to video games increasing violence among children. I look forward to your response.", "title": "Video Games increase child violence", "pid": "e81dfba3-2019-04-18T17:00:44Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.69529724121094}, {"text": "Although I agree that many video games are far too violent and can promote killing and stealing, there are other factors. One such is parental involvement. If you don't have a dad/mom around, their non-presence alone can push kids towards suicidal and even violent thoughts. An article I have read, called \"Do Video Games Make Teens Violent\" from NewsMic, says that spending too much time in violent video games can take away from time in positive environments. In conclusion, video games alone do not cause violence, but must have several other factors to cause any real harm.", "title": "Violent Video Games", "pid": "5b6b2f9-2019-04-18T15:28:19Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.6883544921875}, {"text": "First, the claims of harm caused by video games have not been proven. The most criticised violent video games are generally military shooters. However, these games generally focus much more strongly on multiplayer components of the game. These multiplayer components often require significant levels of teamwork in order for one side to be successful over the other. As such, many of these video games end up teaching players core teamwork skills as well as often teaching leadership skills when players become part of organised gaming groups. Further, numerous researchers have proposed potential positive effects of video games on aspects of social and cognitive development and psychological well-being. It has been shown that action video game players have better hand-eye coordination and visuo-motor skills, such as their resistance to distraction, their sensitivity to information in the peripheral vision and their ability to count briefly presented objects, than non-players. Video games also promote the development of intellectual skills such as planning and problem-solving, and social games may improve the social capabilities of the individual.[1] Given then that video games provide these benefits, banning violent games would harm the industry overall, causing many of the developers of other games which encourage these kinds of skills to lose their funding from game publishers. Put simply, the banning of violent video games would lead to fewer games overall being published and if these games have the effects listed above then a great net benefit is lost in the process.", "title": "Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes", "pid": "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.68492126464844}, {"text": "If you didn't already know you are arguing as pro, not con or apathetic. On to the debate then. 97% of teens play video games (99% of boys 94% of girls) according to a 2008 pew study. When the teens (12-17) were asked what their three favorite games were Halo 3 came in second with 104 mentions and GTA (no specific version) came in 8th with 58 mentions. With such a large amount of video game players who are playing violent video games (in their most impressionable years no less) why is it that so few people are psychopaths and murderers/rapists/harassers? Not only that, but as video game popularity has grown teen violence (10-24) has gone down, from 850.8 arrests per 1000 in 1995 to 423.1 arrests per 1000 in 2011*. Correlation of course doesn't necessarily mean causation, but it seems pretty strange that there would be a negative trend if violent games did cause violence, what could possibly be so significant a factor in crime that it would both decrease crime and eliminate video games effect in it. I'd like to see you find this magical element that is reducing crime (and find proof that games cause violence) it would be pretty interesting I assume. *Note: This is only for males, girls have remained pretty much stationary, but this might actually help my case as, again according to pew, males were more likely to play violent video games and to play games frequently. . http://www.pewinternet.org... . http://www.cdc.gov... Over to you pro.", "title": "Violent videogames cause violence in players", "pid": "456d6b1b-2019-04-18T16:18:57Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.66989135742188}, {"text": "First and foremost, it's necessary to recognize that saying video games may increase the violent tendencies in some does not in any way mean to suggest that if you play violent video games you will invariably become a violent person. However, this does not mean that most will be unaffected, either. Even if only subtley, violent video games do in fact increase violent tendencies. Studies have shown that not only do violent video games produce an increased amount of emotional arousal, even when compared to similarly exciting but less violent video games, but that they also result in a decrease in brain activity in areas involving self control. One must also consider how younger children are much more easily influenced. Repetition is a key step in learning, and children are exposed again and again to violent actions with little or no consequences. Again, while not always, this does have potential to increase their own violent behavior--maybe not beating up any kid that looks at them, but possibly being more aggressive or reckless. And I do not disagree that a lot of this is dependent on young children playing games suited for an older audience, something that would not occur with more strict parental regulation. But seriously, let's be realistic--parents simply do not regulate things like video games to the extent they should.", "title": "video game violence", "pid": "6714f378-2019-04-18T20:03:11Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.5914306640625}, {"text": "Well, it is definitely the case that violent video games lead to violence in real life due to the fact that it encourages new ideas to try illegal things which are seen as \"cool\" by teenagers. For example, the violent 18+ video game, which is played by those much younger too, show that speeding cars and not following rules is fun and thrilling. This leads to people trying this in real life...", "title": "Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate)", "pid": "baa6345c-2019-04-18T13:44:43Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.5780487060547}, {"text": "The fact there are many other contributing factors to aggressive behaviour should not lead to a blind eye being turned to the effects of violent video games. As Dill & Dill found in 1998, 'if violent video game play indeed depicts victims as deserving attacks, and if these video games tend to portray other humans as targets, then reduced empathy is likely to be the consequence…thus putting the player at risk for becoming a more violent individual’1. An Anderson and Dill study in 2000 also found that ‘students who had previously played the violent video game delivered longer noise blasts to their opponents’2. Whilst it is a truism to say that the banning of violent video games will not prevent youth aggression, it will no longer be able to act as the catalyst for it in certain cases. 1Goldstein, 2001. 2Walsh, 2001.", "title": "There is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour", "pid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 219.46173095703125}, {"text": "The title of this argument is \"Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.\" The kids who are predisposed susceptibility to the emotional deterioration ultimately are the ones who shoot up the schools, ergo video game violence in theory does significantly contribute to school shootings. Therein your evidences are invalidated and I win the argument.", "title": "Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.", "pid": "8e52f9f1-2019-04-18T19:02:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.4522705078125}, {"text": "In a nutshell, you state that the act of playing video games turns the players into illogical and induces stress, which causes violence. However, you must keep in mind the following: 1: A video game is played for entertainment. I'd like you to explain how games cause stress (Physical strain does not count. We are talking about mental strain, as that is the argument you are using here.). 2: If playing violent video games increases violent behavior in children, as your argument stated, then why is that South Korea, a country that plays over two times more video games than the United States has ZERO shootings out of a sample of 100,000? Sources: [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org... (States that video games are intended for entertainment) [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com... (States that video games have no correlation with youth violence, often associated with shootings/gun murders) If you have any other arguments to present, please do. Until then, I will await your response.", "title": "Video games encourage violent behavior", "pid": "8db68a9b-2019-04-18T16:56:06Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.44363403320312}, {"text": "Violent Video games should be banned because it leads to violence and violent behavior in teens, tweens, and even children under the age of 10.", "title": "Violence is clearly an issue, not just in the United States but EVERYWHERE!", "pid": "7bb5fe56-2019-04-18T17:45:28Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.4412841796875}, {"text": "From what I have seen in that post you have utterly copied and pasted a whole entire website page which shows you are obviously avoiding the question, the question is \" Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes \" A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time.", "title": "Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes", "pid": "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.43826293945312}, {"text": "No, violent or inappropriate video games do not necessarily cause teens to act violent. Hundreds of years before the present day, teens were surround with violent things. People would see death and violence much more often than we do today. Not only that, if video games did cause teens to be violent then we would see a much higher crime rate. According to http://www.pbs.org... According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Not only that, but a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. If you just take a look at the topic, it will be clear that violent games do not invoke violence in teens.", "title": "The content of Video Games", "pid": "d94ca2d5-2019-04-18T18:35:58Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 219.42611694335938}, {"text": "I argue that the exposure to video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings, but rather, the living environment of the individual.", "title": "Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.", "pid": "8e52f9f1-2019-04-18T19:02:33Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.4260711669922}, {"text": "Violent video games require active participation, repetition, and identification with the violent character. With new game controllers allowing more physical interaction, the immersive and interactive characteristics of video games can increase the likelihood of youth violence. Playing violent video games causes the development of aggressive behavioral scripts . A behavioral script is developed from the repetition of actions and affects the subconscious mind. An example of a common behavioral script is a driving script that tells drivers to get in a vehicle, put on a seat belt, and turn on the ignition. Similarly, violent video games can lead to scripts that tell youth to respond aggressively in certain situations. Violence in video games may lead to real world violence when scripts are automatically triggered in daily life, such as being nudged in a school hallway.", "title": "should vilent video games be banned", "pid": "d0e5c093-2019-04-18T18:40:47Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 219.3977813720703}, {"text": "In recent years the video game industry has surpassed both the music and video industries in sales. Currently violent video games are among the most popular video games played by consumers, most specifically First-Person Shooters (FPS). Technological advancements in game play experience including the ability to play online has accounted for this increase in popularity. Previous research, utilizing the General Aggression Model (GAM), has identified that violent video games increase levels of aggression. The following abstract taken from the US national library of medicine shows a direct connection between video games and aggression. Longitudinal effects of violent video games on aggression in Japan and the United States. Anderson CA, Sakamoto A, Gentile DA, Ihori N, Shibuya A, Yukawa S, Naito M, Kobayashi K. Abstract CONTEXT: Youth worldwide play violent video games many hours per week. Previous research suggests that such exposure can increase physical aggression. OBJECTIVE: We tested whether high exposure to violent video games increases physical aggression over time in both high- (United States) and low- (Japan) violence cultures. We hypothesized that the amount of exposure to violent video games early in a school year would predict changes in physical aggressiveness assessed later in the school year, even after statistically controlling for gender and previous physical aggressiveness. DESIGN: In 3 independent samples, participants' video game habits and physically aggressive behavior tendencies were assessed at 2 points in time, separated by 3 to 6 months. PARTICIPANTS: One sample consisted of 181 Japanese junior high students ranging in age from 12 to 15 years. A second Japanese sample consisted of 1050 students ranging in age from 13 to 18 years. The third sample consisted of 364 United States 3rd-, 4th-, and 5th-graders ranging in age from 9 to 12 years. RESULTS. Habitual violent video game play early in the school year predicted later aggression, even after controlling for gender and previous aggressiveness in each sample. Those who played a lot of violent video games became relatively more physically aggressive. Multisample structure equation modeling revealed that this longitudinal effect was of a similar magnitude in the United States and Japan for similar-aged youth and was smaller (but still significant) in the sample that included older youth. CONCLUSIONS: These longitudinal results confirm earlier experimental and cross-sectional studies that had suggested that playing violent video games is a significant risk factor for later physically aggressive behavior and that this violent video game effect on youth generalizes across very different cultures. As a whole, the research strongly suggests reducing the exposure of youth to this risk factor. After this study established to create a direct connection between the increase of aggression and video games, we can just imagine how this dark aggression that aims at destruction and not on construction- with the easy acquisition of guns- will make school children behave at their schools. Knowing that a child spends most of his time at the school with periods of recess, this will be more than enough time for a child to participate in school shootings.", "title": "Violent video games and school shootings are related", "pid": "1ac69d5c-2019-04-18T13:30:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.3885955810547}, {"text": "F.B.I. data shows that youth violence continues to decline. It is now at its lowest rate in years. Violent video games, therefore, can hardly be seen as a major problem since they´ve been around for years.[4]", "title": "Youth violence has been declining, violent video games fine.", "pid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00043-000", "bm25_score": 219.38671875}, {"text": "First and foremost, video games can assist with the growth and development of our brain. A recent study by neuroscientists have shown that video games have many cognitive benefits. The study has found that video gaming can stimulate neurogenesis (growth of new neurons) and connectivity in the brain regions responsible for spatial orientation, memory formation and strategic planning. Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity improvements were observed in the right hippocampus, right prefrontal cortex and the cerebellum. These brain regions are involved in functions such as spatial navigation, memory formation and strategic planning. Increasingly, the level of connectivity between brain areas is being linked to higher intelligence and consciousness.", "title": "Video Games Lead To Violence", "pid": "46745944-2019-04-18T12:08:45Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.3831024169922}, {"text": "Thank you for this debate. We agree that video games although they are not the only cause of violence, they are a cause. Since exposure to the flashing screen is always present in the video games, playing video games leads to violence. I think it would be safe for anyone to infer fro your information that playing video games for more than three hours a day would cause an increase in behavioural problems. Because your statment only focuses on 5-7 year olds there is no way to know whether it only affects children of that age or if it affects children of that age the least meaing there is a significant increase of behavour problems in children age 8-11 which isn't shown. I don't believe that your arguments follow. that just because a part of these videos are fake that all of them are fake.The audio of kids playing xbox should be enough to prove the increased violent behavior. It ought to be concern to everyone who hears the amount of \"I'm going to kill you,\" and you suck at life type comments. If someone talked to me on the phone like that, I'd call the police. However, this behavior seems all to commonplace in the virtual world. Sadly it carries over into the real world and thats one of the points of the study you first posted. At the end of this debate, There is this conclusion. Video games are not the only encouragement of violent behavior. My opponent provides evidence that they are a method of encouragement for violent behavior even though his stance claims that cracked (a dirty european fluff magazine) is more credible than a study vetted and published by a leading college. Cracked doesn't even include sources. Because my opponent provided the study that he wanted to debate, my burdon of proof was to provide social evidence of the behavior in question which I did. My opponents burdon of proof was not to prove that other factors also encourage violent behavior in children. It was to prove that vidoe games are not a factor which he failed to do.", "title": "Video games encourage violent behavior", "pid": "8db68a9b-2019-04-18T16:56:06Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.3801727294922}, {"text": "Video games do not cause children or any players to be violent, this is a myth. There are tons of studies that argue the case that video games are detrimental to our society but these studies only see and argue for one side of the spectrum.", "title": "Do Video Games Create Violence (Genius Hour)", "pid": "a1ac5625-2019-04-18T12:11:35Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.279296875}, {"text": "In most people’s lives there are instances where they might like to react to a situation with a level of aggression. However, owing to a number of reasons such a solution is often impossible and undesirable. It has been theorised by psychologists that pent up frustrations with the world are the root of many psychological problems. Given that this is true then, an outlet for frustrations is required in society such that aggressive behaviour in individuals can be avoided. Video games in this situation provide such an outlet for aggression and frustrations. Firstly aggression is dealt with through the simple act of defeating enemies within games and frustration is dealt with through the completion of goals within the video games, allowing players a sense of satisfaction upon their completion. Hence, one could argue that this may result in comparatively lower levels of aggressive behaviour among video game players. This is supported by research conducted by Dr. Cheryl Olson and her team at Harvard. Studying a sample of 1,254 students aged 12 to 14 years, she found that over 49% of boys and 25% of girls reported using violent games such as Grand Theft Auto IV as an outlet for their anger. She suggests that instead of a blanket ban on M-rated game use by young adolescents, parents should monitor how much time children spend playing games and how they react to specific game content.[1] [1] Olson, Cheryl K., et al., ‘Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls’, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol.41 no.1, pp77-83, July 2007, http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(07)00027-4/abstract", "title": "Violent Video Games Prevent Violent Behaviour", "pid": "92fc546a-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 219.27584838867188}, {"text": "I feel that violence in video games does not create the player to become a more violent person, nor does it lead to more crime in the world by its players. A study that Villanova and Rutgers University had published \"found that when shooting game sales are at their highest, crime numbers tend to drop\" (1). There was also a study done in 2010 that found that used 103 young adults to solve a frustration task in groups, with some playing video games and some not. They found \"that the games had no impact on aggressive behavior whatsoever, and that the group which played no game at all was the most aggressive after the task, whereas the group that played the violent games were the least hostile and depressed\" (2). Studies like this exemplify that well known saying, \"\"Correlation does not imply causation\". (1) http://www.polygon.com... (2) http://www.forbes.com... (This is my first debate on this website so I might not do well/not know how to respond properly)", "title": "Violent Video Games Lead to Real Violence (First Debate)", "pid": "baa6345c-2019-04-18T13:44:43Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.2729034423828}, {"text": "Society has decided to embrace violent video games, which as a result are very profitable. These games are written for adults, rather than children, and the ratings system warns of any violent content. In a modern world, the role of protecting young people should lie with responsible parents who know their kids best and take an active interest in their leisure time, discouraging or barring them from unsuitable activities. In this case, there is not enough justification for governments to intervene in people's leisure time.", "title": "Violent video games do not only affect individuals but also society as a whole.", "pid": "4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00024-000", "bm25_score": 219.26559448242188}, {"text": "Many researchers 1/2/3 conclude that there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Other influences, such as social environment, family background and peer pressure cause aggressive behaviour. Additionally, even if video games might create violent thoughts, according to researchers there is no reason for these thoughts to display themselves in action more than the aggressive thoughts caused by frustration in non-violent video games, or by the fast pace of action films (rather than their content). The small number of people who would be affected by such aggressive thoughts are people who already are habitually violent. 1 Scott, D. (1995). The Effect of Video Games on Feelings of Aggression. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from The Journal of Psychology: 2 Funk, J. B. (1993). Reevaluation of the impact of violent video games. Clinical Pediatrics, 86-90. 3 Provenzo, E. F. (1991). Video kids: Making sense of Nintendo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. improve this  ", "title": "There is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour", "pid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 219.2359619140625}, {"text": "I know that we're not here to discuss the crime rate but the 30 year low just helps prove that video games are not a major factor in making teens violent. Another pointer is that video games do not necessarily invoke aggressive thoughts. There are many other factors that would be much more effective such as bullying, abuse, illegal activities, etc. If a teen does happen to have aggressive thoughts, we wouldn't know whether the cause of that would be video games. I will go back to my first example, in the past, teens have lived much more dangerous and violent lives than we do now. Even today, some countries are constantly torn apart by the terrors of war. Do you think the teens there like violence? And do you think if they played violent video games, they would like it?", "title": "The content of Video Games", "pid": "d94ca2d5-2019-04-18T18:35:58Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.1357421875}, {"text": "While I have been using statistical information to back up my point, you have preceded to create petty arguments in which you have offered poor-to-very-little to the debate on whether video games are the main cause for violent juvenile crimes. There is enough evidence via the Internet, newspapers and various other sources to show that there is a correlation between the two; in 2012 a 13-year old boy jumped off a building's 24th floor and committed suicide after playing 'World of Warcraft' for 36 hours straight, a teenager went on a rampage and killed three men, two of them police officers, after playing Grand Theft Auto and a 17-year old boy killed his mother and wounded his father after they took Halo 3 away from his possession. There will also several cases of youth leaving their home, in 2013 a 15-year old ran away from his parents after his Xbox console was taken away - his dead body was found almost a month after. You may choose to argue that these unfortunate, tragic results are not directly linked to young people playing games, however Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. As I stated in my opening, I fail to see how you could win this debate when you\"ve offered nothing to the conversation as opposed to my use of statistical and factual information. A vote for me is a vote for freedom.", "title": "Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes", "pid": "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.1192169189453}, {"text": "lol I agree, but I will do my best to give you a good debate.1. A person over the age of 17 is considered an adult in the realm of entertainment. Ergo, no argument.2. You stated that \"You probably have the mental capacity to not go crazy and kill people.\" This argument helps to support my claim of \"violent video games do not contribute to violence\" Most people do have the mental reasoning capabilities to know right from wrong.3. Your third claim supports mine as well. You claim that people blame their violent actions on video games. Because you used the term \"blame\" it is safe to assume that you meant that the actions were not actually caused by the video game itself.ConclusionRemind me, are you for or against the idea that violence is caused by video games? It seems a bit unclear lolAnyway, have fun with your response!", "title": "Violent video games really cause bad behavior in children.", "pid": "117d4c1a-2019-04-18T18:37:03Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.11868286132812}, {"text": "A 2005 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign study found: \"Players were not statistically different from the non-playing control group in their beliefs on aggression after playing the game than they were before playing.\" He added: \"Nor was game play a predictor of aggressive behaviors. Compared with the control group, the players neither increased their argumentative behaviors after game play nor were significantly more likely to argue with their friends and partners.\"[3]", "title": "Violent video games do not increase aggression.", "pid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00041-000", "bm25_score": 219.07061767578125}, {"text": "Violent Video Games cause violence in children: http://edition.cnn.com... http://time.com... http://www.pamf.org... http://www.psychologytoday.com... They just do. I think you meant \"Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior [In Teens]\" because they don't, but in children they do, it's not a debate; children will emulate Power Rangers and all sorts of things they see on television as well (http://www.thecrimson.com..., http://www.ofcom.org.uk...) and they are especially susceptible to media. Good luck.", "title": "Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior", "pid": "ce330406-2019-04-18T15:51:12Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 219.06504821777344}, {"text": "\"It has been proven that there is a casual link between predisposed kids that end up fulfilling their disposition via the cognitive deterioration of emotional tolerance by playing violent video games[1]. Case in point.\" [1]http://www.msnbc.msn.com...... I would like to add to Con's statement that it has also been proven that the amount of school shootings since 1993 have significantly decreased[2]. Let's look at what game genres that we have present today cause aggression in teens. According to con's earlier source[1], the main genre of video games that cause \"the deterioration of emotional tolerance\" are violent first-person shooters, such as ones mentioned like \"Call of Duty\" and \"Medal of Honor: Frontline\". It's relation with school shootings has a vital flaw, though. Throughout the period of time (from 1993 - 2001), when school shootings were at their peak in this statistic[2], the more violent genres of first-person shooters that caused aggression in teens[1] did not exist. At this point, it must be safe to assume that it was not the violent video games that heavily influenced the school shootings. [1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [2] http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu...", "title": "Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.", "pid": "8e52f9f1-2019-04-18T19:02:33Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.06175231933594}, {"text": "Violent computer games does ma children act brutal citizens since graphics and animation programs today allow computer programmers to develop far better graphics and animation effects that provide a realistic experience for video game players While this brings excitement to the palyers. In fact it has given more strenghth to debate that blames this technology to the increase od violence in the country. Parents should not be letting them to play graphic violent video games, i believe these technology affects their behaviour which leads them to critical ciricumstances. i also say that it spoils the childrens minds. MUCH EVIDENCE SHOWS A LINK BETWEEN THESE ACTS OF VIOLENCE AND A LONG TERM SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR", "title": "Do violent computer games make young children violent citizens", "pid": "b4849efd-2019-04-18T17:56:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.05538940429688}, {"text": "I think most people have seen these two clips before. This next one is extremely epicThe next link is just a search on youtube of \"boyfriend gets angry playing\"Flashing light cause migraines, and migraines come from stress. You can find several stress inducing factors on this website including flashing light, stress let down,excitement, anger, fear, and anxiety which are all factors that may be incurred from playing video games.Although violence does not occur in every one after playing a video game, I do not need to prove it is 100% true for everyone, only that it is a factor just as Drunk Driving does not always result in a car accident. Or that Alcohol is not the only cause of domestic violence, but it is a leading factor You have already provided research claiming that video games are a factor in encouraging violence, but you have provided no other information other than you don't believe it. Believing doesn't make it true or not true. Evidence makes it true.here is a particularly innocent game called unfair Mario I don't really consider the graphic to be all that violent but time and time again, it cause anger and violence. One is a specific video of the violence and anger, the other is the link so you can search other eventshttps://www.youtube.com... I also wanted to share a specific video of a girl talking trash while playing Xbox but there were just too many commonalities to only share one, so pick your poison. https://www.youtube.com... but the overall use of fire arms in violent crimes are not directly related to video games.", "title": "Video games encourage violent behavior", "pid": "8db68a9b-2019-04-18T16:56:06Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 219.02651977539062}, {"text": "Youth playing violent games exhibit more aggression.", "title": "Ban on sale of violent video games to minors", "pid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00035-000", "bm25_score": 219.025146484375}, {"text": "The facts are strongly against the Proposition’s analysis The proposition’s arguments fail to stand up in the real world. Several major studies published in The Journal of Adolescent Health, The British Medical Journal and The Lancet (among others) have shown no conclusive link between video game usage and real-life violent behaviour. The Federal Bureau of Investigation found no evidence linking video game use to the massacre at Columbine (or other highly publicized school shootings).[1] There is no evidence to support the idea that people exposed to violent video game (or other violent media content) will then go on to commit crimes.[2] Further, if violent video games were causing violent behaviour, we would expect to see rates of violent crime increase as games with realistic portrayals of violence became more widely available on popular game consoles. Instead, violent crime has decreased in recent years. Some economists have argued (based on time series modelling) that increased sales of violent video games are associated with decreases in violent crime.[3] In Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, researchers/authors Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital’s Center for Mental Health and Media refute claims of violent behaviour increase caused by violent video games. The researchers' quantitative and qualitative studies (surveys and focus groups) found that young adolescents view game behaviour as unrelated to real-life actions, and this is why they can enjoy criminal or violent acts in a game that would horrify them in reality. They also found evidence that those relatively few adolescents who did not play video games at all were more at-risk for violent behaviours such as bullying or fighting (although the sample size was too small for statistical significance). The authors speculated that because video game play has gained a central and normative role in the social lives of adolescent boys, a boy who does not play any video games might be socially isolated or rejected. Finally, although more study is needed, there is some evidence to suggest that violent video games might allow players to get aggressive feelings out of their system (i.e., video game play might have a cathartic effect), in a scenario that does not harm anyone else.[4],[5],[6] [1] O’Toole, Mary Ellen, ‘The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment perspective’, Critical Incident Response Group, www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter [2] Editorial. Is exposure to media violence a public-health risk? The Lancet, 2008, 371:1137. [3] Cunningham, Scott, et al., ‘Understanding the Effects of Violent Video Games on Violent Crime’, 7 April 2011, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804959 [4] Kutner, Lawrence & Cheryl K. Olson. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do. Simon and Schuster, 2008 [5] Bensley, Lillian and Juliet Van Eenwyk. Video games and real-life aggression: A review of the literature, Journal of Adolescent Health, 2001, 29:244-257. [6] Griffiths, Mark. Video games and health. British Medical Journal, 2005, 331:122-123.", "title": "Violent Video Games cause Violent Behaviour", "pid": "92fc546a-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 219.02474975585938}, {"text": "You have referenced a study from 2007 which showed that violent video games don't have negative affects but since that study violent video games have become bloodier and more realistic. I read an article and the author quoted \"Video games may not be the root of school shootings, fights or any other violent acts from teens or children but they are contributing to the mindset that these actions are okay\". There are many video games rated mature that underaged children play which causes aggression.", "title": "violent video games should be banned", "pid": "c827393f-2019-04-18T17:49:30Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.01962280273438}, {"text": "I love video games, but does the high violence sometimes you violent ? No that\"s a load of nonsense of course it doesn\"t. But that\"s what some people actually believe, and today I\"ll tell you why some people believe it and why some don\"t. By the age of seven, Yes SEVEN! You can tell the difference from fantasy violence and real world violence and when you play and watch more violent content that skill grows greater and seriously who on earth will just start thinking they\"re hitman and start running around doing flips off cars and shooting people. And I\"m not just talking nonsense here is proof from an American newspaper article: Playing violent video games does not cause kids to commit mass shootings. Over 150 million Americans (and 71% of teens) play video games. There have been 71 mass shootings between 1982 and Aug. 2015, seven of which (9.8%) involved shooters age 18 or younger. Some people think that violent games lead to violent actions and this is why: their exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. In a study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Jeanne Funk, PhD, Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at the University of Toledo, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. I stand with video games for life.", "title": "Violent games lead to violent actions", "pid": "f3750c50-2019-04-18T11:57:33Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 219.01722717285156}, {"text": "Multiple groups contend that the interactive nature of computer games considerably blurs the line that separates fantasy from reality1. As a result, game players are likely to become psychologically disturbed by the violence contained within these products. It is conceivable that many young gamers will view the new age of video games as fair depictions or representations of reality, real-world themes, real-world personalities, real-world violence. Because violent video games frequently develop and an exaggerated level of violence and destructiveness, they may arouse a belief that in a \"scary world\". If this is true, a greater level of fear and paranoia can be expected from such gamers in the real world than is justified. This may have the potential to lead to many adverse social effects from these gamers, such as social disengagement. 1 Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviours, and school performance. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Jounral of Adolescence", "title": "Violent video games can cause psychological disturbances", "pid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 219.00033569335938}, {"text": "There have been no scientific studies which have been able to prove a link between violent video games and teen violence. Therefore,with the lack of any credible evidence, the government should not prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors. Games which depict war and violence should not be restricted from being sold to teens based on that criteria alone. Once again, with the lack of conclusive science there is no way to prove a connection between these games and violent acts. Thus there is no evidence to support legislation onmthis issue.", "title": "Ban on sale of violent video games to minors", "pid": "1ff4635e-2019-04-18T18:36:23Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.98358154296875}, {"text": "Video games are not useful outlets for childhood aggression. Modern video games cannot be fairly compared to traditional childhood play. Computer gaming is a largely solo experience, with none of the team play involved in games of war, cowboys, etc. Playing alone also makes it easier for the boundaries between fantasy and reality to become blurred, especially with the highly realistic graphics possible with modern technology. In any case, civilisation is about taming our base instincts, not celebrating the worst parts of human nature. Furthermore, and unique to video games, aggressive behaviour or its imitation at least is rewarded and repeated during gameplay1. Video games thereafter are not merely an outlet for aggression, but the fostering and feeding of that aggressive urge. 1 Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2003, October 16). Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from", "title": "Video games are an outlet for childhood aggression", "pid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 218.98263549804688}, {"text": "Violent video games should be banned because they make students find joy in violence. Teenagers who play violent video games will be more likely to enjoy violence which could lead to harming others and themselves.", "title": "Violent video games should be banned because they lead to violent teens", "pid": "7d79edc5-2019-04-18T17:46:39Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.9696502685547}, {"text": "Thank you debatability for challenging me to this topic. It's been a pleasure. INTRODUCTION I think pro has came at this debate the wrong way. Since the start of round 3 she has been on the defensive, which is really bad. The reason being is because, depending on the judge's voting style she'll typically either have the full burden of proof or at least share it with me. She has spent most of this debate attacking my arguments while barely defending her own and at the end of the day when the dust clears. My arguments still stand and hers have completely fallen. AFFIRMING THE DISJUNCT My opponent claims she hasn't committed this particular logical fallacy, and she is absolutely wrong. She has on multiple occasions stated that video game doesn't significantly contribute to real world violence because poverty does or because videogames cause aggression not violence. What she doesn't realize is that every statement she made could be true and it wouldn't show that violence in videogames doesn't contribute to real world violence. Remember pro has a certain amount of burden to show that videogames in fact do not contribute to real world violence. She hasn't met it. Revisit her arguments. They all make use of the logical fallacy I've mentioned. some arguments from pro; In round 2 pro asks \"What really causes violence in teens? \". She answers this by saying serious crimes and aggression does. The truth is this doesn't rule out violence in videogames being a significant factor. This is her first real argument and is entirely affirming the adjunct. The 2nd argument in round 2 discusses a chart which she admits after posting it means absolutely nothing. her 3rd and final argument discusses \" Video game's effect\". summed up she says that people play video games to release aggression and also that people who love violence may be attracted to them. This is yet another case of Affirming the Adjunct. Just because violent people are attracted to them (which she hasn't proven) and they help release aggression doesn't mean that they don't significantly contribute to real world violence. These are her opening arguments. This is the foundation for her entire case. Her case is a chart she admits doesn't mean anything and 2 arguments affirming the adjunct. She has some BOP in this debate and she has came nowhere near meeting it. NOT BORN TO KILL My opponent misses the point with the government training. I'll take this point by point. PRO-\"The first thing to look at here is the difference between video games and these \"killing sessions. \" My opponent essentially drops this argument. \" I never dropped this argument at all. I attacked it head on. Go ahead to the last round and reread what I said. The differences made in training to up kill rates was a replacement of circle targets with human looking ones. Not only in the shooting range, but also the ones that pop up in simulations. Also video games that soldiers participate in to simulate killing. This is science at it's best, in practice. A bunch of people noticed a problem. The problem was a huge amount of soldiers not killing in battle or police officers not taking out a suspect who is an imminent threat. After seeing the problem, they came up with a hypothesis that if true could help. hypothesis- Simulating killing humans will desensitize people and make them more likely to kill. test- This hypothesis was tested out by replacing shooting range targets with human shaped targets and the popup targets in simulations with human looking pop up targets. Also some videogames were added in. repeat- This test was repeated with several government organizations and proved successful. That is the scientific method and the scientific method is common knowledge so I won't cite it. The scientific method has proven that simulating violence causes people to be more likely to act on violence. Videogames simulate violence. Those simulated experiences desensitize people to violence and makes it more likely that they'll commit acts of violence. \" The reason firing rates went up is because of the implementation of a method known as \"point shooting. \" This is a new argument and should be completely disregarded, but I will briefly touch on it. My studies have shown that people in the civil war weren't even firing their weapons but only pretending. I can buy that point shooting will increase accuracy in close combat situations, but it isn't increasing the percentage of people pulling the trigger. DESENSITIZE ME \"My opponent points out some flaws in my desensitization study. \" Yes, and I urge voters took look at the prior round to see those flaws. None of them have been addressed. \"1. My opponent's study has multiple variables since it involves the actual playing of a video game. Essentially, the competition factor is very present in this study. There is no way of knowing whether the violence, the desensitization, or the competition caused the willingness to push the button. \" It wasn't the competition that caused it. There was a close to an even number on each side. Half being avid violent video game players. Half not being. They all participated in the competition, so it's not a factor. The violent gamers were more willing to dish out physical pain to their opponent. They all participated in the game. If competition was the only factor than significant differences should not have been noticed in their willingness to dish out pain. The study proved that people who play violent videogames have less qualms about hurting you. That part is indisputable and has been shown in several similar studies. \"We can't look to a study with multiple variables that shows, at best, a correlation rather than a causation. My study further weakens this point by disproving the correlation between desensitization and violence in video games. \" I've shown the flaws in your study, and they were ignored. I welcome the voters to take another look at the previous round. The study alone may be brushed away as correlation, but when taken with all the other evidence It serves as some damning evidence in my favor. DR BRUCE What I've tried to get across to the voters as well as my opponent, is that Violent video games contribute significantly to an overall culture of violence. In the famous Kitty Genovese event what is known as the bystander effect took place. Though the concept known as diffusion of responsibility certainly played a factor it wasn't the only factor. As Dr. Bruce mentions in the article I cited. Growing up in rough urban environments can cause desensitization, just like videogames. A lot of people just didn't give a damnn if that girl was being murdered outside their windows. CONCLUSION My opponent hasn't really upheld her BOP in this debate. She is attacking my arguments but not doing enough to defend her own. I should win this debate, because I've proved that violent videogames have increased state violence. I should win, because I've shown it increases not only the likelihood somebody will engage in violence, but also that it contributes to a culture of violence. My opponent has largely ignored my arguments concerning the overall culture of violence and psychopathy. For all the reasons mentioned.", "title": "Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence.", "pid": "b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.9506378173828}, {"text": "Violent juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled.", "title": "Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes", "pid": "758ea5f9-2019-04-18T16:05:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.9423370361328}, {"text": "It has been proven that there is a casual link between predisposed kids that end up fulfilling their disposition via the cognitive deterioration of emotional tolerance by playing violent video games[1]. Case in point. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...", "title": "Video game violence does not contribute significantly to school shootings.", "pid": "8e52f9f1-2019-04-18T19:02:33Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.9332275390625}, {"text": "Thank you very much nicksto99 for your helpful insight on this topic and the debate. This is what nicksto99 said: According to a meta-analysis done on video games; The evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and pro-social behavior. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......). This article in the U.S National Library of Medecine strongly disproves Con's arguments. Con also uses the False Cause fallacy, saying that since Japanese people play more videos games and are less violent than Americans who play less of them, therefore their gaming tendencies reduce their violence. This blatant use of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc does not prove anything since it does not rely on any empirical data; drawing conclusions on two correlated tendencies that do not necessarily have causation between them. Indeed, the low levels of violence could be caused by the non-presence of illegal immigrants or guns in the country for example. This is not the only case of studies showing a correlation between violent video games, as seen by reputable news sources telling of how many mass murders have been influenced by violent videogames and have even used them to train themselves for the horrible acts they carry out. Just look it up.", "title": "Violent games lead to violent actions", "pid": "f3750c50-2019-04-18T11:57:33Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.9198455810547}, {"text": "Violent video games do not increase aggression.", "title": "Ban on sale of violent video games to minors", "pid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00032-000", "bm25_score": 218.91427612304688}, {"text": "First, according to uslegal.com, juvenile courts only cover persons under the age of 18, so we have to go off that age. The American Psychological Association states on June 7, 2010, that the only children who showed aggression after exposure to violent video games already displayed aggressive characteristics beforehand. This evidence indicates that video games do not increase violence, as stated in the resolution, as people who have violent characteristics in the first place are drawn to it. Therefore, per the resolution, we see that video games do not increase violence, nor perpetuate it. Regarding his 60 minutes evidence, this goes along with the above contention, that people with violent characteristics go the video games in the first place. The evidence says, \"who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months.\" That quote alone shows the kind of mental state this person was in beforehand. Once again, this evidence is pointing to the Pro side, that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence. Regarding his desensitization of violence argument, Richard Rhodes of Rolling Stone found several flaws methodologically with over 200 studies regarding violent video games, and came to the conclusion that \"The research no more supports the consensus on media violence than it supported the conclusions of the eugenics consensus eighty years ago that there are superior and inferior 'races,' with White Northern Europeans at the top.\" The studies that my opponent has been bringing up always mention some form of correlation between video games and violence, however, correlation does not necessary mean causation. According to british psychologist Guy Cumberbatch, \"Finding that people who enjoy violent media may also be aggressive is tantamount to observing that those who play football also enjoy watching it on television. 'The correlational nature of this study means that causal statements are risky at best,' the authors admit. ...All in all, new evidence is exceptionally weak, and in its one-sided approach it has a depressingly familiar ring to it. ...Studies to date have been notably biased towards seeking evidence of harm. This 'blame game' may be fun for some researchers to play, and knee-jerk reactions such as the APA's press release may be media-friendly. But we deserve better.\" All in all, there is no link between correlation and causation. For the reasons I stated in opening, and the fact that there is no link between correlation and causation, I urge Pro vote.", "title": "Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence", "pid": "30a5cf73-2019-04-18T18:52:16Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.87689208984375}, {"text": "I'll do a couple short rebuttals and then move on to some voting issues.MY CASELogical Fallacy- Affirming a DisjunctMy opponent accuses me of using this logical fallacy throughout my case. The problem with this point is that in order for me to be using this fallacy, I would have to have no evidence which shows how video games do *not* cause violence. I have shown this in a couple places. First, lets look at my statistics point. There I illustrated that as video game sales have gone up, violence rates have gone down. This essentially makes mockery of the idea that violence in video games significantly contributes to violence. However, if you, as a reader, do not buy this point, I'll clarify for you a bit more in my next point. Second, look at my point which explains the aggression release coming from video games. This suggests that violence in video games can actually lower violence rates, which is supported by my statistics. Through these two points, I hope you will all see that I have not used this logical fallacy. Really, studies on video games alone have so many variables that could be causing violence. It is inaccurate to blame the violence variable for any aggression / legitimate crime that comes from gamers.Violence RatesMy opponent explains that even if violence goes down as video games sales go up, the violence in these games could still be significantly contributing to real world violence. I would agree with this. These statistics are mainly there to support my release of aggression point. This point also illustrates how unlikely it would be for violence in video games to actually be contributing to real world violence in a significant way. I don't think my chart covers the military kill rate (I will talk about this soon). Later on in the voting issues, I'll elaborate more on the idea of significance.Video Game's EffectsBasically, my opponent attacks my source, as opposed to my argument. I would agree that my source could be considered inaccurate; I'll go ahead and bring up a couple more points to further elaborate on the idea of violent video games being used to release aggression. My first source notes that 42% of boys play video games because it helps them release anger, and 65% of boys say these games help them relax (1). My Gilsdorf source elaborates, \"If some of these men are hopelessly mentally ill, then we need to do all we can to prevent their access to real guns. But sane or depressed, many men feel powerless. Many feel angry. Many feel disengaged. They just want a stake in the action. Video games might be the best outlet they’ve got.\"OPPONENT'S CASENot Born to KillThe first thing to look at here is the difference between video games and these \"killing sessions.\" My opponent essentially drops this argument. We have to realize that the video games kids are playing today are quite different from the simulations used in the army. Really, my opponent has only proved that military murder simulations increase violence in the military. This is not the topic we are currently debating. Even if these simulations could actually be compared to common video games today, these activities didn't make officers more willing to shoot because of desensitization (as a result of violence). The reason firing rates went up is because of the implementation of a method known as \"point shooting.\" Point shooting was effective (even without a video simulation) because it was similar to real combat situations (3). Essentially, my opponent has yet to prove that these simulations are (a) similar to real video games and (b) the violence factor of this simulation actually causes violence.Desensitize MeMy opponent points out some flaws in my desensitization study. Here is why my study really is more accurate.1. My opponent's study has multiple variables since it involves the actual playing of a video game. Essentially, the competition factor is very present in this study. There is no way of knowing whether the violence, the desensitization, or the competition caused the willingness to push the button.2. The study basically admits that it shows a correlation, not a causation. Look at this quote directly from the study:\"These relationships do not establish causality, as desensitized children with lower empathy may simply be more drawn to violent games, or a third factor, such as suboptimal parenting practices, may be responsible for this relationship. Potential mediating relationships should also be considered. For example, children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games.\"and this quote: \"Children’s estimated exposure to video game violence was not associated with aggression vignette responses.\"We can't look to a study with multiple variables that shows, at best, a correlation rather than a causation. My study further weakens this point by disproving the correlation between desensitization and violence in video games.My opponent also notes that while aggression is short lived, desensitization lasts a longer time. The thing is, since this study involves individuals actually playing some sort of a game. Obviously, spurts of aggression due to competition (or even violence) can be expected. Just remember, aggression is not the same thing as violence. Dr. BruceMy opponent brings up a new argument known as the \"bystander\" effect. He basically explains that this is caused by desensitization, and will ultimately contribute to real world violence. I'd like to make a couple points:1. The bystander effect is not a new thing. It has existed way before the time of violent video games. \"In the famous 1964 “Kitty Genovese” incident, a young woman named Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death outside her home in Queens, New York. Many of Kitty’s neighbors heard her desperate screams for help, yet no one called the police until too late (4).\" 2. Let's get to the real question, \"What causes the effect?\" The bystander effect is certainly not caused by desensitization. It is rather caused by a term known as \"diffusion of responsibility.\" To clarify my source continues, \"One reason that the bystander effect occurs is the social influence process known as “diffusion of responsibility”. Through numerous studies, psychologists have found that bystanders are less likely to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases.\"We can safely conclude that violence in video games does not contribute to such a psychological phenomenon.CONCLUSIONLet me bring up a few points to summarize...1. My opponent has made no empirical claims. This is perhaps one of the most important points. He cannot prove video games significantly contribute to violence if he fails to provide any numbers which show \"significance.\" Elaborating on what I said earlier on, all my opponent has shown is an increased kill rate in the military due to kill simulations. In reality, these simulations are not what promote the elevation of the kill rate, rather it is the new training methods (whether they involve videos or not).2. Video games don't cause desensitization. I have pointed out the various flaws in my opponents study. Essentially, there is no causation has been shown between desensitization and violence in video games.3. Other factors cause (at best) aggression. There are too many other variables in video games to pinpoint violence in video games as something that significantly contributes to real world violence.4. Video games can help release aggression. Hence, the lower violence rates. If you, as a reader, do not buy this argument, look to the fact that my opponent's case has not shown any significant contributions from violence in video games outside the military.5. Already violent people (or at least those who crave violent / arousing experiences) may play violent video games, hence the added violence from gamers. My opponent's desensitization study even suggests this... \"Children who seek highly arousing experiences may be especially drawn to playing violent video games.\"For these reasons, vote pro!! Thanks to anyone who reads this :) (1) Cheryl Olson, Lawrence Kutner, Dorothy Warner, Jason Almerigi, Lee Baer, Armand Nicholi, and Eugene Beresin, \"Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls,\" Journal of Adolescent Health, July 2007(2) http://cognoscenti.wbur.org...(3) http://cdn.paladin-press.com...(4) http://heroicimagination.org...", "title": "Violence in video games does not significantly contribute to real world violence.", "pid": "b1a6f17a-2019-04-18T15:54:21Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.8717498779297}, {"text": "1. Meta-analytic reviewsCon claims that meta-analytic reviews show that methodologically superior studies show that video games do cause violence. However, many meta-analysis studies which show that there is a link between video gaming and violence are plagued with publication bias and methodological problems, such as citing studies which were not published or selecting certain studies and ignoring others. (http://www2.psych.ubc.ca...) 2. Non-Laboratory resultsA survey is not a study: it can be affected by the personal biases of teachers and students. As the teachers knew which students whose violent behaviors they were rating, the survey that pro cited was not sufficiently blinded. (http://drdouglas.org...) Also, many experts, parents, and paediatricians agree that violent video games do not cause violence. (http://www.theguardian.com...) If the survey that pro cited were to be counted as valid evidence, then this should be too.One of the methodological flaws of using labratory results is that the violent clips and video game content are often served to the groups of youth outside of their contexts; the entire narrative of the violent work of fiction was not provided. This is different than in real life situations. (http://www.independent.co.uk...)3. Crime RatesPro claims that crime rates decreased in spite of violent media becoming more popular. I propose an alternative idea: violent media has nothing to do with crime rates. Studies have shown that the one thing that correlates with crime is gasoling lead levels. (http://www.ricknevin.com...)", "title": "Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior", "pid": "55e10797-2019-04-18T15:21:42Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.8694610595703}, {"text": "Thank you for your response. It is certainly interesting. First, I have no idea where my opponent is coming up with his \"increased blood flow\" claim, I do not see anywhere in my sources where it mentions this. Also scientists do not make anything up. These are valid studies in which I have shown that show a correlation between increased violence among children and video games together, based on study and evidence. Scientists DO NOT and CANNOT sub in made up information wherever they want. Therefore my opponents claim that: \"People's thinking is like so: Oh, tests (I'm talking about EEG experiment method) shown that the kids that play video games (violent ones actually) have increased blood flow in the part of the brain associated with copycat activities, therefore they become more aggressive and prone to copy actions from a violent video game.\" is an invalid claim here as I am dealing with real experiments conducted by scientists. Also I would like to point out that my opponent shows absolutely no sources to back up his claim whereas my argument is solely built on cited sources. My opponent shows an extreme fallacy by trying to make a claim that he knows kids that play violent video games but who aren't violent. This argument is invalid on many levels. He has given absolutely no evidence or source to back up this claim and it does absolutely nothing to attempt to disprove that \"video games increase child violence\". My opponent then tries to make an argument that I have done my research but haven't really understood what the tests have shown. I have understood the tests perfectly and have made valid claims based on the results of the tests. Again my opponent has done no such thing. Again my opponent uses a complete straw-man argument by 1st manipulating the argument to fit his desire. For example the actual line I used in my argument is \"teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time: tend to be more aggressive, are more prone to confrontation with their teachers\". My opponent manipulated this line into \"people who play violent video games don't do well at school and are more prone to get into an argument with a teacher\". A complete and unfair manipulation of my argument. My opponent then made another complete fallacy by claiming that people from his school who play video games turn out to be less aggressive than the ones that do not play video games. Lastly my opponent claims that people \"don't get aggressive because of playing violent video games\" but he again has given absolutely zero references to back up this claim, or any other of his claims. All in all I don't feel con has really attempted to try and make a strong case for his stance at all. He has merely just tried to refute my sources, with absolutely no back up, references, cited sources etc.", "title": "Video Games increase child violence", "pid": "e81dfba3-2019-04-18T17:00:44Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.86697387695312}, {"text": "As Pro, I am advocating that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence. First Round: Case Presentation Second:Rebuttals Third:Voters 1. Statistics point to the Pro argument According to the FBI in 2009,The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. The FBI statistics show that video game sales have been on the rise, while all juvenile violent crimes have fallen in the same amount of time. Looking at today's debate, you have to see that Pro shows with this evidence that the claim that video games cause violence is not backed up by reasonable statistics. Therefore, the claim is false. 2.There is no correlation between violence and video games. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent books, movies, and writings. The report did not show any link between video games and school based violence. 3. Violent video games can indeed be a healthy outlet. A 2007 study by the Journal of Adolescent Health reported that 45% of boys played video games because \"it helps me get my anger out\" and 62% played because it \"helps me relax.\" Those statustics show that children go to video games to give them an escape from the pressures of life around them. Also, video games can provide helpful lessons for the future. They allow people to explore situations like war, violence, and death without real consequences. Overall, statistics show that there is no correlation between video games and juvenile violence. In fact, video games help more than they hurt.", "title": "Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence", "pid": "30a5cf73-2019-04-18T18:52:16Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.8560333251953}, {"text": "There might be some cases of people mimicking violent scenes in video games, but even in these cases, the people obviously have psychological problems that are far deeper than anything that can be caused by a media they won't even have been introduced to until later in their life. There are so many more important factors in violent crime - poverty, drugs, political corruption leading to lawlessness etc. that video games are trivial.", "title": "There are far larger contributing factors to violent crime.", "pid": "4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00036-000", "bm25_score": 218.8455810546875}, {"text": "Violent video games do not only affect individuals but also society as a whole. The sole purpose of a player in these games is to be an aggressor. The heartlessness in these games and joy of killing innocent people create a desensitization and disinhibition to violence that can ultimately lead to a more violent society. A Bruce Bartholow study in 2011 proved for the first time the causal association between desensitisation to violence and increased human aggression1. They are also a very selfish, lonely form of entertainment which undermines the structure of an ordered, interdependent society. A study conducted by psychologists in 2007 found that of 430 primary school children, 'the kids who played more violent video games changed over the school year to become more verbally aggressive, more physically aggressive and less helpful to others.'2 1 University of Missouri-Columbia. (2011, May 26). Violent video games reduce brain response to violence and increase aggressive behaviour. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from ScienceDaily: 2 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate: improve this  ", "title": "Violent video games desensitise users", "pid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 218.84506225585938}, {"text": "In the first two examples, the experiments showed increased blood flow in the certain parts of the brain that are associated with copycat activities. Blood flow to a certain part of the brain does not necessarily mean anything at all. People's thinking is like so: Oh, tests (i'm talking about EEG experiment method) shown that the kids that play video games (violent ones actually) have increased blood flow in the part of the brain associated with copycat activities, therefor they become more aggressive and prone to copy actions from a violent video game. Wrong. Increased blood flow, as any doctor will tell you is a very broad category, and thus can we not be sure. Also, let me confirm that i know people that play violent video games, and i mean violent video games, no such as Mario and Call of Duty, and wouldn't hurt a fly in their lives. I think that brings this argument to an end. You've done some research, but you haven't really understood what these tests have shown. Especially in the second one, there's a line that says that people who play violent video games don't do well at school and are more prone to get into an argument with a teacher or so. Actually, the people from my school that play video games turn out to be less aggressive than the ones that do play video games. What can happen is if a guy that is really violent or aggressive plays video games. It's more likely, and official tests have shown this too, that people don't get more aggressive because of playing violent video games, but actually guys that are more aggressive are attracted more to violent video games. It all comes down to what a person likes. Sorry for my late response, i was busy for the last 2 days.", "title": "Video Games increase child violence", "pid": "e81dfba3-2019-04-18T17:00:44Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.84312438964844}, {"text": "Visual information requires very little mental work to understand. This often causes to a loss of sensitivity of the emotions and feelings of others and immersion in the virtual world. When a virtual life substitutes for a real life, there is a computer addiction: the child can not be torn away from the monitor and the time that was spent without a computer seems for a child as vain.", "title": "Video Games do not Make Kids Violent", "pid": "271b8702-2019-04-18T17:02:05Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.84237670898438}, {"text": "Many people say that video games are making children violent people, (https://www-inst.cs.berkeley.edu...), however, I completely disagree. I will be giving arguments in future rounds. I look forward to future arguments and seeing how this will come out.", "title": "Video games encourage violent behavior", "pid": "8db68a9b-2019-04-18T16:56:06Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.82534790039062}, {"text": "I'm personally against that statement, and i can prove it wrong. Pro: Says that video games increase child violence Con(me): Says that video games do not increase violent behavior to children You may go first.", "title": "Video Games increase child violence", "pid": "e81dfba3-2019-04-18T17:00:44Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.79193115234375}, {"text": "You must understand that as human beings we have the ability to easily distinguish our own reality from a simulation. We know when we are dreaming, we know when we are hypothesising. Video games serve as a 'second reality' and that is the exact reason that people choose to play them. They are well aware of the fact that decisions they make within the game are ones that are so far from anything they could do in reality. To suggest that it becomes easier for a child to operate a gun in real life after pressing a button on a keypad to achieve a reaction within a computer simulation is not at all logical.", "title": "propose the motion that says violent games trigger violent behaviour in children", "pid": "7bfa0d57-2019-04-18T12:02:50Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.78546142578125}, {"text": "First of all this is my first debate so go easy on me. Lets start, Most of the bad effects of video games are blamed on the violence they contain. Children who play more violent video games are more likely to have increased aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and decreased prosocial helping, according to a scientific study (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). The effect of video game violence in kids is worsened by the games\" interactive nature. In many games, kids are rewarded for being more violent. The act of violence is done repeatedly. The child is in control of the violence and experiences the violence in his own eyes (killings, kicking, stabbing and shooting). This active participation, repetition and reward are effective tools for learning behavior. Indeed, many studies seem to indicate that violent video games may be related to aggressive behavior (such as Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). However, the evidence is not consistent and this issue is far from settled. Many experts including Henry Jenkins of Massachusetts Institute of Technology have noted that there is a decreased rate of juvenile crime whch coincides with the popularity of games such as Death Race, Mortal Kombat, Doom and Grand Theft auto. He concludes that teenage players are able to leave the emotional effects of the game behind when the game is over. Indeed there are cases of teenagers who commit violent crimes who also spend great amount of time playing video games such as those involved in the Columbine and Newport cases. It appears that there will always be violent people, and it just so happen that many of them also enjoy playing violent video games. Too much video game playing makes your kid socially isolated. Also, he may spend less time in other activities such as doing homework, reading, sports, and interacting with the family and friends. Some video games teach kids the wrong values. Violent behavior, vengeance and aggression are rewarded. Negotiating and other nonviolent solutions are often not options. Women are often portrayed as weaker characters that are helpless or sexually provocative. Games can confuse reality and fantasy. Academic achievement may be negatively related to over-all time spent playing video games. Studies have shown that the more time a kid spends playing video games, the poorer is his performance in school. (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile, Lynch & Walsh, 2004). A study by Argosy University's Minnesota School on Professional Psychology found that video game addicts argue a lot with their teachers, fight a lot with their friends, and score lower grades than others who play video games less often. Other studies show that many game players routinely skip their homework to play games, and many students admitted that their video game habits are often responsible for poor school grades. Although some studies suggest that playing video games enhances a child\"s concentration, other studies, such as a 2012 paper published in Psychology of Popular Media Culture, have found that games can hurt and help children's attention issues \" improving the ability to concentrate in short bursts but damaging long-term concentration. Video games may also have bad effects on some children\"s health, including obesity, video-induced seizures. and postural, muscular and skeletal disorders, such as tendonitis, nerve compression, carpal tunnel syndrome. When playing online, your kid can pick up bad language and behavior from other people, and may make your kid vulnerable to online dangers. A study by the Minneapolis-based National Institute for Media and the Family suggests that video games can be addictive for kids, and that the kids' addiction to video games increases their depression and anxiety levels. Addicted kids also exhibit social phobias. Not surprisingly, kids addicted to video games see their school performance suffer. Kids spending too much time playing video games may exhibit impulsive behavior and have attention problems. This is according to a new study published in the February 2012 issue of the Journal of Psychology and Popular Media Culture. For the study, attention problems were defined as difficulty engaging in or sustaining behavior to reach a goal.", "title": "Violent video games should NOT be banned", "pid": "c958dc5a-2019-04-18T17:51:05Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.77587890625}, {"text": "In video games such as Call of Duty, Gears of War and Saints Row, the main goal is to kill or be killed. How are these violent video games affecting the minds of children? One gamer was asked if they liked violent video games, his response was \" Yes because I have started to feel the urge to practice my sniper skills for real.\" A child who plays violent video games starts looking at the world as a dangerous place where violence and aggression are an appropriate response, more than a child would who hasn't had that exposure. Young children also try to copy the actions they have observed while playing video games. These actions or gestures are stored in their memories and children do feel the urge to try them out in their real lives on their siblings and in school, thus increasing the bullying tendencies. Non-violent games can prove to be a great teaching tool and they can be used for educational purposes. They also improve the hand-eye co-ordination. So, parents should try to convince their children to play such games and divert their attention from violence.", "title": "Video Games Are Too Violent", "pid": "60e33950-2019-04-18T16:35:04Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.76943969726562}, {"text": "Well for your point on video games not causing real-life violence, The Columbine shooter was influenced by the video game Doom, which he played often. http://news.bbc.co.uk...; I know that it says \"But the legal challenge looks like it will fail because a similar lawsuit filed in the wake of a 1997 school shooting was dismissed when it came to court in April last year. A federal judge said he threw out the case saying computer games are not subject to product liability laws.\" in the last two paragraphs, but it is not relevant to the argument. http://listverse.com...;These are other cases where Violent video games have influenced teenagers or gangs to kill other people just because they saw the action and/or committed them in the game. So Violent video games are related to real-life violence.http://www.nydailynews.com... an 8-year-old boy committed a crime when influenced by a violent video game!", "title": "violent video games do NOT breed violence", "pid": "a5ca39dc-2019-04-18T11:43:36Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.76373291015625}, {"text": "Though violent video game to not cause violent behaviour they do make ... Even if it is just a character in a game it become as easy as pie to pull that trigger", "title": "propose the motion that says violent games trigger violent behaviour in children", "pid": "7bfa0d57-2019-04-18T12:02:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.76026916503906}, {"text": "To what extent the content of the video game doesn't make children violent, The content gives \"children\" (all players really) a way to identify and emphasize with violence. The act of playing video games alone can cause a distorted concept of reality that inhibits the mind from thinking logically and induces stress leaving the players to resort to the most basic human instinct of control-- violence. These are the premises that I will use to start my argument. Please feel free to begin the next round with a detailed exploration of your disagreement with as much or as little evidence as you need.", "title": "Video games encourage violent behavior", "pid": "8db68a9b-2019-04-18T16:56:06Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.76023864746094}, {"text": "As to the Columbine massacre (the news article that you are talking about), it has never been proven that Eric Harris' and Dylan Klebold's playing of violent video games had influenced their actions. The most likely cause of the massacre was bullying and mental illness (as the FBI had found). Many implications have been made pointing to video games being the cause but the majority of these are either proven untrue or not confirmed. [1]To the 8 year old killing his grandmother, the link between playing violent video games and the murder is unproven. This was just the police racing to find a cause of the attack and finding out that the kid played a violent video game. This unfortunately happens a lot with violent crimes, people will race to find a cause and end up finding the wrong one. [2]A study published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence found absolutely no evidence between video games and violence in vulnerable teens. In fact, in some cases the violent video games had a calming effect on the player. [3]My arguments:Many studies have shown that violent video games do not desensitize kids and those most liable to have their minds altered. The studies would show kids who play non-violent and violent games different pictures, some showing graphic scenes (like a man holding a gun to a woman's head). The subjects would have their reactions to the photos monitored and recorded. They found that there was no difference between the violent game players' and non-violent game players' reactions. Many kids recognize and respect the boundaries between the virtual and real world, and would not cross them when it comes to violence. [4][5]Sources:[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.cnn.com...[3] . http://www.springer.com...[4] . http://health.usnews.com...[5] . http://gamepolitics.com...", "title": "Video Games do not Cause Violence", "pid": "e6270ff-2019-04-18T16:35:46Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.7506103515625}, {"text": "Paul Boxer. \"It's up to parents to enforce a ban on violent video games.\" NJ.com. July 1st, 2011: \"As policy statements from organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have made clear, violent media represents a real and compelling risk to the behavioral and mental health of children and adolescents. In fact, research studies have yielded the conclusion that the effect of violent media consumption on aggressive behavior is in the same ballpark statistically as the effect of smoking on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure on children’s intellectual development and the effect of asbestos on laryngeal cancer.\"", "title": "Violent video games are real danger to young minds.", "pid": "d48f37bf-2019-04-17T11:47:20Z-00039-000", "bm25_score": 218.73812866210938}, {"text": "youths playing video games are still yet to mature. they still don't understand that watching movies or playing video games will tempt them in a way they don;t know.", "title": "media violence is having a negative effect on today's youth.", "pid": "c4f2dab6-2019-04-18T17:04:26Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.72616577148438}, {"text": "I first have to state that I will probably bee counted off for the copy and paste thing. If you feel I should be counted off please do so voters, although this is your own action. Also for the last round (The fifth) you do not have to have an official closing, you may continue making new arguments in your respective round. although I am giving con the upper hand. On with the debate. Yes I have agreed with you on many things. In fact most of your argument is completely true and I know this from experience. I have said BoP is shared, and it is. If you feel I have not brought up enough logic on my positive claim than I will start using statistics. Monday 10 November 2014 A recent long-term study by the USA shows the violent games are not the cause for violence in society If you read this study its states that in the first of the two historical evaluations researchers studied the links between violent films and societal violence by looking at the top grossing titles between 1920 and 2005. What they deduced was that film violence went in a rough U pattern during this time period whereas societal violence decreased in the later half of the 20th century. The second study used data from ESRB to estimate the violent content of video games from the time of 1996-2011. It showed that as the popularity of violent video games went up, youth violence went down. you can read more of thisin the sited resources below. To continue on into a more depressing topic, children who commit homicide have different brain structures. This article talks all about it. Apparently researchers found that children who commit murder have lower levels of grey matter in their medial and lateral temporal lobes and the hippocampus and posterior insula, according to news release. If you are wondering what grey matter is its the stuff that helps you process information in the brain. This means the less grey matter you have the more likely you will become confused between violent video games and reality. In another article posted Wed/July23/2014 showed that harsh corporal punishment can knock grey matter levels down in children. If a person receives this, they are more likely to commit violent acts in the future. This has nothing to do with the debate at hand, but what we can deduce is that when children between ages 10-17 play a violent video game they aren't losing anything beneficial to them and therefor are not violent in the future. Again I will restate a few more points There has never been a link between violent video games and violent acts in kids and teens. The sales rate for video games has quadrupled from 1995-2008 along with a 71.9% drop in juvenile arrest rates and a 49-50% drop in juvenile crimes. Any small correlation between violent youth and violent video games may be explained: Violent games do not cause youth to be violent, instead already violent youth are attracted to violent video games. cites http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.natureworldnews.com... http://www.news-medical.net... http://www.cnn.com... http://videogames.procon.org...", "title": "Video games are not a significant cause of violence in children", "pid": "7f95546c-2019-04-18T14:36:44Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.7057647705078}, {"text": "Well to Start things off as soon as there's a mass shooting in schools are anywhere they immediately blame violent video games. Well did they really research before they say these claims? Well obviously they didn't because only 2 of 9 mass shooters were actually into violent video games. The reason they started these claims is because of the amount of evidence showing that violent video games causes aggression and they're right. But not by a lot because. According to Catherine Newman, \"tons of small children play Silent shooter games that only a small fraction become violent.\" I have a friend and he is interested in games like Call of Duty and Mortal Combat and he is actually quiet and relaxed, has a good sense of humor and in generally nice.", "title": "should kids be able to play violent video games", "pid": "2a1e2055-2019-04-18T11:41:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.69598388671875}, {"text": "if a kid plays a violent video game and then develops violent behaviors its not because of the video game. you need to look into that childs psyche instead of the video games. i personally think that video games give the person an excuse to take action towards the violent thoughts that their minds fabricated on their own. there is obviously something wrong with the person if they go and do these things just because they play a game that does it. take it from me I'm a teenager who has suffered abuse and bullying. i have been diagnosed with major depression, adhd, and ocd. i have been in programs and stuff to help myself. i have performed self mutilation. and i play cod black ops every night. i am more intuned to becoming violent than normal kids without these issues. but I'm not violent aim one of the sweetest people i know", "title": "no violent video games don't cause violence", "pid": "b84c76ff-2019-04-18T15:39:28Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.6825408935547}, {"text": "Rebuttals and RefutationsI will note for my opponent that I will not be available tomorrow from 1pm to early morning/midnight, and almost all day Sunday. If this results in me forfeiting a round due to the 24 hour span, then the voters may judge conduct appropriately. 1. GTA V and violent crimes argumentI will admit that this was an argument I was expecting. To rebut my opponent's point about the lack of a major increase in crime among juveniles, I will argue that violence does not always occur in the form of a crime. Violence, as stated above, can be summarized as any use of unjust aggression or force. Modern society has educated and raised young people by the thinking that committing violent crimes is a stupid thing to do, and young people are smart enough to realize that. However, that doesn't mean no violence has occurred as a result of video gaming.2. Unrealistic video gamesThe resolution of this debate is \"Video games cause violence\", not \"All video games cause violence\". Whilst some video games, explicitly things like video games for toddlers, obviously have almost zero chance of prompting violent behavior, I have still filled my BOP that Video Game(s) have prompted violence.3. The brainIn a growing brain and in a society where media and real life are almost extremely mixed together, and where some people meet their closest friends, wed, and earn fortunes through the pixels of a computer screen, I would say that violence demonstrated on this platform most definitely has the potential to cause an imitating effect, especially if the juvenile in question has never known anything other than what society is now.-- no sources necessary this round --", "title": "Video Games cause violence", "pid": "3466ccde-2019-04-18T15:56:31Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.6759033203125}, {"text": "Brief Rebuttals to Brief pointsa) - Whether a video game condones nonviolent or ethical components in association with violence is not really relevant, as it is the exposure to the images of graphic violence and how it is portrayed as a normal element in media that allows young people to grow up and become more systematically violent (though not necessarily criminally violent)b) - Whether or not there is punishment or reconciliation, the game still promotes violence as being an overall 'fun' activity. Some games don't cause violence, but the resolution is not that \"All video games cause violence\". In conclusion, I have won this debate because I have filled my BoP with reliable sources to back it. Vote for me!", "title": "Video Games cause violence", "pid": "3466ccde-2019-04-18T15:56:31Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.63082885742188}, {"text": "Do Violent Video Games Increase Aggression? Studies have shown that playing violent video games can increase aggressive thoughts, Behaviors, And feelings in both the short-term and long-term. Violent video games can also desensitize people to seeing aggressive behavior and decrease prosocial behaviors such as helping another person and feeling empathy (the ability to understand others). The longer that individuals are exposed to violent video games, The more likely they are to have aggressive behaviors, Thoughts, And feelings. These effects have been seen in studies in both Eastern and Western countries. Although males spend more time than females playing violent video games, Violent video game exposure can increase aggressive thoughts, Behaviors, And feelings in both sexes. The analysis of 24 studies from countries including the U. S. , Canada, Germany and Japan found those who played violent games such as \"Grand Theft Auto, \" \"Call of Duty\" and \"Manhunt\" were more likely to exhibit behavior such as being sent to the principal's office for fighting or hitting a non-family member. \"Although no single research project is definitive, Our research aims to provide the most current and compelling responses to key criticisms on this topic, \" said Jay Hull, Lead author of the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. \"Based on our findings, We feel it is clear that violent video game play is associated with subsequent increases in physical aggression, \" said Hull, Associate dean of faculty for the social sciences at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, And the Dartmouth Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences. Video game violence has been a hot-button issue for more than a decade. Interest in research on video games' potential for violence increased after it was learned Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, The two teenagers who committed the Columbine High School shooting, Played the first-person shooting computer game \"Doom. \" But in a 2011 Supreme Court decision overturning California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors, The late Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed a link between the games and aggression. \"These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them, And with good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively, \" he wrote in the majority opinion. Since then, An American Psychological Association task force report in 2015 found a link between violent video games and increased aggression in players but insufficient evidence that violent games lead to criminal violence. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump convened a video game summit a month after the February shooting that killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Prior to that meeting, Trump said, \"I\"m hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people\"s thoughts. \" The Dartmouth researchers sought to reduce confusion about research findings \" including disputes about the association between violent games and aggression \" with a finely structured meta-analysis. Those in the study who played violent games, Whether frequently or infrequently, Had an increase risk of aggressive behavior. The new research echoes Hull's previous finding that playing violent games equates to about twice the risk of being sent to the principal\"s office for fighting during an eight-month period, He said. A separate 2014 study he oversaw of violent video games in 2, 000 families is one of the 24 included in the meta-analysis. The effect is \"relatively small, But statistically reliable. The effect does exist, \" Hull said. While there's not research suggesting violent video games lead to criminal behavior, Hull's previous research suggests players may practice riskier behaviors such as reckless driving, Binge drinking, Smoking and unsafe sex. \"A lot of people ask, Do these games really cause these kids to behave aggressively? I would say that is one possibility, \" he said. \"The other possibility is that it's a really bad sign. If your kids are playing these games, Either these games are having a warping effect on right and wrong or they have a warped sense of right or wrong and that\"s why they are attracted to these games. Either way you should be concerned about it. \" Aggressive behavior is measured by scientists in a number of ways. Some studies looked at self-reports of hitting or pushing, And some looked at peer or teacher ratings on aggressive behaviors. Other studies looked at how likely an individual was to subject others to an unpleasant exposure to hot sauce or a loud noise after playing violent video games. Unfortunately, Few studies have been completed on violent video game exposure and aggression in children under age 10. There is also little information about the impact of violent video game exposure on minority children. There have not been many studies on the effects of different characteristics of video games, Such as perspective or plot. However, Some studies have found that competition among players in video games is a better predictor of aggressive behavior than is the level of violence Do Violent Video Games Increase Violence? Violence is a form of aggression, But not all aggressive behaviors are violent. Very few studies have looked at whether playing violent video games increases the chances of later delinquency, Criminal behavior, Or lethal violence. Such studies are difficult to conduct, And require very large numbers of children. It makes sense that since playing violent video games tends to increase the level of aggressive behavior it would also results in more lethal violence or other criminal behaviors, But there is no clear evidence to support that assumption. Policy In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting in Florida in 2018, Policymakers are again questioning the influence of violent video games. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) affirms that their rating system is effective, But the APA Task Force on Violent Media recommends that the ESRB revise their rating system to make the level of violence clearer. The Task Force also recommends that further research must be done using delinquency, Violence, And criminal behavior as outcomes to determine whether or not violent video games are linked to violence. Bottom Line Studies show that they make children more violent.", "title": "Video games make children More violent", "pid": "4f2fe78e-2019-04-18T11:10:15Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.6259307861328}, {"text": "Hello and thank you for debating this with me. This has been a while since I have done this so I may be a bit rusty. Good luck!Case 1: Not Bad For Your KidMany case studies have been released to show video games have no effect on kids. In this study, (1) it shows that out of over thousands kids taken for the experiment, none, and may I repeat, NONE HAVE HAD ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON A KID'S BEHAVIOR. A quote from the article. \"KEY FINDINGS Exposure to video games had no effect on behavior, attention or emotional issues. Watching 3 or more hours of television at age 5 did lead to a small increase in behavioral problems in youngsters between 5 and 7. Neither television nor video games lead to attentional or emotional problems. There was no difference between boys and girls in the survey results.\" End quote There is another article based on the same experiment if you aren't satisfied.Case 2: MaturityAt age thirteen, these teens know the difference between fiction and reality. If a parent finds rated M video games acceptable for her child, then who am I to argue with her. The stereotypical,\"violent video games result in violence\" saying has been disproved by science. (3) It has been proven that even kids with depression and attention deficit disorder did not become overly aggressive or bullies. Here is a quote from the article.\" Ferguson, associate professor of psychology and criminal justice at Texas A&M International University,and Olson studied 377 American children, on average 13 years of age, from various ethnic groups who had clinically elevated attention deficit or depressive symptoms. The children were part of an existing large federally funded project that examines the effect of video game violence on youths. The study is important in light of ongoing public debate as to whether or not violent video games fuel behavioral aggression and societal violence among youths, especially among those with pre-existing mental health problems. Societal violence includes behavior such as bullying, physical fighting, criminal assaults and even homicide. And the news media often draws a link from the playing of violent video games to the perpetrators of school shootings in the United States. Ferguson and Olson’s findings do not support the popular belief that violent video games increase aggression in youth who have a predisposition to mental health problems.\" End quote Overall, rated M video games have shown no correlation to a decline in mental health to thirteen year olds. this means there are no good reasons to restrict your kids from playing rated M games. Therefore, you must vote con! Thank you!1. http://www.gamesandlearning.org...2. http://www.forbes.com...3. http://psychcentral.com...", "title": "Resolved: Thirteen Year Olds Should Play Video Games Based On Their Age On The Ratings", "pid": "f9ddb869-2019-04-18T15:57:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.6256561279297}, {"text": "In my opinion violent video games do cause crime because I have heard news that there was a guy that was playing Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 and he ran away from home. It was caused because he was playing Call of Duty when he was on Xbox live. He was missing for 2 weeks and his parents didn’t check up on him or cared about him. 2 weeks later they found the child dead in the forest. But I do think that it only accrues to different types of children. So I do think that violent video game cause crime.", "title": "I think it does", "pid": "4381b332-2019-04-19T12:47:35Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.61521911621094}, {"text": "Video games are a useful outlet for childhood aggression. As psychologist Cheryl Olson writes, kids 'use games to vent anger or distract themselves from problems.'1 Play violence has always been a natural part of growing up, especially for boys. In the past it was considered normal for young people to act out violent fantasies in harmless way, for example with toy guns in games of cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, war, pirates, etc. These games were often inspired by films, television or comic books and magazines, just as computer games commonly are today. Now that these traditional activities are frowned upon and \"enlightened\" parents prevent children from having toy guns, aggressive play has simply moved indoors, on to the computer screen instead. Suppressing these natural instincts is not only pointless, it is probably more dangerous to remove yet another harmless outlet for aggression from the young. 1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate:", "title": "Video games are an outlet for childhood aggression", "pid": "6da2e494-2019-04-15T20:22:30Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 218.6142120361328}, {"text": "Whilst it might be agreed that violent video games in the hands of a person who is old enough to see them and be able to understand the context in which the violence is being wrought is acceptable, this may not be true of younger people who acquire games. Games with violent content are often easily acquired by players too young to purchase them. They may also gain access to them at home from older siblings. Because children do not have fully developed mental faculties yet, and may not clearly separate fantasy from reality, exposure to violent games can have a large impact upon children. This has a greater impact than children seeing films that feature realistic violence because whilst a child might get bored with films owing to the lack of interaction with the medium, this is much less likely to be the case with, for example, a military shooting game, which a child might play over and over As such, all violent video games should be banned to prevent their acquisition by young children either by accident, or owing to parental ignorance.[1] [1] Anderson, Craig et al. The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2003, 4:81-110", "title": "Children See Violent Video Games", "pid": "92fc546a-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.6059112548828}, {"text": "Ave!ColumbineEven if Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold wrote about bullying other people, it says nothing about whether they themselves were bullied or not. People can bully other people and be bullied themselves. TD_Cole gives us no reason to think that this isn't possible. His argumentation is severely flawed.Do video games lead to violence in youth?In this round, TD_Cole brings up reasearch from Iowa State Universit to try and show that video games lead to violence and violent acts in youth. This idea is overtly false.The Boston News published an article by Jim Morrison called ‘’Local law enforcement officials see drop in juvenile crime’’. This article discusses the decline in juvenile crime in Massachusetts, and how the decline correlates with the FBI’s nationwide crime reports. Last year, over two hundred million video games were sold. If video games cause youth violence, then why is youth violence declining, as the number of video games bought increases? [1]Jon Katz lucidly articulates this view in the book ‘’Crime and Criminals’’. He writes, ‘’If Bok’s right, why do FBI statistics show violence among the youth plummeting to its lowest level since Prohibition, while violence imagery in media has indeed been increasing, along with cable programming and usage, movie attendance, and the advent of the net?’’. (2001) [2]70% of U.S. households play video games (Crum 2013). If video games truly lead to violent acts, then we should be expecting some type of apocalypse with such a high number. Instead, youth violence is declining as more people start to play video games every year. Where is the increase in violence among youth? Nowhere, because video games are not a cause. [3]The research discussed in the NY Daily News is also interesting when it comes to youth violence. Consider the fact that millions of teenagers hang out with their friends and play popular games like Halo and Call of Duty. If playing video games with your friends leads to increase cooperativeness and decreased aggression, then video games are actually making youth less likely to be violent. Gun TrainingTD gives us a very weak argument. Video games teach people to use guns because they increase hand-eye coordination? Putting aside the fact that the link between improved H/I coordinaton and video games is not solid, it's a non-sequitur to suggest that this would also teach somebody how to fire a weapon.He also suggets that video games put ideas into people's heads that cause them to perpetrate mass shootings. He doesn't give any evidence for this. Using Hitchen's razor, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. [4]AxiomExtended.References[1] Morrison, Jim. \"Local Law Enforcement Officials See Drop in Juvenile Crime.\" N.p., n.d. Web.[2] Katz, Jon. Crime and Criminals. San Diego: Greenhouse, 2000. Print[3] Crum, Chris. \"WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business.\" WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2013. http://www.webpronews.com....[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...Vale!", "title": "Video games are not a significant factor in mass shootings.", "pid": "3e67d226-2019-04-18T17:47:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.6028289794922}, {"text": "I agree with you that there is influence involving games, but unfortunately even that can be easily avoided through use of reasoning skills. Some people already have violence in them, from family issues, ect. Like the shooter that killed innocents at Sandy Hook. He played violent games, but he already had violence in him in the first place. Many kids and teens know the difference between fantasy and reality, and will not be easily influenced by violent games, nor they will commit acts of violence. I understand your use of analogies, but some analogies do not agree or fit in with the subject. I will stand by my point. Games don't cause or influence violence. Past events or influence by other factors cause violence.", "title": "Games do not cause people to become violent.", "pid": "ccecc0ad-2019-04-18T15:37:21Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.57388305664062}, {"text": "Playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior and arousal . A 2009 study found that it takes up to four minutes for the level of aggressive thoughts and feelings in children to return to normal after playing violent video games. It takes five to ten minutes for heart rate and aggressive behavior to return to baseline. Video games that show the most blood generate more aggressive thoughts. When blood is present in video games, there is a measurable increase in arousal and hostility . A 1998 study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women . Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape.", "title": "should vilent video games be banned", "pid": "d0e5c093-2019-04-18T18:40:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.57040405273438}, {"text": "Pro.. I have reasons to believe that you have not read my statements in full. But.. nonetheless: The following times magazine article discussing the video game violence has given insight onto the subject of the matter, drawing conclusions based based on studies in the US where children are becoming more and more violent due to playing video-games. If the young child (the teen) is exposed at such an early age to this type of violent video games then their personality and brain function changes as well, developing him into an aggressive adult. Now lets take this into consideration. Most of today's soldiers are trained through simulations, most of tactics and advanced weaponry are developed thorough simulation on a computer. If these simulations are being \"dumb\" down to a video game level, which is what most of today's war games are like (they collaborate with the military forces) to implement in their games in order to make them more realistic. You would argue that these game have not created any wars but such event as Columbine and many others [2] have created this internal war. Now lets look at how many fight there have been since the 2000's that involved teens took matters into their own hands and started killing people. That number will have to be very small since i was unable to find any that were documented. I believe that video games are developing an aggressive behavior in today's teens and even preteens (20+) which can impact their behaviors in the future. [1] http://time.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Religion causes more violence than video games", "pid": "6ba1043a-2019-04-18T14:56:00Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.56536865234375}, {"text": "I think video games don't cause violence because kids have accepted the fact that it isn't real. They know the consequences of doing the things they see In video games and accept it. In a case ,involving a school shooter who played Dance Dance Revolution, it showed no connection between the game and killer. The case was given to a lieutenant who came up with the conclusion that games have no effect on kids.", "title": "do video games cause viloence", "pid": "e9e7c17-2019-04-18T11:31:13Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.56455993652344}, {"text": "Violent video games do show gore, murder, drugs, alcohol, racial slurs, nudity and foul language. But the most this can do is desensitize you to the prevalence of these things in the real world. If someone knows something is wrong, a video game won't change that. That is, of course, unless that certain someone has a severe mental disorder.I find it interesting that you mentioned the Columbine High School shooting. I looked deeper into the incident's Wikipedia page to find a section called \"psychopathy and depression\". I think it's very important to mention that Harris was a clinical psychopath and Klebold was depressive and often wrote about suicide in his diary, which supports my claim that violent video games only truly affect those with severe mental illnesses.I found an article that shows a long term study that examined violent media, and whether or not video games and movies are to blame for violence in society. This excerpt here shows the bit about when they studied video games: \"A second study into video game violence used data from the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) to estimate the violent content of popular games from 1996 to 2011. This was then compared with data on youth violence during the same years, with the study finding a correlation between falling youth violence and the popularity of violent games.\" But you also mentioned raging, and I'll be honest, I get angry at video games. But I've never broken a controller or harmed myself beyond hitting my desk with my fist. It's never been anything serious. It's not a thing that only applies to violent video games either, I could be playing a Mario game and I'll get mad.Sources:http://www.independent.co.uk...https://en.wikipedia.org...I'm also a beginning debater, welcome to the site. Good luck, and thanks for setting this up!", "title": "Do playing violent video games affect your mental health", "pid": "2fba671-2019-04-18T12:51:48Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.55335998535156}, {"text": "Well video games are not the cause of our violence, nor does it equal any.ARGUMENT 1Video games are made for the entertainment not to cause havok to our societyARGUMENT 2Crime rate has decreased and video game sales go up rapidly by a second and most of those games are shooting games.ARGUMENT 3School shootings are caused by mental illnesses. Not causes of video games. It is the parents to blame for havok. And scientist has also researched and ran test that video games do not connect to the real world violence. REBUTTALSome video games do equal violence. They sometimes include shooting guns and especially, if you have a sibling, they learn from the older siblings.No it doesnt that is not true dont listen to everything on the news. A child would not even be affected by video games. Although it may make them unintelligent and agressive but it has no real world link to the human bodies and crime. Video games are not the only blame the society and the parents are. And siblings do not obtain bad influences when playing video games. If it does how come when a 4 yr old child came to my house I let him play a fighting game with blood and he didn even cause any criminal behavior only crying because of losing.Once again my opponent did not provide a single sourcehttp://kotaku.com...", "title": "Video games don't equal violence", "pid": "e42653aa-2019-04-18T16:41:40Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.52862548828125}]}
{"idx": 34, "qid": "36", "q_text": "Is golf a sport?", "qrels": {"8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00003-000": 2, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "31ff7b7c-2019-04-18T19:19:02Z-00003-000": 0, "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00014-000": 0, "9be99e1b-2019-04-18T12:10:21Z-00001-000": 1, "311797b5-2019-04-18T18:26:30Z-00009-000": 1, "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00002-000": 0, "9823cd85-2019-04-18T15:59:18Z-00005-000": 0, "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00000-000": 2, "d0ed5c9c-2019-04-18T13:46:41Z-00001-000": 0, "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00003-000": 2, "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00000-000": 0, "33fcff0d-2019-04-18T15:44:02Z-00000-000": 0, "46fa6c07-2019-04-18T14:24:53Z-00005-000": 0, "4ff27de2-2019-04-18T18:38:38Z-00001-000": 0, "5b40f34d-2019-04-18T14:05:29Z-00003-000": 0, "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00001-000": 0, "6b570162-2019-04-19T12:47:54Z-00006-000": 0, "7768222e-2019-04-18T17:59:36Z-00000-000": 1, "31ff7b7c-2019-04-18T19:19:02Z-00001-000": 0, "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00000-000": 1, "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00004-000": 2, "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00002-000": 1, "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00003-000": 2, "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00005-000": 2, "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00004-000": 2, "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00000-000": 1, "a81751a9-2019-04-18T18:54:52Z-00003-000": 1, "c788fb1e-2019-04-18T19:50:24Z-00001-000": 1, "4c68354c-2019-04-18T13:19:39Z-00000-000": 0, "cf884b8c-2019-04-18T15:50:31Z-00002-000": 0, "27167083-2019-04-18T18:45:13Z-00002-000": 0, "d6cf9790-2019-04-18T11:58:57Z-00001-000": 0, "d7c904a0-2019-04-18T13:04:14Z-00001-000": 1, "df72c7ac-2019-04-18T18:56:15Z-00004-000": 0, "e4499700-2019-04-18T17:28:24Z-00000-000": 2, "e65ffcf-2019-04-18T11:07:46Z-00002-000": 0, "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00002-000": 2, "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00000-000": 2, "edab08a8-2019-04-18T16:34:53Z-00002-000": 1, "edab08a8-2019-04-18T16:34:53Z-00003-000": 2, "a5088c85-2019-04-18T13:09:22Z-00003-000": 0, "31ff7b7c-2019-04-18T19:19:02Z-00000-000": 0, "31ff7b7c-2019-04-18T19:19:02Z-00002-000": 0, "18f233de-2019-04-18T13:00:35Z-00003-000": 0, "1e1aee36-2019-04-18T15:54:57Z-00005-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Sport: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.\"For entertainment.\"Golf is the most boring activity known to man. And that's final.Case closed.", "title": "Is golf a sport", "pid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 220.04574584960938}, {"text": "I play golf and I practice every day, to my surprise I found that some people disagree with this being a sport. People who view this topic differently may suggest that golf doesn't have rigorous activity although I beg to differ. Golf isn't just the game itself it is the preparation and dedication along with it. As part of my training to be the best I include arm workouts, core workouts, and even lifting weights with my wrists. Many people who believe golf is not a sport have not done all of this preparation. Nor have they played 18 holes in the scorching sun while carrying an on average 20 pound bag. Then have to step up to the tee and give this shot your all. The truth is golf is a sport and that's final, so don't say how easy golf is without experiencing what I do, thank you.", "title": "Is golf a sport", "pid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.7303009033203}, {"text": "ok golf is a sport.. just like anyother sport you're in the sun so no argument there! and people can cheer for you! have you not heard of pro golf tournaments? people go to watch them, and it is a big deal. And it is a sport just like any other it takes time and dedication to master not just anybody can go whack a ball and go pro!", "title": "Golf is a sport", "pid": "edab08a8-2019-04-18T16:34:53Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.7081756591797}, {"text": "golf is a sport no doubt. it takes pure skill to be able to play the sport and if you can go pro in a activity then it should be a sport", "title": "Golf is a sport", "pid": "edab08a8-2019-04-18T16:34:53Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 219.7024688720703}, {"text": "First I will start with some definitions of \"Sports\" Sport: is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. Sport: Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. I believe that these definitions prove my case all of these were taken from the Webster dictionary, the fact is a sport is something is an activity that involves skills be it throwing a ball 40 yards,running 100 miles, or hitting a tiny ball 400 yards into a hole. A sport is a competition involving rules and guidelines, and were skill comes into play. I think that we can all agree Golf is a game of rules and skill therefore it is a sport.", "title": "Golf is not a sport", "pid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 219.65211486816406}, {"text": "the real deffinition of a sport is: all game that include physical exercise. so golf is just a game not a sport", "title": "does golf is a real sport", "pid": "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.2716827392578}, {"text": "hahaha okok So here is my point Obviously a sport... I believe that golf is a sport. But we can't say anything if we don't define what a sport is. Golf is \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game).\" (Merriam-Webster) Golf clearly fits the definition provided by Merriam Webster. Finally, Sports agents, sponsors, and sporting goods manufacturers consider golf to be a sport.", "title": "does golf is a real sport", "pid": "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.19558715820312}, {"text": "I accept your argument. I say golf is not a sport.", "title": "Golf is a sport", "pid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 218.95359802246094}, {"text": "Saying that golf does involve rigorous activity, is not really an opinion. It is a fact. You stated \"Golf is the most boring activity known to man\" This is a textbook example for an opinion. Me saying that golf is a sport is not an opinion. The definition of a sport is \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of acompetitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\" So me saying that golf is a sport isn't actualy a opinion it's a fact.", "title": "Is golf a sport", "pid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.9501495361328}, {"text": "For my point, I look at the definition of sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. You have yours but this one is also correct so I will use this one from Google Dictionary. Exertion refers to vigorous activity which golfing is not. Your definition calls golf a game, not a sport. And based upon my definition of sport, (which is also correct) golf is not a sport. This is stated by both you and I.", "title": "Golf is a sport", "pid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.8432159423828}, {"text": "How is golf a sport???? All you do is hit a golf ball on a field like a snobby brat!!!! Nobody can cheer for you and you are quiet and standing in the hot sun!!!!! Whatever happens on golf that is exciting and will get your heartbeat pumping?? Yeah he hit a hole in one ohhhh what a day to watch!!!!! So I'm ready for this debate are you!!!", "title": "Golf is a sport", "pid": "edab08a8-2019-04-18T16:34:53Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.84243774414062}, {"text": "Oh yeah golf tournaments whoo so intense and so much fun for guys to watch them hit golf balls for 24 holes!!!! The only one tournament people really know is the masters!!!! I think this sport is more boring than nascar at least there you hear fast cars go by you!!!! All the excitement you will get watching golf is a hole in one or a stupid trick shot!!!!", "title": "Golf is a sport", "pid": "edab08a8-2019-04-18T16:34:53Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.70314025878906}, {"text": "Kenicks, I'm glad I finally get a debate against you. I have had a few nasty ones on this site mostly personal attacks because I am a conservative, mind if we just keep it clean and about Golf? we can debate about politics some other time. First of all I want to say that every definition I can pull up on the internet and the two dictionaries I have here at the house all come up with the same definition, that a sport is something that has guidelines, and rules, and requires skill along with SOME physical extortion. It is my opinion Kenicks that your views on a sport is sort of arrogant ( no harm intended). I think that as Americans we get blinded on that a sport consists of body builders, or martial arts, or who can hit the hardest. However if we are going to characterize sports into these categories we must remember we are not the only country, if we try and remove golf from sporting we might as well remove Hunting, Fishing, Krokae, Polo,Archery,Marksmanship, even surfing the list can go on and on. These sporting competitions do not require much physical duress but they are a sport none the less. Now what you suggested chess, and poker, haha and beer pong would of course not be labeled as a sport. However Golfing that requires skill, and guidelines and rules, and SOME physical duress not nearly as much as tennis,football,or boxing but some fits the definition of a sport perfectly.", "title": "Golf is not a sport", "pid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.52236938476562}, {"text": "Once again, thank you for taking the time to make this debate happen. I would like to start off by asking a question to Con. If you think Golf isn't a sport, then why do sports agents, manufacturers, and sponsors consider golf to be a sport? Second, Golf is now returning to the Summer Olympics in 2016 and if golf wasn't a sport, it wouldn't be in the Olympics. While playing golf, you burn about 800 calories for every nine holes you play.", "title": "Golf is a sport", "pid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.50634765625}, {"text": "Now, what is a sport? and what is golf? Golf, is a \"game in which a player using special clubs attempts to sink a ball with as few strokes as possible into each of the 9 or 18. \" [1]Sport, is a \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure: a particular activity (as an athletic game). \" [2]Looking at the definition of sport, provided by Merrian-Webster, Golf fits the definition of the word \"sport. \" Lastly, Sports require coordinated muscle use, and the golf swing uses at least 17 muscle groups in the coordinated movement of the hands, wrists, arms, abdomen, and legs. [3]Thank you and good luck [1] Merrian-Webster[2] Meriian-Webster[3] British Medical Journal", "title": "Golf is a sport", "pid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.47274780273438}, {"text": "\"truth is golf is a sport and that's final, so don't say how easy golf is without experiencing what I do\" \"suggest that golf doesn't have rigorous activity although I beg to differ.\" These statements sound pretty opinionated to me. Seems like a bit of hypocrisy claiming that I'm using opinions as arguments when Pro is doing the exact same thing.I just assumed if he could do so then my opinions would be just as valid.", "title": "Is golf a sport", "pid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.31117248535156}, {"text": "Hello this is a debate about golf. Some people on DDO think that golf is not a sport.I believe that statement is false. So I will be challenging someone to a debate about this topic.DEBATE FORMAT;3 roundsThe voting period is 6 months.You get 72 hours to argueUp to 8000 characters. The First round shall be only acceptance.The second round, own arguments.and third round, countering the opponent. Good luck and remember, PLEASE HAVE FUN!", "title": "Golf is a sport", "pid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.2163848876953}, {"text": "Kenicks, I thank you personally for the jab to keep me on my toes and the grammar error you so efficiently spotted out. Look,this vendetta you have over golf and the sport is understandable, it does seem silly that while soldiers are risking life,teachers are over worked, and hard working single business owners are struggling to make it threw financially that people are getting paid millions to hit a white ball into a hole, and this can be said about any sport and that is perfectly understandable. However your debate topic was not that golfers get over paid, or that golfers should not make as much money as baseball players, the point you started was that Golf is not a sport when in fact it is. Again your vendetta against the sport is based purely on your opinion. I have personal experience that golf is a game of extreme skill, and mental duress with some physical extortion. The fact is Golf meets the criteria according to every definition of \"sport\" available. Therefore in the minds of myself and the common English language golf is and should be considered a sport.", "title": "Golf is not a sport", "pid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.20362854003906}, {"text": "opinion- a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Saying golf is boring is an opinion and is not representative of the whole population. I happen to find golf very interesting and found myself loving every moment of the masters. Therefore saying golf is boring is not factual, golf is a form of entertainment for me and many others, so golf should be represented as a sport.", "title": "Is golf a sport", "pid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.1783447265625}, {"text": "Being a high school golfer, I get many people telling me that golf is not a sport because there is no physical activity. That is not true, We need to be in shape to walk the course while carrying our bags. Its not easy, especially when you are speed walking for four hours in extreme heat. Us golfers work out and have to watch what we eat. We can not eat unhealthy and go play golf afterwards. The definition of a sport is: an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Which golf does apply. It takes skill, hard work and dedication to be good, just like any other sport. We compete against other schools, we have tournaments, and we work just as long and hard as any other sport on the planet.", "title": "Is golf asport", "pid": "2c13cc23-2019-04-18T16:11:23Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.8424530029297}, {"text": "Jlconservative, for future reference I have no harsh feelings towards your favoring of conserative government; just a light jab to keep you on your toes. Before I tie up my argument i'd like to point out that when you stated, \"...we might as well remove Hunting, Fishing, Krokae, Polo,Archery,Marksmanship, even surfing...\" you made quite a noticeable spelling error. Please clarify with me in your response if you meant to reference the golf-like sport of \"Croquet\", rather than your spelling of \"Krokae\". Yes, I do agree. If, golf is not a sport, then most of these \"sports\" should be removed from the list as well, which I believe they should. These \"sports\", much like golf, require little physical strain, training, or duress. Some of them even lack the concept of competition (fishing, hunting). What burns me up the most about this \"sport\" is how the media overhypes it. You can't turn on the TV without seeing an ad for the PGA Tour, the triumphs and tragedies of Tiger Woods, and the ridiculous amounts of money they earn by knocking a white ball into a hole. I can tolerate (to a point) the \"sports\" you referenced being referred to as \"sports\" mainly because they are avoided by the media, for the purpose that some take these \"sports\" as low thrill, leading to little interest. What sickens me the most is that the media has allowed golf to stand out among these hobbies. And heaven forbid that the \"gentleman's sport\" of golf goes down in history, right in there with baseball, as a great American pastime. Golf is not a sport.", "title": "Golf is not a sport", "pid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.7000274658203}, {"text": "yes but thats why we are making this debate duh", "title": "does golf is a real sport", "pid": "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.58058166503906}, {"text": "GOLF IS NOT A SPORT!!!! They only motion that goes into golf is bending down the get the ball, bending down to put the ball on the ground, and swing. You said that they must walk all day, but they can drive in a GOLF cart.", "title": "Is golf asport", "pid": "2c13cc23-2019-04-18T16:11:23Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.5674591064453}, {"text": "Golf is already officially categorized as a sport!", "title": "does golf is a real sport", "pid": "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.56729125976562}, {"text": "If your comparing Hogwarts (which is some made up thing in Harry Potter) then you shouldn't be in this debate. At least I am getting exercise instead of living in the fantasy world. . No one can fly, broom sticks are NOT magical, so get your head straight. Golf is considered a sport because there is physical exercise and the ability to play. It a hard sport to pick up on and be good at. If you think golf is just chasing after a white ball, and riding in a cart. then you are wrong. Why don't you go and play 18 holes, fast pace walking (NO CART ALLOWED), and then tell me how you feel. You might as well just quit now, because you will lose.", "title": "Is golf asport", "pid": "2c13cc23-2019-04-18T16:11:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.53890991210938}, {"text": "Let me clarify my stance before you accept. I DO believe that golf is a sport in the strictest sense of the word, that is, in the competitive and recreational sense only. The definition of \"sport\": \"A source of diversion; recreation. \" This, I believe is the only way that golf meets the definition of \"sport. \" The word also has another definition: \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure; a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in. \" This is where golf fails to meet the definition of a sport- in the physical sense of the word. Here is the definition of \"physical\" that I will be using in this debate: \"characterized by especially rough and forceful physical activity. \" Golf does not meet this definition. It will be Con's job to argue against this stance. First round is for acceptance. Best of luck to my opponent. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...", "title": "Golf is not a physical sport", "pid": "6b8ef422-2019-04-18T16:45:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.44139099121094}, {"text": "Jlconservative, I see your theory of backing up your belief that golf is a sport with a few snappy dictionary definitions, although, based on your username, I dont see your theory that i'm assuming you follow that \"the free market will prevail\". Mind if i quote your closing statement? \"I think that we can all agree Golf is a game of rules and skill therefore it is a sport.\" Ok, so therefore, all games and activities which have rules and skill are sports. Take darts; this game requires the skill of throwing a pointed arrow up against a board (which i do enjoy very much), while following a set of rules: Dont throw 2 darts at once, only throw three per round, etc. Is this a sport? Take poker; this game requires the skill of, in the words of the great Kenny Rogers, \"knowing when to hold 'em and knowing when to fold 'em\", the witty intellect of knowing how much to bet at what time, keeping a poker face, and knowledge of rules and regulations of the cards and table settings. Is this a sport? Take checkers, take chess; these game also requires high intellect, planning out your next move, how to dethrone your opposition. Rules to follow are also present; where you can or cannot place your playing piece, whose turn goes in who's order, etc. Is this a sport? Take Scrabble; the skill of word-building is present, one must have a knack for piecing the english language together. Rules: they must be legitimate words. Is this a sport? Take Beer Pong; a game for the ages, in which one requires the skill of throwing a tiny plastic ball into a plastic cup filled with booze, the skill of being able to chug down incessant amounts of alcohol, the rules to be abided by of the proper conduct on defense, offense, shooting, rollbacking, recracking, etc. Is this a sport? You see, Jlconservative, these, along with golf, are not classified as sports, but merely hobbies. One thing they do have in common, however, is that they burn the same amount of calories as golf.", "title": "Golf is not a sport", "pid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.41958618164062}, {"text": "Well apparently, anything Pro states is considered fact, regardless of the lack of evidence to support his claims.I too wish to possess such entitlement, but unfortunately I am not capable of making such declarations. I'll leave this up to the voters to decide if they choose to adopt Pro's view of factuality as their own.", "title": "Is golf a sport", "pid": "331dbe36-2019-04-18T14:51:04Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.40184020996094}, {"text": "Just what is a sport? A sport is an activity or in some cases, a lifestyle, that requires a competitive drive, to be in top of your physical form, and to spend ample time studying your sport. Basketball requires months of conditioning, hours studying and practicing plays, and the desire to work with your team to be the on top of all your competition. Football and baseball require the same type of training and necessities. Even individual sports such as Cross-Country running require the desire to win, the countless hours of training to be on top of your physical form, the studying of different terrains. I'll even let NASCAR get in there; it requires the skill of being able to drive at high speeds without crashing, studying different racetracks, and definetely has that competitive edge. But golf? Come on. First of all, the only physical shape you need to be in is the ability to swing a golf club. Thats working a mere 2-3 muscles in your whole body. And you wont need to worry about walking all the way to your next spot after you hit that little white ball, because you've got your fancy golf cart to drive you there! Golf lacks the competitive drive that other sports have. Sure, you're playing against 18+ other people to get the lowest score, but you only have knowledge of one other person's score; your partners. You dont know when to come in the clutch, when to step it up, when to \"getcha head in the game\". Come on, people.", "title": "Golf is not a sport", "pid": "bb04abe6-2019-04-18T19:54:49Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.2222900390625}, {"text": "Either Merritt doesn't want to aruge, or golf really isn't a physical sport.", "title": "Golf is not a physical sport", "pid": "6b8ef422-2019-04-18T16:45:09Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.1212921142578}, {"text": "Lets first address golf being a sport. The main argument against this is always the physical aspect, but u fail to see is the amount of energy exerted doesn't determine whether or not an activity is a sport. Your definitions proved golf is a sport because it is a physical activity, although it is not intense and by saying the definitions are vague, they are still the definitions, therefore your argument that golf is not a sport is pointless. Boxing can never be compared to golf in a mental aspect because in boxing there is no time to think. With your opponent constantly throwing punches at you, you can't think, u just react. In golf u actually have that time to think, if you just hit your ball in the trees, that whole walk u are thinking, \"I just lost the tournament\", or \"I'm such an idiot\". It is absurd to even compare the two, there is no other sport where a mental breakdown, can kill your entire game. You don't have any subs or anyone to relieve you, you have to power through your round. Your mind is pretty much your only asset and with the obstacles surrounding golf, it is constantly being attacked.", "title": "Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill", "pid": "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.10800170898438}, {"text": "People can consider anything but that doesn't make it right. For example, many people consider Great Britain to be a country when it isn't and some people consider the UK to be a country when it's really 3 and a half countries. Just because something is considered a certain way doesn't make it so. Just because it's in the Olympics doesn't mean it's a sport. They have concerts at the Olympics and they aren't sports. They are side attractions and that's all golf will be. Burning 800 calories doesn't make it a sport. You would burn 800 calories for sleeping for 9 days. Does that mean that sleeping for 9 days is a sport because you burn 800 calories? Now that I am done refuting, here is my argument. Please address each of these points in your next argument otherwise these points will all stand. Golf better matches the defintion of a game than a sport. Merriam-Webster defines a game as an 'activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.' Think about John Daly. If it can be done while drinking and smoking, then it is not a sport. Golf is not a sport. It is a skill. It's not a sport if you don't move. It isn't a sport if it can be played by a golfer with a broken leg (Tiger Woods in he 2008 U.S. Open). Mike Freeman, National Columnist at CBSSports.com, stated the following in his July 20, 2009 article titled \"Old-man Watson Proves Golf Is Far from Legitimate Sport,\" published on cbssports.com: \"Golf isn't a sport. The amount of athleticism required to play golf is about the same as it is to be a good bowler. How else do you explain that a man who is nearly 60 [Tom Watson] came extremely close to winning a golf major? This story might be inspirational but for the sport of golf it should also be mortifying. Actually, it's a tad embarrassing. What does it say about a sport when it takes a playoff round to finally beat Watson despite Watson's age? It says golf isn't a sport, that's what it says... There are no 59-year-old running backs, outfielders or point guards because the level of athleticism is so extreme in those sports that if someone Watson's age tried to play them they'd get broken into tiny pieces... The athleticism required to play golf is so minimal, it's negligible.\" Dave Hollander, JD, author and sports columnist, stated the following in his May 12, 2008 article titled \"Is Golf A Sport? Seriously.,\" published on the Huffington Post website: \"Golf does not even rise to the level of 'a good walk spoiled' [quote attributed t Mark Twain] because the primary action of walking is not required. So says PGA Tour v. Martin (2001) where the Supreme Court ordered the PGA to allow disabled golfer Casey Martin to use a golf cart in between holes rather than walk... How can you call something a sport where being ambulatory is not a basic minimum physical requirement? Think of the mythological gods and heroes who personified the highest physical virtues: Hermes (speed), Hercules (strength), Aphrodite (stamina). There's got to be at least some running to call it a sport. I'd prefer some contact, too. But \"no walking required\"? You call that a sport? Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's a sport. Computer programming and brain surgery are difficult. They are not sports. Just because you compete doesn't make it a sport either. Pretzel vendors compete. Art galleries compete. Hell, a spelling bee is a competition. Golf is recreation--something to pass the time. It is no more a sport than marbles or cat's cradle. That takes me to my final point: Golf is boring. You want to get a nap in on Sunday afternoon? Turn on golf. Looking for that TV show to help the kids get some shut-eye? Turn on golf. Do you want to see the least amount of physical prowess combined with the greatest dearth of raw emotion? Turn on golf.", "title": "Golf is a sport", "pid": "edab086a-2019-04-18T17:21:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.91085815429688}, {"text": "Challenge accepted!", "title": "Golf is not a physical sport", "pid": "6b8ef422-2019-04-18T16:45:09Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.7626495361328}, {"text": "i think golf is not a real sport, because you dont make a physical exercise.", "title": "does golf is a real sport", "pid": "f6c3ab3f-2019-04-18T16:53:00Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.76235961914062}, {"text": "In Hogwarts, we don't need to walk. We can fly on brooms, we can teleport. Golf is not a walking sport. When people think about golf, they think about the swing and stance. Walking is NOT a key part in golf.", "title": "Is golf asport", "pid": "2c13cc23-2019-04-18T16:11:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.4312744140625}, {"text": "What you're saying is that just because anyone can do it, it is not a sport. I see people playing basketball make a layup. It is still a sport. Regular people can throw touchdowns in football, it's still a sport. Regular people playing hockey score goals, and it's still a sport. Just because regular people can throw a strike, doesn't mean it's not a sport.", "title": "Bowling is a sport", "pid": "51afcf2b-2019-04-18T11:44:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.0553741455078}, {"text": "I agree with all of your points about how the sport is so precise and you can make lots of money by it too! But I do not agree that bowling is a sport! Bowling is rolling a spherical object/bowling ball down a small lane and try to knock over 10 pins. People or myself, could easily do that with a can of green beans and 10 toilet paper rolls, and you don't see me getting a scholarship or getting lots of money! I think bowing is an excuse for someone to knock something over without getting in trouble. These are my reasons for why I think bowling should not be considered a sport. Eat it, TheOpinionatedOstrich", "title": "Bowling is a sport", "pid": "51afcf2b-2019-04-18T11:44:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.02061462402344}, {"text": "Whoever said golf was a sport? There simply isn't enough athleticism involved in NASCAR for it to be a sport. its not just a matter of strength but one of physical exertion and ability. NASCAR isn't primarily dependent on atheltic ability. Under your interpretation things like darts and shuffleboard become sports. NASCAR isn't an athletic activity. Coordination is a mental ability. There is virtually no atheleticism involved and therefore isn't a sport.", "title": "NASCAR is a sport", "pid": "c788fb1e-2019-04-18T19:50:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.94630432128906}, {"text": "But this is where you're wrong. Bowling can be used with any time of object such as a basketball, football, baseball, or other random objects. Football cannot be played with a bowling ball or baseball or basketball. Baseball cannot be played with a football or a hockey puck. Therefore, bowling should NOT be considered at sport, it should be considered as a hobby or something to do when you are free for the weekend. You don't see people playing lawn darts for scholarships or lots of money! So why should bowling be considered a sport. It should NOT. Are you going to be responsible for the pro-bowling deaths of the world? I would like for you to respond with an apology explaining why my answers were FAR more superior than your shrimpy little explanations. Thanks, TheOpinionatedOstrich", "title": "Bowling is a sport", "pid": "51afcf2b-2019-04-18T11:44:47Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.73941040039062}, {"text": "As someone who earned a high school letter in bowling, and, when he could stomach participating, a 200+ average, I will accept this challenge and be taking the position of the Con - Bowling is not a sport. It is a game (and an excuse to drink and smoke).", "title": "Bowling is a sport", "pid": "51afcf0c-2019-04-18T17:56:46Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.68882751464844}, {"text": "Bowling is a sport because it fits the standard definition of a sport: an activity in which players use physical ability to complete a predetermined task in a manner that intended to be competitive and fun.It is irrelevant that many bowlers are in poor physical shape, although, I'll point out, most skilled bowlers are in fact in excellent physical shape.Bowling requires a measure of strength to throw the ball, no matter how little, it is intended to be competitive, and it is fun for the majority of people that play it.I will note for the record that I myself have a 217 Sport Bowling average, and a 240 regular pattern average. I also lettered in 6 sports and activities in my high school career all four years: American Football, Academic League, Academic Decathlon, Tennis, Soccer, and Water Polo. I know sports pretty well. In any case, I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that by definition, bowling is a sport, as per standard definition. Thank you for participating.", "title": "Bowling is a sport", "pid": "51afcf0c-2019-04-18T17:56:46Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.53280639648438}, {"text": "I extend my arguments.", "title": "Golf is not a physical sport", "pid": "6b8ef422-2019-04-18T16:45:09Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.52552795410156}, {"text": "My Rebut first Another definition of a sport is a game or pastime that requires ANY type of movement That video is faked You do get banned for kicking,hacking and trolling but that doesn't come into is gaming a sport My new point now,Wii,Xbox Kinect and playstation move all get you fit, There is even running in Wii", "title": "Gaming is a sport", "pid": "1d13f979-2019-04-18T16:56:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.32952880859375}, {"text": "I thank you for putting this argument on and look forward to a fantastic debate. As you have not given a definition of \"sport\" I took the liberty of doing it. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. Ping pong involves both physical exertion as you have to move your arms and dive for the ball on occasion. And it certainly requires skill as people who have never played it are usually terrible and the professionals can hit and return the ball at tremendous speeds. In response to your 4 arguments why it is isn't a sport. Firstly the fact that everything is smaller than tennis doesn't make it miniature and if it was I do not see why that would matter. Secondly it does require athleticism as you have to lunge forward if your opponent drop shots you or hits it really hard and you have stand backwards. Thirdly you are right it doesn't require teamwork but neither does tennis, squash, chess, gymnastic or swimming . And it actually can be played in doubles just like tennis, and swimming. And tun response to your last comment it does require strategy as you have to know when to drops shot your opponent or know hen to hit it extremely hard or play the ball into the corners. I look forward to your return argument.", "title": "Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport", "pid": "9aa31b74-2019-04-18T16:01:26Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.3254852294922}, {"text": "Ping Pong is a very physically demanding sport and takes more skill and endurance than golf. Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body where golf on the other hand is a sport that any one can accomplish with some what success. A golf Ball is a stationary object that you have to hit with an oversize club , where as in Ping Pong the ball is always moving.", "title": "Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf", "pid": "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.29983520507812}, {"text": "I'm always up for a challenge, and this is defiantly one. In this particular game, one has to wonder what the meaning of the word \"sport\" is on order to fully understand the context. If you go by the most popular definition, then no it is not a sport. Sport- 1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. Chess is not a sport, but it is an extremely challenging intellectual game. Board game- noun 1. a game, as checkers or chess, requiring the moving of pieces from one section of a board to another. 2. any game played on a board.", "title": "Chess is a sport", "pid": "1979ed8c-2019-04-18T16:51:56Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.29701232910156}, {"text": "My argument still stands", "title": "Gaming is a sport", "pid": "1d13f998-2019-04-18T13:32:52Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.27774047851562}, {"text": "Lets start with the mental aspect, golf is mentally draining. U have to constantly think about what will happen if u hit the ball too far or too short, or too much right or left. U have to be mentally strong to win and u have virtually no help. Only in golf do u have to hit between trees, off of twigs dirt, rocks, etc... U have to be able to create opportunity where it seems to be none. The skill aspect is is easily shown, the amount of skill it takes to battle the natural challenges, put together with bunkers and water hazards and anything else placed to make the course hard. Only in golf do you have to worry about if u hit the ball two yards too far, its in the bunker or water. Golf as a whole is just a demanding sport and requires the most mentally, skill wise and creativity.", "title": "Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill", "pid": "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.22262573242188}, {"text": "Golf is far from the hardest sport. An example of a sport that is harder is wrestling. Wrestling requires a higher level of physical ability than golf, and requires more mental ability as well. In wrestling if you do not pay attention for a second, you could lose the match. In golf if you lose concentration it results in a bad shot, not necessarily losing a tournament. The opposite effect happens on wrestling happens, you could lose instantly. As a wrestler for seven years and a golfer for five, i can promise you i speak the truth. I have won matches and lost matches because of a split second decision, but losing concentration in golf just means a bad shot. Wrestling requires more mental ability by far because you must focus, and react in a very short time.", "title": "Golf is the hardest sport", "pid": "7768222e-2019-04-18T17:59:36Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.19821166992188}, {"text": "By that logic, walking is a sport. It becomes a sport when legally recognized as one. Hence why videogames are sports. They've been legally accepted and recognized as sports.", "title": "Dancing is a sport", "pid": "9be99e1b-2019-04-18T12:10:21Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.19395446777344}, {"text": "Thanks for the prompt response, this is also my first debate. .. on debate. org at least. Mr. Pote is my father. My opponent concedes to my definition of a sport and that \"If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports. \" This is found at the end of my first contention. The most important part of this quote is \"nothing can be more of a sport than a sport\". Since we have already agreed that both golf and Ping Pong are sports, then neither of them can be \"more of a sport\" than the other. The resolution is impossible to affirm. My opponent makes several arguments against my second contention, subpoint c). The first argument is that the majority of golf games are in tournaments, and that \"there can be just as many opponents in a ping pong tournament as a golf tournament\". I will concede this point, that there are EQUAL numbers of opponents in each of the tournaments. The second argument is that ping pong is more difficult to consistently win because each player must play multiple games in order to win. My opponent does not cite a specific number of games. In each golf tournament each player must play 18 holes. If we use the example of 25 competitors per tournament this comes out to 450 holes per tournament. Each hole is a competition that can literally cause a player to lose the entire tournament. The third and final attack on my case is that there are variables that affect ping pong, including \"paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. \" My opponent agrees that there are more variables affecting golf though, so even if there are variables affecting ping pong they do not overpower the variables affecting golf. Thus, golf is more affected by variables and is therefore harder to consistently win at. My opponent asks \" Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? \", and the answer would be yes. The key word in his question is generally, which leaves room for golf to be played on not so nice days and/or with a lot of wind. Ping pong does not have any of these variables ever because it is played indoors or under controlled circumstances. I would like to note that my opponent does not offer any arguments against my first contention, or my subpoints a) or b). I will try to show the importance of these points in my next round. My opponent then goes on to defend his case. He defines Skill as \"competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity\" I accept this definition. He says that \"Skill is not defined by the distance hit but the accuracy of the ball hit\" I do not see accuracy anywhere in the agreed upon definition of skill, but I will argue that golf requires more accuracy than Ping Pong. My opponent fails to recognize that in a larger area there are more points that can be the possible landing spots of a ball. It requires more accuracy to hit a single point 100 yards away than to hit a single point 1 yard away because of all the variables affecting the ball while it is in the air. This can be cross applied to my variables argument in subpoint c) of my contention 2. A golf ball stays in the air for a much longer period of time and therefore variables have more of an effect on its final stopping point. Variables lead to inaccuracy, which means that golf requires more accuracy to compensate for the variables affecting the golf ball. My opponent argues that \"It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course\" but the golf tournament victors do not simply hit a golf ball in any \"general vicinity\". There are many examples of incredible accuracy including the above video. . http://www.youtube.com... My opponent also argues that \"the distance is irrelevant. \", which would mean that golf and ping pong require the same level of accuracy, which would negate the resolution. My opponent agrees that he was comparing two very unlike things and that means that they cannot be accurately used to compare golf and ping pong, so the comparison he made in his first case is moot. My opponent then argues that the force required to hit a ping pong ball across the table is greater than the force required to hit a golf ball across the course. He cites that Force=Mass x Acceleration and plugs in a few numbers to calculate the force for each sport. His math is incorrect. 115 grams x 78 m = 8.970 Newtons is correct. (m is actually the incorrect unit for acceleration, but I assume he means m/s2, that is, meters divided by seconds squared)(1) However, 77 grams x 1.875 m would actually be .144375 Newtons. It's .077 x 1.875. I hope that this was a simple decimal error and not a deliberate attempt to skew facts by not converting the 77 grams that a ping pong ball weighs into .077 kilograms. The weight of a golf ball was properly converted into kilograms. Newtons are \"the force required to accelerate a one kilogram mass at a rate of one meter per second squared\"(2) This means that the force required to send a golf ball the distance that golf balls are sent is much greater than the force required to send a ping pong ball the distance that ping pong balls are sent. This does not take into account constant motion however, but there have been no calculations done as to the force required for constant motion and thus it cannot be proved that constant motion is more stressful than the difference in force between golf and ping pong. My opponent's last argument includes is that \"In every type of action it is harder to hit a moving object\". This is actually false. The direction of movement is what matters. My opponent brings up the example of hunting deer and how it is more difficult \" to kill it as it is running away\", but this is only based on the direction of the movement of the deer. If the deer were running in a straight line in the same direction as the hunter fires the bullet in, the deer will be hit. Likewise, if a ping pong ball is sent towards your paddle, it requires no effort on your part to hit it. It does require some effort to hit a golf ball and some effort is more than no effort. I realise that professional ping pong players do not send the ball directly into their opponent's paddle, but so far I have no reason to think that the effort required to hit a moving ping pong ball a short distance is greater than the effort required to hit a stationary golf ball a very large distance, especially when the golf ball has so many variables affecting it. (1)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)-. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf", "pid": "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.17294311523438}, {"text": "Pro Gaming is a sport....if anyone would like to con this do so as i will show what overwhelming facts i have to win this.", "title": "Pro Gaming a sport", "pid": "181c69f4-2019-04-18T19:26:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.16897583007812}, {"text": "I will take you up on this debate, even though in your framing of the debate, you have given yourself a fairly solid position. Proposing a debate on the tautologous statement that Dictionary.com uses bowling as an example of a sport, so therefore you will argue that bowling is a sport. I accept.", "title": "Bowling is a sport.", "pid": "e4499700-2019-04-18T17:28:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.12376403808594}, {"text": "Negative case: Definition: Sport-noun: 1. an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. (1) Noun: The part of speech that names a person, place, thing, or idea. In sentences, nouns generally function as subjects or as objects. (2) Adjective: A part of speech that describes a noun or pronoun. (3) Contention one: Nouns are not qualitative. Nouns are people, places, things, or ideas. If something falls under the category of being a noun, it is on the same level of being the aforementioned noun as every other noun that is the aforementioned noun. No sport can be \"more of a sport\" than another sport. Arguing that one sport is \"more of a sport\" would be like arguing that one sentence is more of a sentence than another sentence. A sport is the definition of a sport, therefore nothing may be more of a sport than a sport. My opponent agrees that \"Ping Pong is a very physically demanding SPORT. .. \" and \"golf on the other hand is a SPORT\" then they agree that both Ping Pong and golf are sports. If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports. Contention two: Golf is a more difficult sport to consistently win at. a) Sports are \"often of a competitive nature\", which means that the goal of the sport is to win. b) Ping pong directly sets two opponents (or four) against each other, and 'points' are made when an opponent makes an error that include such things as: \"Allowing the ball to bounce on one's own side more than once. Double hitting the ball. Allowing the ball to strike anything other than the racket. Causing the ball not to bounce on the opponent's half. \"(4) The player (or team) that reaches a point threshold first in considered the winner. c) Golf also directly sets opponents against each other, however, the number of opponents is normally much higher than the number of opponents in Ping Pong. (5) Naturally, the more opponents there are, the harder it is for any one player to consistently win. Also, golf courses are not nearly as controlled as Ping Pong tables, and it is therefore easier for variables to randomly cause a loss/victory. Golfers must not only beat their opponents, as is the sole task of Ping Pong players, but they must also beat random variables. Affirmation's case: My opponent did not define any terms, so as of now my definitions are the only definitions usable in this debate. My opponent's first claim is that \"Ping Pong is a very physically demanding sport and takes more skill and endurance than golf. \" Golf takes more skill than Ping Pong because the distance that a golf ball must be hit far exceeds the distance that a Ping Pong ball must be hit, and the golf ball must not only be hit far, it must be hit far with great accuracy. Sending a ball of roughly equal shape and size a farther distance with the same accuracy is inherently more skillful. Golf also requires more endurance than Ping Pong. Golf requires more strength than Ping Pong and therefore requires more endurance on a second by second basis. My opponent's second claim is that \"Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body where golf on the other hand is a sport that any one can accomplish with some what success. This is a comparison of two very unlike things. My opponent compares two requirements of Ping Pong to the level of accomplishment that \"any one\" can succeed in. \"any one\" could also succeed in Ping Pong, for example: I beat my 3 year old next door neighbor because she could not return any of my serves. Golf also requires Hand Eye coordination and golf is more physically stressful to the body. Golf requires more strength because the distance that the golf ball is forced to travel is greater than the distance that the Ping Pong ball is forced to travel, which requires more force. More force expenditure from a body=more physically stressful to the body. My opponent's last claim is that \" A golf Ball is a stationary object that you have to hit with an oversize club , where as in Ping Pong the ball is always moving. \" I concede that a golf ball is stationary until it is hit and that a Ping Pong ball is generally not stationary until it is hit. However, I do not see how hitting a moving object a very short distance is in any way more skillful, physically stressful or \"more of a sport\" (1)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (2)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (3)-. http://dictionary.reference.com... (4)-. http://en.wikipedia.org... (5)-. http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf", "pid": "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.1225128173828}, {"text": "Resolution - Gaming is a sportGaming - The action or practice of playing video games.Sport - An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.StructureFirst round is acceptance and no new arguments in the last roundRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.8. No \"K's\" on the topic.", "title": "Gaming is a sport", "pid": "1d13f9d6-2019-04-18T12:17:58Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.11949157714844}, {"text": "According to your definitions, it is a game is a \"a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.\" However,sports are games to according to this definition. So sports are games to. Chess meets all the criteria of a sport.", "title": "Chess is a sport", "pid": "1979ed8c-2019-04-18T16:51:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.07815551757812}, {"text": "The debate is simply this is gaming a sport Rules 1. Must be your own words 2. Con says gaming isn't a sport 3.", "title": "Gaming is a sport", "pid": "1d13f979-2019-04-18T16:56:19Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.07485961914062}, {"text": "The definition of sport from Merriam Webster's dictionary is to play in a happy and lively way. Well you play video games, and you are playing sometimes intense depending on the game, and gamers are always happy when they play unless it is a game they do not like.", "title": "Are Video Games A Sport", "pid": "185c50aa-2019-04-18T16:11:29Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.0570831298828}, {"text": "(*.*)", "title": "Cross Country is not a sport", "pid": "36e8bbef-2019-04-18T15:34:25Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.05616760253906}, {"text": "There is no way that baseball is a sport. There is a minimal amount of running, those who participate in it are not in top athletic shape as top athletes for other sports are, and it is ridiculously boring with not nearly enough action.", "title": "Baseball Is a Sport", "pid": "4c19a039-2019-04-18T18:38:18Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.04237365722656}, {"text": "Extend all arguements..", "title": "Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport", "pid": "9aa31b74-2019-04-18T16:01:26Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.0364227294922}, {"text": "I dont think it is a sport i know.....For 1 it is on Espn.com.....which is the most known Sport network site in the world...2. the Def. of a sport is an \"activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature such as : Tennis, Racing, Golf, Ect.", "title": "Major League Gaming a sport", "pid": "4b7e0d28-2019-04-18T19:28:51Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 215.00204467773438}, {"text": "Rebuttals. \"It requires skill like other sports.\" and \"clicking a mouse or hitting keys does require skill\" Does walking require skill? No. Why? Because everyone who are able to use theirs feet and legs can walk. The same thing with clicking and hitting keys. Clicking a mouse and hitting keys does not require skill. Anyone who are able to use their hands and fingers can click a mouse and hit keys. For an action to be considered a skill, the person must be able to do it better than other people. skill - the ability to do something well; expertise Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... \"It's competitive like other sports.\" I agree that gaming is sometimes competitive like other sports, but it does not require much physical activity. \"It's like other sports.\" My third argument will answer this statement. \"There are many sponsored Pro gaming teams by gaming hardware companies and game developers.\" You did not cite any sources or examples. \"Playing video games at a Professional level requires skill and team coordination and thus should be considered a sport.\" Playing video games though hardly requires any physical activity which is one of the criteria for it to be considered a sport.", "title": "Pro gaming should be considered a \"sport\"", "pid": "b5ccaffb-2019-04-18T16:45:07Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.99752807617188}, {"text": "I would just like to say that this is my first debate. I am excited to start debating! Lets get started! Dictionary.com defines the word \"sport\" as \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature.\" Based on this definition, I believe that bowling can be considered a sport. First round will be acceptance only. Thank you in advance for accepting!", "title": "Bowling is a sport.", "pid": "e4499700-2019-04-18T17:28:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.98822021484375}, {"text": "Golf challenges not only requires physical fitness but you need to have the strongest mental game to succeed in golf therefor having the hardest sport", "title": "Golf is the hardest sport", "pid": "7768222e-2019-04-18T17:59:36Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.94674682617188}, {"text": "Ping Pong... ...the art of playing tennis on a table except for the rackets aren't as big, the balls are made of different material, the balls aren't yellow, and they are smaller; the players don't stand on the court to play rather they play standing besides the table. The table has a net in the middle of the table and the objective is to pass the little ball over the net, letting the ball hit the other side but not yours. I argue that this is not a sport because 1. everything is miniature 2. does not require much athleticism at all as you do not have to move 3 does not require teamwork 4. does not require strategy All rounds are rebuttals. LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!", "title": "Ping Pong is a Game, not a Sport", "pid": "9aa31b74-2019-04-18T16:01:26Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.93829345703125}, {"text": "A nice short debate about whether or not bowling is a sport or not.First round is acceptance, second round is arguments.Semantics are perfectly acceptable.Good luck!", "title": "Bowling is a sport", "pid": "51afcf0c-2019-04-18T17:56:46Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.9357452392578}, {"text": "Sport NOUN1. an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainmentBased on the Oxford Dictionary definition, I cannot agree that gaming is or should be a sport.Yes, gaming takes skill. Yes, individuals and/or teams can compete against each other.Yes, said competitions are done for entertainment purposes.However, gaming does not require physical exertion. Sitting in your room for 12 hours a day, stuffing Cheetos and Mountain Dew down your gullet while firing up Black Ops 3 may be physically draining, that's not the same as physical exertion.Go ahead, be a professional gamer, compete in tournaments and competitions for cash and prized, but don't call it a sport.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...", "title": "Should we make gaming a sport like: call of duty", "pid": "fdc24f12-2019-04-18T13:53:44Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.9146270751953}, {"text": ":l", "title": "Cross Country is not a sport", "pid": "36e8bbef-2019-04-18T15:34:25Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.86697387695312}, {"text": "Video gaming does not fit the criteria to be an actual sport. The definition of a sport is \"An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment:\" Baseball requires skill to be able to throw with such accuracy. Golf believe it or not takes a whole lot of skill to be able to hit the ball into a hole that\"s four and a half inches big. Video games take sitting in a chair and holding a controller or a mouse to be good at them. That\"s not a lot of skill, right? Firstly there is nothing physically exerting about sitting on a chair in front of a screen for hours on end. Sports require physical activity! If the people playing the video games were actually doing what they did on the screen in real life in some kind of monitor then that could be a sport but they\"re not. Sitting on a couch in a dark room for hours on end with energy drinks piled around is not the same as playing football against a real team that\"s ready to bulldoze your team into the ground just to win. The day that people think that moving your fingers is physically exhausting will be one sad day that I hope will not happen for a long time. Secondly gaming has no strategy. People say that first person shooter games have strategy like flanking the other team or setting up an ambush. But in reality most gamers usually don\"t talk to their pre-assigned team. Nor do they usually work together and even when they do, it\"s only to tell their teammates where the other team is. First person shooter games are all about looking through the scope of your gun a.k.a. the little dot in the middle of your screen that helps you with your aiming. There is no strategy in that. Even sports video games like Madden have no strategy. Do gamers seriously look at replays from their opponent\"s team to narrow down the list of plays that they should use? I doubt it. They probably just choose the coach\"s pick and coast with that. Chess is a mind sport. Video games are not. Where chess uses a complex strategy of moving chess pieces so that they will draw out the king, Street Fighter uses pressing buttons as fast as you can to beat up your opponent. That\"s not much of a mind sport material. Is shooting as many people as possible in a certain time limit a lot like chess? Not really, in fact that sounds more like the front lines of a war. And most first person shooter games have none of the strategy that it takes to actually win a real war. Video games can\"t even qualify to be a mind sport. Mashing the buttons on a controller until you get sore fingers and hand cramps is really not up to par with the strategy it takes to win at chess. Finally video games take no skill. If they actually required skill people would get frustrated with them because they see the game as too hard. That\"s why not everyone wants to play a sport. A sport is difficult because it requires skill. Video games are easy because they require no skill. Of course there\"s always those who talk about how fast gamers reactions are. Technically a gamer\"s reaction is only with the move of a finger on a controller with conveniently placed buttons. Compare that to having to react with your whole body to return a tennis serve that\"s going 140 mph. That is literally trying to lunge your whole body across the tennis court in less than half a second to return the serve. Think of all the goalies in sports like hockey and soccer that have to move their whole body to save a goal. The reaction time of a video gamer, even a professional is laughable compared to real sport reactions. When you really sum it up, video games are just entertainment and hobbies. Video games are not up to par with real sports. They lack the skill and physical exertion required in a sport and therefore do not qualify to be a sport.", "title": "Video gaming is not a sport", "pid": "a5088c85-2019-04-18T13:09:22Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.8389129638672}, {"text": "() () (. .) (__)* -- -- (Bunny)", "title": "Cross Country is not a sport", "pid": "36e8bbef-2019-04-18T15:34:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.8140869140625}, {"text": "My adversary keeps insisting that gaming is a sport, but the day I see watching TV considered a sport will be the day hell freezes over. Playing games has no muscle memory for pushing buttons, why don't we call cooking a sport then. A sport requires physical exertion, there is no exertion in pushing buttons repetitively, Also gaming is not an athletic activity, you don't need to be an athlete to sit in front of a screen. The day they cancel gym class in school and instead introduce gaming 101 as a physical education sport then maybe I will consider it a sport, but until then gamers are not athletes, more like nerds wanting to be recognized as sport athletes. Let's see how fast that that obese gaming champ runs the 40 yard combine, with those nimble muscle mass fingers. By the way maybe we should make texting a sport, some people can really text really quick with those thumbs.", "title": "Gaming is a sport", "pid": "1d13f9d6-2019-04-18T12:17:58Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.79718017578125}, {"text": "This is for anyone gamers to try and prove that video gaming is a sport. Round 1-accepting the challenge Round 2-debating Round 3-debating/rebuttaling", "title": "Video gaming is not a sport", "pid": "a5088c85-2019-04-18T13:09:22Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.7823486328125}, {"text": "the definition of a sport is: \"an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.\"", "title": "should video games be considered a sport", "pid": "d6baaaf1-2019-04-18T12:08:55Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.76058959960938}, {"text": "Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. (https://tinyurl.com...)Gaming: CAN BE DONE BY STEPHEN HAWKING THINKING INTO A COMPUTER! You can hack, troll and efficiently chat while gaming, do any of this at sports and you will get completley demolished.Chess and poker are nothing like videogames.http://www.youtube.com...Observe the video for an example of gaming.", "title": "Gaming is a sport", "pid": "1d13f979-2019-04-18T16:56:19Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.75830078125}, {"text": "Ok if ur going to say that video games is a sport that is sad because they are clearly not", "title": "Are Video Games A Sport", "pid": "185c50aa-2019-04-18T16:11:29Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.7563018798828}, {"text": "You're on, buddy! Sport, as defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary, is a physical activity engaged in for pleasure. Now, baseball requires physical activity, in the pitching, catching, running, batting, throwing, etc., and is engaged in for pleasure, so it is therefore a sport. http://www.merriam-webster.com...", "title": "Baseball Is a Sport", "pid": "4c19a039-2019-04-18T18:38:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.7440643310547}, {"text": "Gaming is not considered a sport because it's no different then watching TV, knitting or reading a book. There is limited finger, hand movement required and there is no physical requirements needed to do the activity. A 400lb person can be a gamer, there is no physical test required to sit and click a mouse while staring at a screen. Most sports require some type of conditioning to get in shape, people train for running marathons, hockey, baseball etc etc. The Olympics which is a competition of sports does not include gaming as a sporting event. Gaming does not require physical exertion required in all sports, it's more of a mental task, such as chess and other strategy games which aren't called sports. Gaming is a popular pastime not an event of competing on a field or court. Gaming is a competition not a sport. The people who game are not athletes, anyone can get into gaming, Drinking unlimited amounts of Redbull and staring at a screen for 12 hours a day does not constitute an athlete. Gaming is just an activity like playing monopoly or checkers. Maybe that is why when they refer to competitive gaming they say ESports and not just sport.", "title": "Gaming is a sport", "pid": "1d13f9d6-2019-04-18T12:17:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.7162628173828}, {"text": "The term gaming is an umbrella term including all the lazy slob versions of gaming too, you can't then say that since a select few forms of gaming have exercise incorporated into their interface that gaming itself is now a sport.Your point about Pewdiepie earning money is irrelevant since a job is not a sport.Your definition of a sport means that to live is a sport since living involves moving cells and biological molecules. (http://tinyurl.com...) You can't dictate a definition in round 3.", "title": "Gaming is a sport", "pid": "1d13f979-2019-04-18T16:56:19Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.70846557617188}, {"text": "I can name so many more sports that are so mentally challenging than golf. First off, is golf even a sport?? Webster's Dictionary defines the noun of \"sport\" as: a : a source of diversion : recreation b : sexual play c (1) : physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) : a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in \"A source of diversion\" - meaning something that diverts your attention, distraction essentially. So by that definition basically anything you do can be defined as a sport. If I paint my toenails as a means to divert my attention from something else... that's a sport. If I masturbate a gibbon as a distraction I'm engaging in a sport. If I paint a gibbon's toenails after having masturbated him... it's a sport. The second definition, \"sexual play\" refers to the use of \"sport\" as a synonym for sex which isn't really widely used anymore and doesn't apply to what we're talking about... although it may apply to the aforementioned gibbon. The third definition \"physical activity engaged in for pleasure\" is likewise vague and could describe anything you physically do for enjoyment, and the fourth definition is essentially the same as well.... like jerking off the gibbon. The Rose Center for Health and Sports Sciences in Denver attempted to argue that golf is indeed a sport because of the level of energy expended and the amount of calories burned (721 per round). Considering that an average golf round is 4 1/2 hours (according to Golf Digest) that translates to 160 calories an hour. By comparison they also found that an hour of billiards burns 216 calories, an hour of fishing 302, and a \"relaxed canoe trip\" 345. An hour of curling? Also 345. When your comparison falls short because more energy is expended during a \"relaxed canoe trip\" you FAIL. The only argument made here is that 18 holes of golf is \"okay exercise.\" By the way, I burned almost half that amount of calories (350) by walking at a relaxed pace on a treadmill for 30 minutes today. Trust me- treadmill walking is most definitely not a sport. http://billytrouson.blogspot.com... Read this article as it rants on how golf is not even a sport. I will now state how boxing is one of the most mentally challenging sports there is. I'm pretty sure we've all had our fair fist fights or wrestling, but how hard was it mentally fighting that person I ask those who are reading this? The average punch for any person depending on weight, body type, etc, can vary from person to person. The average for a average person can come at 14 MPH at one punch. Your brain only has a second to react. I encourage you to watch my video I will post here, as it is quite entertaining. http://www.youtube.com... Already I state various reasons why golf cannot even be compared as a sport & is not mentally challenging.", "title": "Golf is the most mentally challenging sport and requires the most creativity and skill", "pid": "a452c48c-2019-04-18T17:19:37Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.7001495361328}, {"text": "I will debate that gaming is not considered a sport, but a leisure activity", "title": "Gaming is a sport", "pid": "1d13f9d6-2019-04-18T12:17:58Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.69403076171875}, {"text": "Bowling is a sport for many reasons. For one, it is an extremely competitive event, and the are lots and lots of tournaments, and there are also college scholarships and professional events in which people can win and get a lot of money. A lot of people argue that there is very little to no physical activity involved, and when you only bowl recreational that can make total sense. But in competitive bowling, you sometimes bowl 20, 30 and maybe even 40 games in a weekend tournament. Bowling is also an extremely precise sport. There are a lot of variables involved that people who aren't into bowling do not understand. For starters, there are tons of different oil patterns layed out on the lane, that make you attack the lane in a certain way. For example if you are bowling on a short oil pattern, you are able to hook the ball more, so you have to take a wider angle to the pins, and when you are bowling on a longer oil pattern, your ball cannot hook as much, so you have to play a straighter, more direct angle to the pins. There are also several different types of balls that vary in terms of how much it naturally hooks, how wide of an angle it will hook, and several other things that will determine how you will play on an oil pattern. You have to make all these decisions on what angle you should play, where you should stand on the approach, how fast or slow you need to throw it, and that is just scratching the surface. Bowling is definitely a sport because it is a very physical game, and extremely mental game, and a sport that needs to be practiced repetitively to be good at. If people would start bowling more competitively, they would understand this, and it would be a much more popular sport. Bowling is definitely a sport.", "title": "Bowling is a sport", "pid": "51afcf2b-2019-04-18T11:44:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.68508911132812}, {"text": "As the definition for sports goes, with comparing that to video games, there is no physical exertion or activity during video gaming other then the movement of your eyes and the clicking of the mouse with your finger. This definitely does not constitute exercise or any type of sport. A 350 lbs person could be clicking buttons on the keyboard or mouse, but that is not a sport. In sport athletes need to stay in shape for physical endurance not drink Red Bull to stay awake to stare at a screen. Video games being a sport is like calling Chess playing a sport, it's not a sport, it's an activity like air hockey or lawn bowling. In video games players just play competitively against each other on a screen, in a digital world, we are not even talking about the real world. That would be like saying, watching tv competitively is a sport. Lets see how many Netflix shows you can binge watch in 36 hours.", "title": "Competitive video games are a sport.", "pid": "8b8b07a3-2019-04-18T12:08:51Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.6715087890625}, {"text": "Golf is a wayyyyy better sport and dumb old soccer. Golf takes patients and you have to be good at it.....PLUS it makes wayy more money. Also you get alot of free cool things just for playing and get to play on beautiful golf courses on a big field.....who doesnt like that?!...And the BEST part is GOLF CARTS!! :P", "title": "Golf is better than soccer.", "pid": "2e6a0d7e-2019-04-18T19:25:29Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.66224670410156}, {"text": "I accept the challenge, and I do think gaming can be a sport.", "title": "Video gaming is not a sport", "pid": "a5088c85-2019-04-18T13:09:22Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.65440368652344}, {"text": "I'm sorry if I'm coming to the dance a little bit late. I was a bit distracted by ABC's broadcast of the National Tidly-Winks Association Championship Series. And, I don't have a lot of time to make my argument, because NBC is rebroadcasting the Major League Jarts World Series and following that up with the Professional Donkey Kong League \"Princess Cup\" Finals.Bowling is a recreational activity that requires very little modification for paralyzed goats & retarded quadriplegics to participate (gutter \"bumpers\"). Even the esoteric scoring system, which used to set bowling apart somewhat from other drunken activities, is all but gone, and now all the game requires is a beer, a cigarette, the mental capacity to come up with a funny name to put in the \"computer\", the endurance to wear used shoes for 2 hours and the wherewithal to remember which ball is yours and which fingers go in which holes in that ball.If you believe that's a sport, I've got a bridge to sell ya.", "title": "Bowling is a sport", "pid": "51afcf0c-2019-04-18T17:56:46Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.58499145507812}, {"text": "P1.It requires skill like other sports. P2.it's competive like other sports. p3.it's like other sports. conclusion it should be considered a sport", "title": "Pro gaming should be considered a \"sport\"", "pid": "b5ccaffb-2019-04-18T16:45:07Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.54623413085938}, {"text": "AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS Golf takes patience. This statement might be true but that's about the only skill you need. In soccer you have to have GREAT coordination, dribbling skills, shooting skills, blocking skills, guarding skills Makes way more money If you take the average of all the money that golfers make and take the average of all the money that soccer players make.. soccer players will have alot higher average free cool things you get free things from soccer also it is a sport and sports have sponsors which means free things... and plus cool is entirely an opinion so there's no way she can prove this argument. You get to play on beautiful courses on a big field soccer just so happens to also be on a big field. and beautiful yet again is an opinion. Golf Carts what makes golf carts so great. there is no reasoning for her argument.(another opinion) NEW ARGUMENTS Soccer is the biggest sport in the world without a doubt and is the number one sport in just about every country including asia and africa. i have a quot from articlebase.com stating \"there was a global television audience of 49 billion people for the 2002 World Cup alone.\" Soccer is just as hard as golf if not harder. also from articlebase.com stating \"This game can be as frustrating as golf, as physical as football and hockey, as erratic as baseball, and as exciting as basketball.\" and I also had a question for the pro.. do you believe that soccer players or golfers are more respected in the world (note how i said world and not america)", "title": "Golf is better than soccer.", "pid": "2e6a0d7e-2019-04-18T19:25:29Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.5374298095703}, {"text": "Physicality aside - a round of golf will cause more mental fatigue than most (if not all) sports. Reasons include: - the decisions throughout a round of golf are extremely complex - in order to succeed, a high level of CONSTANT focus is required (in most sports - especially team sports - focus is only intermittent) - most sports rely on instinctual reactions/muscle memory as a form of decision-making - golf requires a longer decision-making process which is entirely based on achieving a particular state of mind (confident visualization) - this constant effort to achieve and maintain a state of mind is more mentally demanding - especially with regard to team sports which require only intermittent focus - personal accountability (not a team sport so there is no one sharing the responsibility of succeeding)", "title": "Golf is the most mentally challenging sport", "pid": "953298b6-2019-04-18T16:05:27Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.52317810058594}, {"text": "Core Statement | Chess is a sport and not only a game. 1st Round: Acceptance / something you might want to add before we start 2nd Round: Arguments only 3rd Round: Rebuttals / Optional more Arguments 4th Round: Last rebuttals / No additional argument Some side notes | Like traditional ball-sports there is of course a context in which chess is merely a game. Three 8y-old boys in a backyard are for example perusing football as game and not as a sport. But in a competitive environment chess is as much a sport as such as football, rugby or swimming. Let's go!", "title": "Chess is a sport", "pid": "1979edab-2019-04-18T16:01:11Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.50595092773438}, {"text": "It should I played Team Fortress 2 at a competitive level with a team and it requires alto of hand eye skills and team coordination.", "title": "Pro gaming should be considered a \"sport\"", "pid": "b5ccaffb-2019-04-18T16:45:07Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.5011444091797}, {"text": "I apologize for not supplying a source in my previous argument. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... Now let's look at the game itself. chess1 [ches] Show IPA noun a game played by two persons, each with 16 pieces, on a chessboard. Game 3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators. As you can see, chess is a game, not a sport. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...", "title": "Chess is a sport", "pid": "1979ed8c-2019-04-18T16:51:56Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.48080444335938}, {"text": "In conclusion, my first point.", "title": "Baseball Is a Sport", "pid": "4c19a039-2019-04-18T18:38:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.45437622070312}, {"text": "Bye *Salutes*", "title": "Cross Country is not a sport", "pid": "36e8bbef-2019-04-18T15:34:25Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.44229125976562}, {"text": "Mr. Pote I am an eighth grader from Kansas and have had no formal debate class or any class for that matter so I will try my hardest to be formal and give you an opposing case (this is also my first debate ever) so here we go. My opponent gives the definition of a sport and says that \"If both are sports, and nothing can be more of a sport than a sport, then they are equal sports.\" I agree with this and will not oppose this statement. Contention two:(c) \"Golf also directly sets opponents against each other, however, the number of opponents is normally much higher than the number of opponents in Ping Pong.\" (5) \"Naturally, the more opponents there are, the harder it is for any one player to consistently win.\" Golf is a game played in tournaments most of the time (unless you are playing a single game which is not how the professionals play) Ping Pong is also a sport that is played in tournaments so therefore there can be just as many opponents in a ping pong tournament as a golf tournament. if a tournament in golf consists of 25 people and a ping pong tournament consists of 25 people, ping pong is actually the harder game to consistently when at because there are more chances for mistakes because you will have to play more than just one game but multiple games to be the winner of the tournament. \"Also, golf courses are not nearly as controlled as Ping Pong tables, and it is therefore easier for variables to randomly cause a loss/victory. Golfers must not only beat their opponents, as is the sole task of Ping Pong players, but they must also beat random variables.\" golf does have more variables than ping pong but there are also variables in ping pong such as paddles(size and weight of paddles), balls(weight of balls), table(what tables are made of), ect. Generally is golf not played on nice days with little wind? http://www.golflink.com... http://www.usatt.org... \"Golf takes more skill than Ping Pong because the distance that a golf ball must be hit far exceeds the distance that a Ping Pong ball must be hit, and the golf ball must not only be hit far, it must be hit far with great accuracy. Sending a ball of roughly equal shape and size a farther distance with the same accuracy is inherently more skillful.\" SKILL-competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity Skill is not defined by the distance hit but the accuracy of the ball hit so that is what I would like to zero in on. It takes more skill to hit a ping pong ball in the exact spot that will make your opponent to miss than it does to hit a golf ball in the general vicinity of something on a huge golf course. Lets compare the size of one hole to the size of a tennis table. My opponent states that the balls are of about the same size and equal in shape. That just means that you have to hit a bigger ball (in comparison to the playing space) in a smaller space and more accurate at that. Also you have to hit a heavier ball with a heavier club so the distance is irrelevant. \"This is a comparison of two very unlike things. My opponent compares two requirements of Ping Pong to the level of accomplishment that \"any one\" can succeed in. \"any one\" could also succeed in Ping Pong, for example: I beat my 3 year old next door neighbor because she could not return any of my serves\" I agree these are two different things \"Golf also requires Hand Eye coordination and golf is more physically stressful to the body. Golf requires more strength because the distance that the golf ball is forced to travel is greater than the distance that the Ping Pong ball is forced to travel, which requires more force. More force expenditure from a body=more physically stressful to the body.\" In ping pong you must move around constantly to keep a ball in play in golf on the other hand you move to the tee and swing then jump in the golf court and ride to where the ball is that is not very physical at all. I disagree you must hit a golf ball with equal force as you do a ping pong ball because. F=M*A M=115 grams A=78 m times a equals 8.97 Newton's - this is for a golf ball F=M*A M= 77 grams A=1.875 m times a equals 144.375 - this is for ping pong scientifically by your standards more force is required for ping pong so the statement of mine saying \"Ping Pong takes Hand Eye coordination and is also physically stressful to the body\" is correct! That does not include the constant motion either. http://www.streetdirectory.com... http://www.ajdesigner.com... http://golf.about.com... http://hypertextbook.com... http://www.jayandwanda.com... \"I concede that a golf ball is stationary until it is hit and that a Ping Pong ball is generally not stationary until it is hit. However, I do not see how hitting a moving object a very short distance is in any way more skillful, physically stressful or \"more of a sport\"\" Once again I agree that is no more of a sport than golf but also once again the size of the playing field determines accuracy which is the definition of skill. In every type of action it is harder to hit a moving object. take hunting for example it is easier to hit a deer that does not know you are there to shoot him than it does to kill it as it is running away. http://dictionary.reference.com...", "title": "Ping Pong is More of a Sport than Golf", "pid": "8b62fc9c-2019-04-18T19:14:51Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.4304962158203}, {"text": "Swimming is by definition a sport. Why anyone would think otherwise I have no idea. Swimming is one of the hardest sports out there. I'm interested what my opponent will have to say about it", "title": "Swimming is a sport", "pid": "77158806-2019-04-18T16:25:48Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.40330505371094}, {"text": "It's nice to see you again. I see this time your disagreeing with me but that is ok. As you see my opponent has stated the Definition of Sport. As it being an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature. If you take a good look at the definition it doesn't say requiring skill \"and\" physical prowess, it says \"or\" which automatically means it doesn't have to have physical prowess, and take it from an upcoming pro, Gaming needs skill. Now this takes me to something I just need to throw in just in case my opponent here wants to say Athlete means you need physical contact with as well. we derive the word Athlete from Greek times. The Greek meaning for \"Athlete\" means \"one who competes for a prize\" Now for the staff member saying that he doesn't count Pro gaming as a sport. That is just his opinion on it. He may not consider what he works for a sport, But Mike Sepso the founder of MLG Strictly calls pro gaming a sport...if you don't believe me listen to the Mike Sepso interview with Kiwi box. I think that is a good enough argument. Now i wait.", "title": "Pro Gaming a sport", "pid": "181c69f4-2019-04-18T19:26:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.40310668945312}, {"text": "I said a GAME OR PASTIME that requires any type of movement Your cells moving isn't a game or pastime Gaming is So any kind of gaming IS a sport. Thank you and good night", "title": "Gaming is a sport", "pid": "1d13f979-2019-04-18T16:56:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.38980102539062}, {"text": "My apologies for taking so long to post my first argument. Time has not been on my side lately. Golf, according to sporteology. com, is the 8th most popular sport in the world. [1] It has about 400 million fans across Europe and the USA, which, thankfully, allows a wealth of information to be available about the intricacies and physics of the sport. The “Physicality” of Golf Two of the things that golf fans will run to when trying to defend it as a physical sport are: 1. The fact that players have to tote heavy bags of clubs around all day, and 2. The force of the swing. Let’s start with the bags of clubs. These can get pretty heavy, ranging from 30-50 pounds. [2] So this obviously appears to be a valid argument concerning golf being a physical sport. But is it really as physical as other popular games? CalorieLab. com has a great average calorie calculator that shows you how many calories will be burned for a person of any weight. Let’s look at the calories that will be burned for a 200-pound man in various sports. Basketball game: 637 calories/hour Boxing, sparring: 728 calories/hour Baseball: 364 calories/hour Football: 728 calories/hour Ice hockey: 637 calories/hour Rugby: 819 calories/hour Soccer: 837 calories/hour Now for our oh-so-physical game of golf: 319 calories per hour. Not exactly how you would want to lose weight. In fact, one can burn exactly the same amount of calories just shooting hoops, and MORE by skateboarding and fishing out of a stream with waders! [3] As a matter of fact, one can make a very strong case that NASCAR is much more physical than golf (and a LOT of sports in general). NASCAR drivers experience cockpits that heat up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit while wearing a firesuit, helmet and gloves. This causes them, by sweating, to lose 10 or more pounds in a single race, to say nothing about calories burned! They can experience 2-3 Gs of force in turns on a fast racetrack, roughly the same amount that astronauts experience during space shuttle launches. Forget open-wheel drivers, who sometimes deal with 4-5 Gs! Shaquille O’Neal, an accomplished basketball player, took a few laps in a NASCAR race car and said he can’t remember a game or practice that was more demanding. Show me a golf player who’s bigger and stronger than Shaq! [4] [5] [6] Golf swing Golf fans also seem to cry out that learning to swing a golf club correctly is very difficult. I would agree that it is difficult to master accuracy and precision, but impossible? No, and physical, definitely not. According to golfswing. com , a golfer can put up to 4000 pounds, or 18,000 Newtons, of force on the ball. But according to Patrick Drane of the Baseball Research Center, a baseball player, who, by the way, has to reverse a ball coming at him at about 90 miles per hour, can put up to 8000 pounds of force on the ball, which works out to over 35,000 Newtons! ! [7] [8] Now we can look more in detail at the athletics involved. We can look all day at golf players that are in shape and compare them to other strong and fast athletes of other sports, but let’s go the other way and look at the most out-of-shape players in professional sports. Perhaps the heaviest player in pro golf is Guy Boros. He weighs 265 pounds and is easily recognizable for his large girth. Boros has several parallels in pro baseball, namely Prince Fielder, who weighs 275, and David Ortiz, 250. But their weight doesn’t limit their athletic ability. Prince Fielder has been called the “strongest man in baseball” by his teammates, and David Ortiz bench presses 400 pounds. [9] [10] Now look at American football. Albert Haynesworth was one of the biggest and heaviest football players ever. But the 6’6, 350-pound monster ran a 4.82 second 40 yard dash at the combine (ok, he was 317 at the time) and could bench press 425 pounds. [11] [12] Can Guy Boros do any of this? He is overweight, and there’s no indication he can bench press anything other than his bag of golf clubs. In other sports, however, athletes who have a lot of weight are also some of the strongest players in their respective sport. I might also point out that golf is a preferred sport among senior citizens, unlike baseball, basketball and football. Stewart Cink himself, a six-time PGA winner, has admitted that “physically, golf is not super-demanding. ” [13] So far, I am satisfied that I have shown that golf definitely is not “characterized by especially rough and forceful physical activity. ” I do not deny that golf contains many skills that take a long time to master, but beyond that, it is not a physical sport. Carrying a bag of clubs around is not near as physical as a basketball game, a football game, a baseball game, or even driving through left turns for 3 hours. I look forward to Con’s reply. Sources: [1] . http://www.sporteology.com... [2]. http://www.cleveland.com... [3]. http://calorielab.com... [4]. http://www.streetdirectory.com... [5]. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...[6]http://quest.nasa.gov...[7]http://www.golfswing.com.au...[8]http://www.uml.edu...[9]http://sports.espn.go.com...[10] . http://www.bostonglobe.com...[11] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[12] . http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...[13] . http://bleacherreport.com...", "title": "Golf is not a physical sport", "pid": "6b8ef422-2019-04-18T16:45:09Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.38644409179688}, {"text": "A game or past-time isn't a sport though. I used Oxford Dictionaries as my source, you don't have one.You failed to meet your burden of proof as to prove that gaming is, without a doubt, a sport. All you proved is the physical elements of sport can come in some interactive consoles like Wii but overall, gaming is a simple, lazy, hobby that people do for fun.http://www.youtube.com...", "title": "Gaming is a sport", "pid": "1d13f979-2019-04-18T16:56:19Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.36904907226562}]}
{"idx": 35, "qid": "37", "q_text": "Is cell phone radiation safe?", "qrels": {"9a803cbb-2019-04-18T11:41:24Z-00001-000": 1, "61dc5834-2019-04-18T18:31:58Z-00001-000": 0, "fea6e8c3-2019-04-18T15:16:16Z-00005-000": 0, "f7b7b428-2019-04-18T19:06:58Z-00000-000": 0, "f3661df1-2019-04-18T12:18:12Z-00000-000": 0, "efaa449f-2019-04-18T13:01:53Z-00004-000": 0, "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00010-000": 1, "d1a8761c-2019-04-18T16:16:39Z-00004-000": 0, "160682d8-2019-04-18T18:08:30Z-00003-000": 0, "bbca1502-2019-04-18T12:30:16Z-00003-000": 0, "b784fde6-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00005-000": 0, "b61f3301-2019-04-18T12:40:37Z-00003-000": 0, "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00000-000": 2, "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00004-000": 2, "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00006-000": 0, "a56dda53-2019-04-18T16:24:54Z-00001-000": 0, "a0c60838-2019-04-18T15:04:15Z-00001-000": 0, "d352f90e-2019-04-18T14:45:06Z-00003-000": 0, "b7a04059-2019-04-18T18:01:45Z-00005-000": 0, "b986bc28-2019-04-18T19:08:23Z-00003-000": 0, "174daa99-2019-04-18T19:27:29Z-00001-000": 0, "d67b4952-2019-04-18T14:32:14Z-00002-000": 0, "174daa99-2019-04-18T19:27:29Z-00003-000": 0, "28b1a24d-2019-04-18T19:06:02Z-00002-000": 0, "28b1a24d-2019-04-18T19:06:02Z-00004-000": 0, "2f07394f-2019-04-18T18:03:53Z-00002-000": 0, "9bc8d269-2019-04-17T11:47:38Z-00052-000": 0, "337d5b0b-2019-04-18T17:17:37Z-00002-000": 1, "3fb6ba05-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00005-000": 0, "3ffe6378-2019-04-18T13:42:05Z-00002-000": 0, "5b9326f1-2019-04-18T16:37:15Z-00001-000": 0, "61e00511-2019-04-19T12:47:25Z-00007-000": 0, "6c1e3b72-2019-04-18T16:56:13Z-00000-000": 0, "6c1e3b91-2019-04-18T14:09:14Z-00001-000": 0, "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00013-000": 2, "6d91243d-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00000-000": 0, "26d40999-2019-04-18T18:23:26Z-00002-000": 2, "25646842-2019-04-18T16:10:55Z-00001-000": 0, "9a803cbb-2019-04-18T11:41:24Z-00000-000": 0, "1ecb131d-2019-04-18T18:41:04Z-00002-000": 0, "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00076-000": 0, "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00168-000": 0, "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00047-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Well actually cell phone and other mobile devices emit radiofrequency energy which is a type of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorised as ionizing and non-ionizing. Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer and brain tumours. So actually cell phone radiation can have a lot of unwanted side effects and circumstances if taken in large amounts.", "title": "Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans", "pid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 220.56935119628906}, {"text": "Obviously it's not healthy, but the amount of radiation is so low, there really wont be any side effects.", "title": "Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans", "pid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.79830932617188}, {"text": "Hello, I hope you have fun debating this topic with me!This first round is just about putting your idea forward and stating what you're going to be talking about, so it's basically an introduction. Don't comment any facts or data or your arguments in general. This is just to give an opinion about the topic then in rounds 2, 3 and 4 you can do your reasons.I strongly believe that cell phone radiation is not safe for humans of any age. So cell phone usage should be reduced.I hope you enjoy debating this important topic with me, future opponent, and may the debate begin!", "title": "Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans", "pid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 218.47267150878906}, {"text": "Yes, scientists might say that the radio frequency the user receives is not enough to cause any harm to them, but the average person uses their mobile phone for more than 5 hours per day. Think about how much radio frequency your body absorbs during those 5 hours! But it's not just that, majority of people sleep with their phones on their nightstand, turned on and receiving wifi, those are another minimum 7 hours of your body receiving more radio frequency plus carrying it around in your purse or pocket all day. Basically you could be with your phone for the whole 24 hours of a day. I derived this information from a reliable website. Even if you don't use a cell phone for hours each day, research by leading brain imaging researcher Nora D. Volkow, MD of the National Institutes of Health, revealed that after just 50 minutes of cell phone exposure, the emitted radiation increases brain cell activity in the region closest to the cell phone antenna. From: https://articles.mercola.com... We keep on hearing that cell phone radiation has NOTHING to do with brain tumours, cancers, etc. but people think and say this because the damage from cell phone exposure can take many years to surface. There are rarely any initial symptoms, taking for example smoking causing lung cancer, it takes about three to six months for most lung cancers to double their size. Therefore, it could take several years for a typical lung cancer to reach a size at which it could be diagnosed on a chest X-ray. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.", "title": "Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans", "pid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.11305236816406}, {"text": "Quite the contrary to the suggestion that cell phones can cause harm to the brain via radiation, some research has shown the opposite to be true[[Joachim Schuz et al. \"Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort,\" Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 2006]]. The radiation from mobile phones has been shown to reduce the chances of the user developing glioma and meningioma.", "title": "They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours.", "pid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 217.63143920898438}, {"text": "We all know that radiation is bad for us. Yet we fail to recognise the fact that mobile phones are using radiation in order to make contact with another station. Research has shown [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] that higher frequencies of radiation are given out by a phone the further away it is from a base station; those who live further away from these base station and use mobile phones are more likely to develop cancer. This research shows that cell phones are in fact not safe; they cause a disease which we are still very much in ignorance over how to cure.", "title": "They can cause cancer", "pid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 217.1837158203125}, {"text": "Your whole entire argument on round 3 is based of that article. I'll be telling you why it's not enough information to support your claim. \"I derived this information from a reliable website.\" Just saying that doesn't make it reliable. You have to look on more than one site, and the things you want to look for is \".org\" or \".gov\"! Anyone can just get a \".com\", so you have to be careful. Your site is something I never heard of, and here is another site mentioning the study conducted, and why it isn't conclusive: \"A recent small study in people has shown that cell phones may also have some other effects on the brain, although it\"s not clear if they\"re harmful. The study found that when people had an active cell phone held up to their ear for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone used more glucose than did tissues on the other side of the brain. Glucose is a sugar that normally serves as the brain\"s fuel. Glucose use goes up in certain parts of the brain when it is in use, such as when we are thinking, speaking, or moving. The possible health effect, if any, from the increase in glucose use from cell phone energy is unknown.\" https://www.cancer.org... Notice how it is a \".org\" In one study that followed more than 420,000 cellphone users over a 20-year period, researchers found no evidence of a link between cellphones and brain tumors. Another study found an association between cellphones and cancer of the salivary glands. However, only a small number of study participants had malignant tumors. Another study suggested a possible increased risk of glioma \" a specific type of brain tumor \" for the heaviest cellphone users, but no increase in brain tumor risk overall.\" https://www.mayoclinic.org... It is also a \".org\" Bring me more than an article. When official sites call out that study made and why it's not conclusive, your argument then becomes not conclusive.", "title": "Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans", "pid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.0614013671875}, {"text": "They can cause cancer", "title": "Are cellphones safe", "pid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.70932006835938}, {"text": "Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents.A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world.", "title": "mobile phones are a curse for todays youth", "pid": "e4f285c5-2019-04-18T19:36:52Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.62213134765625}, {"text": "That is like trying to overdose on weed. It will take around 100,000 puffs in less than a half an hour to be dangerous. The amounts are so small, no effects really is going to be done. I recieved this from an official website. \"The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy. It has been suggested that radiofrequency energy might affect glucose metabolism, but two small studies that examined brain glucose metabolism after use of a cell phone showed inconsistent results. Whereas one study showed increased glucose metabolism in the region of the brain close to the antenna compared with tissues on the opposite side of the brain (2), the other study (3) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where the phone was used. Another study investigated whether exposure to the radiofrequency energy from cell phones affects the flow of blood in the brain and found no evidence of such an effect (4). The authors of these studies noted that the results are preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism are still unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (5). Some contributing factors include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status.\" Source: https://www.cancer.gov...", "title": "Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans", "pid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.3704833984375}, {"text": "(OK so now this is the fourth and final debating round, first of all good luck to my opponent, you have done really well and your information has been really well researched. :) Now I will move away from the whole 'cancer and tumour' subheading as we have discussed that a bit too much. In my fourth and last point I will be talking about additional health risks (no, not cancer) cell phone radiation causes the body in both genders. These are sleep quality, baby development and pacemaker functioning. I will start by explaining how it affects sleep quality. It doesn't just harm your eyes from the powerful light phones emit but can also cause insomnia, headaches and confusion. The radiation may also disrupt production of the hormone melatonin, which controls your body\"s internal rhythms. Baby Development: How it is affected. The national public awareness campaign, called the BabySafe Project, is being coordinated by Grassroots Environmental Education and Environmental Health Trust, and is based on independent scientific research linking exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones during pregnancy to neurological and behavioral problems in offspring that resemble Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. Finally, how cell phone radiation affects pacemakers. For those of you who don't know what a pacemaker is, it is a small machine that helps people with heart conditions like irregular heartbeat and heart block. A pacemaker is a device that gives off electrical impulses to your heart. These make your heart beat more regularly. It consists of a battery, a tiny computer and a generator in a thin metal box, along with wires that connect the pacemaker to your heart. Now for a cell phone's radiation to affect this is a gigantic danger to the person. If it makes the pacemaker suddenly stop working by the cell phone's radiation interfering with the pacemaker's signal it can have even fatal results. The ways they interfere are; -Stopping the pacemaker from delivering the stimulating pulses that regulate the heart's rhythm -Causing the pacemaker to deliver the pulses irregularly -Causing the pacemaker to ignore the heart's own rhythm and deliver pulses at a fixed rate Like I said, this can have even FATAL impacts on the user. So now after all the reasons I have given about how cell phone radiation affects humans, you must be on my side by believing that cell phone radiation is not good for humans. My reasons were, that cell phone radiation can have an impact on brain cancer and tumours, it affects baby development, it affects sleep quality and interferes with pacemakers. These are my reasons why I STRONGLY believe that cell phone radiation is a big NO. Thank you :)", "title": "Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans", "pid": "b2b3385f-2019-04-18T11:40:05Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.24964904785156}, {"text": "the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved", "title": "Are cellphones safe", "pid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.09742736816406}, {"text": "It is indeed a true fact that mobiles can cause cancers.When we place a mobile phone near a speaker and make a call to it we may be able to hear a specific sound.This is caused due to radiation..The radiation of the mobiles can pop a popcorn as shown in the following video. Now from this we have understood that mobiles causes radiation.Next is to know whether they are harmful or not to us.We can see that both pop corn and speakers get affected by this radiation.The same effect happens on human beings.The radiation can cause damage to the cells which are nearer to the mobiles while calling.This gets spread from cells to cells and finally will lead to a great effect in humans.If the students are given the permission to own mobiles they would go on calling and calling their friends.What the con said here was there is no problem in using phones.But it indeed has a great effect if children use it for long hours.So they are bad for children........", "title": "children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones.", "pid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.0850067138672}, {"text": "Phones are useful in some cases, but they also can cause cancer from radiation. Here are some links: www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.org... http://www.nydailynews.com... www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/cell_phones._FAQ.html In my first argument, I will only be going over cancer. I apologize for this shortened argument, but I plan to use a different argument in every round. I look forward to your response.", "title": "cell phone use good or bad state your debate", "pid": "b61f3301-2019-04-18T12:40:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.0722198486328}, {"text": "There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people’s brains. Because children’s brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.", "title": "Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates...", "pid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.74166870117188}, {"text": "They actually reduce the chances of brain tumours.", "title": "Are cellphones safe", "pid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.729736328125}, {"text": "\\\\\\Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint/// Most cell phones look like this: http://weblogs.cltv.com... as you can see the phone is made out of metal or shiny plastic, and not lint. \\\\\\I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist./// This is irrelevant. It does exist because to post this argument I had to check on the mobile web to see if you had posted. ===Point=== I. Causes cancer * Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy (radio waves), which is a form of radiation that is under investigation for its effects on the human body (1). * Cellular telephone technology emerged in Europe in the 1980s but did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s. The technology is rapidly changing, so there are few long-term studies of the effects of RF energy from cellular telephones on the human body (1). * The number of cellular telephone users has increased rapidly. As of December 2008, there were more than 270 million subscribers to cellular telephone service in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. This is an increase from 110 million users in 2000 and 208 million users in 2005. Because cell phones are held near the head when in use, therefore, in theory they may cause: Malignant (cancerous) brain tumors such as gliomas Non-cancerous tumors of the brain such as meningiomas Non-cancerous tumors of the nerve connecting the brain to the ear (acoustic neuromas) Non-cancerous tumors of the salivary glands", "title": "Cell Phones Are Dangerous", "pid": "b986bc28-2019-04-18T19:08:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.38369750976562}, {"text": "My opponent provided no other definition of child. Therefore we must conclude that he agrees with me that nobody under 18 should own a cell phone or he has failed in his burden of proof. My opponent clearly did not examine my source. The National Cancer Institute is far more reliable than a YouTube video. However, I shall better explain it here. According to the NCI, cell phones emit \"radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation\" [1] which, yes, may be absorbed by tissues near the ear. Now, ionizing radiation has been shown to increase the risk of cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, like phones, has not. Again, the NCI states that \"radiofrequency energy...does not cause DNA damage in cells\" and has not been found to \"cause cancer in animals\" or enhance cancer-causing effects [1]. Thus we cannot conclude cell phones cause cancer. PRO dropped my communication point; please extend it, and vote CON! [1] http://www.cancer.gov...", "title": "children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones.", "pid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.3549346923828}, {"text": "Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The latest research says that mobile phones do not damage brain cells. Even those earlier studies that suggested there might be a problem thought that people would have to use a cell phone for hours a day for there to be an effect. It is true that there is no 100% proof mobile phones are safe to use, but that is true of any scientific study.", "title": "Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates...", "pid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.2803192138672}, {"text": "Whilst people may be focusing on the negative effects that radiation may or may not have, there is also the aspect of personal safety. People no longer have to find a phone booth to make an emergency call. People no longer have to have change on them to use that phone box. Mobile phones have saved thousands of lives. With most people having one, if you are out shopping and an accident occurs, you know that there will be many people around who within a matter of seconds would be able to call the police, an ambulance or a fireman depending on what the situation was. This is a speedier way to handle an emergency and the time saved will have already saved thousands of lives. This is compared to no recorded deaths for the radiation caused by mobile phones.", "title": "the increase personal safety", "pid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 215.27560424804688}, {"text": "This debate gave me hepatitis", "title": "Cell Phones Are Dangerous", "pid": "b986bc28-2019-04-18T19:08:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.2074432373047}, {"text": "What you are saying about is cell phones related to humans.The topic is whether it is good for children.A child is a human between the stages of birth and puberty.The brain of a child is more prone to the bad effects of radiation.Please look these and confirm that they are very bad for children. http://healthychild.org... http://www.earthcalm.com... http://www.internationalparentingassociation.org... So from these websites we can confirm a fact that they are bad for children.The mobiles not only emit radiation during calls.A large amount of radiation is also emitted during the other activities by these cell phones.Children usually gets addicted to these and so the effect of these mobile phones in the children is maximum. So i urge the voters to be in the pro side in this debate. I am also thanking my con side for having a wonderful debate with me.........", "title": "children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones.", "pid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.78700256347656}, {"text": "the increase personal safety", "title": "Are cellphones safe", "pid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.75662231445312}, {"text": "There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people's brains. Because children's brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.", "title": "Should we use cell phones in school", "pid": "57e140e8-2019-04-18T18:27:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.704833984375}, {"text": "lower sperm count", "title": "Are cellphones safe", "pid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.4837646484375}, {"text": "These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger.", "title": "Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road.", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00066-000", "bm25_score": 214.44161987304688}, {"text": "Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road.", "title": "Banning cell phones in cars", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 214.39503479003906}, {"text": "Even though mobile technology has impacted humans lives in some positive ways, they have also caused many tragic situations that, if humanity wasn't addicted to their phones, could have been avoidable. For instance, texting/email/talking on your phone while driving are a major cause of accidents on the roads. 23% of all car accidents (that's almost 3.1 million crashes) are caused by responding to a text or email while driving, 11 teens are killed each day because of this and almost 3500 people died in 2012 because of distracted driving involving a cell phone or various other mobile technologies. Humanity has put so much faith and life into their phones that the younger you start with a cell phone the worst your addition to it will get, people find themselves checking their phone on average 2 times a minute. Teenagers who have lost or left their phone at home go through withdrawals that have the same stress level as a drug addict who haven't had a fix. Due to peoples addictions to their phones this can also increase risks of cancer from the radiation that the phones let off, always having your phone in your pocket can cause the radiation to be exposed to your leg or private regions for almost 14 hours a day.", "title": "Mobile Tech Hurts more than Helps", "pid": "9e69ad73-2019-04-18T16:17:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.3944854736328}, {"text": "I think we should be worried about the rise in brain cancer and phones the numbers of cancer and phones have been connected even though they'er funding ran out for research does not mean they found a yes or a no they found leads that say a lot though they found a increase in brain tumors after 10+ years of heavy use ( one call per a week) and a lot of people make more than one call a week that is not the even the tip of the iceberg, so tell me what you think.", "title": "Should we be worried about cell phone raiation", "pid": "9a803cbb-2019-04-18T11:41:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.27239990234375}, {"text": "Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger. Further, allowing the use of hands free sets has been shown to reduce fatalities, especially in adverse weather conditions through drivers being able to report their status to their loved ones and the local authorities should things become too difficult for them to handle.[1] [1] Stuckey, Mike. “Hands-free phones are lifesavers, study says.” MSNBC. 13/5/2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24580099/#.TtwFTfJVO90", "title": "Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous", "pid": "3fb6ba05-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 214.2336883544922}, {"text": "People succumb to their mobile and drive whilst on the phone", "title": "Are cellphones safe", "pid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.20242309570312}, {"text": "They make people too reliant on them.", "title": "Are cellphones safe", "pid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.16844177246094}, {"text": "Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impair concentration and reactions in braking tests. For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned. Further, \"Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed.[1] [1] Healy, Melissa. “Hands-Free cellphone use while driving won’t make the roads safe, studies show. Why? Brain Overload.” 30/06/2008 http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-cells30-2008jun30,0,3192911.story", "title": "Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous", "pid": "3fb6ba05-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 214.10687255859375}, {"text": "Cell phones are not dangerous because they are made of lint.. therefore they are of no harm to anyone.. I would also like to point out my opponents cell phone does not exist.", "title": "Cell Phones Are Dangerous", "pid": "b986bc28-2019-04-18T19:08:23Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.0970916748047}, {"text": "Cell phone use within cars is consistently linked with an increased chance of an accident. This is because if a driver only has a single hand on the wheel he lacks the ability to control the car properly. Further, with both hands free and normal sets, the driver has their hearing incredibly impaired by the phone call, reducing their ability to react to certain hazards. Dialling the phone itself results in an even worse outcome as it takes the concentration of the driver away more, by forcing them to look at the phone instead of the road. Estimates indicate that such phone use has led to the death of 2,600 drivers annually in the U.S. Further, having a cell phone in the car and fumbling for it when it rings often causes accidents due to the distraction that it presents, firstly psychologically because of the noise going off, secondly due to the fact that both hands again would not be on the steering wheel to control the car.[1] [1] “Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.” The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008 http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/484395", "title": "Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard", "pid": "3fb6ba05-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.0600128173828}, {"text": "Patrick Dudley, who authored the report with Robert Hahn, American Enterprise Institution-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. \"The Disconnect Between Law and Policy Analysis: A Case Study of Drivers and Cell Phones.\" - \"The public places a greater cost benefit on the convenience of using phones while driving than it does on safety...We're explaining why the case for a ban isn't there, looking at safety versus economic benefits.\"", "title": "Social benefits of cell phones in cars outweigh risks", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00063-000", "bm25_score": 214.0312042236328}, {"text": "\"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue\". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - \"Driving while using cellphones reduces safety margins. Those who assert they know the difference between safe and unsafe use of phones should ask themselves if they are equally confident that the testosterone-loaded 18-year-old rushing from football practice to meet his girlfriend will show the same good judgment when his phone beeps as he approaches in the opposite direction.\"", "title": "Society can't \"trust judgement\" of drivers with cell phones", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00044-000", "bm25_score": 213.94015502929688}, {"text": "\"Cell-phone ban may not reduce car wrecks, study says\". Sacramento Business Journal. September 16, 2004 - James Prieger an economist at the University of California Davis. - \"In our sample, the true effect on accidents is apparently too small to be statistically significant. That is not to say that we think there is no danger at all from using cell phones while driving.\"", "title": "Cell phone bans in cars do not save lives", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00047-000", "bm25_score": 213.8748321533203}, {"text": "Resolved that cell phones are dangerous. Please state points why cell phones are not dangerous.", "title": "Cell Phones Are Dangerous", "pid": "b986bc28-2019-04-18T19:08:23Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.87405395507812}, {"text": "The doses delivered by the scanners are tiny by any standard. Passengers would get the same dose in a few minutes in a high-altitude jet, where most of the earth’s atmosphere is not available to shield people from the cosmic rays.[18]", "title": "Full-body scanners pose less risk than most natural radiation.", "pid": "91a1b22c-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00069-000", "bm25_score": 213.87289428710938}, {"text": "1. Health an safety issues. A child's (say 5-13) brain absorbs 10x more radiation to the brain than adults. An older 'child' (15-18) may be more immune to radiation, but nevertheless, the 'child' will most likely sleep with the phone next to their heads, allowing 10 + or - hours of radiation streaming into the brain and genitalia, which could cause ADHD, autism, damaged reproduction systems, etc. 2. Distraction. You have already gone against this argument but let me expand. If the child took the phone to school, he would be focused on the phone and the new game he got rather than the teacher. His excuse would be \"notes\" or \"the interactive textbook\". And for older children, they would focus on the phones, instead of interacting with others. Most parent won't object to this, in today's culture. Exploring an smart phone not quite exploring technology. The creators of smart phones have made it extremely easy to navigate. Unless they were taking it apart, it's not really exploring technology. I believe there are alternatives to a technological education. One of the safest is a desktop, this also provides the parents with easier ways to make sure the child is doing what heshe is supposed to be doing. I suggest visiting this page for reasons why children should not have smartphones. It was also one of my sources. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "title": "This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones.", "pid": "fa5da6ff-2019-04-18T15:40:19Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.87094116210938}, {"text": "These studies were based on people who had been using phones for 2-5 years, but this does not show the long term effects. Like smoking, using a phone for 2-5 years probably does not significantly increase your risk of cancer. However, after 10 years, I fear the story is different. A minority of small case studies have been conducted in this area, and they to the contrary show that such prolonged use does in fact lead to higher percentage of rare brain tumours. This was also shown to occur on the side of the head on which the participants used to listen to the phone with.", "title": "the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved", "pid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.86080932617188}, {"text": "Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children. Through calls and texts, parents can know where their child is and be reassured that he or she is safe. And in an emergency, young people can summon help quickly.\\ Yes, some children carrying phones have been robbed, but thieves are always after something new. Phones now are both much more widespread and security coded, so there is little point in stealing them. If security is your concern, ban the latest personal MP3 and DVD players instead. Traffic accidents should be blamed on bad safety education rather than phones.\\", "title": "Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children....", "pid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 213.76736450195312}, {"text": "Clearly, using a mobile phone while driving can be dangerous in some circumstances, but equally it is not dangerous in many situations, for example while the car is at a standstill in gridlocked traffic, while waiting at traffic lights, or on a quiet road with good visibility ahead. Other things in the car can be at least as distracting, such as eating, changing tapes, retuning the radio, arguing with your spouse about directions, trying to stop children squabbling, etc. We should not introduce a law that victimises mobile phone users under all conditions, while ignoring many other causes of accidents.", "title": "Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand...", "pid": "e0f3c01e-2019-04-19T12:46:51Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 213.75289916992188}, {"text": "Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. \"Ban Cell Phones In Cars?\". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - \"Cell phone subscribership in the United States has grown dramatically in recent years, from 92,000 people in 1985 to more than 77 million in 1999. A recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey reports that 44 percent of drivers have a cell phone with them while driving, a number that will only increase with the proliferation of phone ownership. We calculated that car accidents associated with phone use account for about 300 deaths per year. While small in comparison to the 41,000 annual deaths from car accidents, these deaths raise the question whether cell phone use while driving is justifiable. We think a ban is unwise at this time because vehicular cell phone use provides substantial personal and societal benefits, but does not contribute to a large number of serious accidents.\"", "title": "Cell phone use in cars does not cause many accidents", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00049-000", "bm25_score": 213.74734497070312}, {"text": "Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. \"Ban Cell Phones In Cars?\". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - \"A prudent regard for safety doesn't imply cell phones should be banned. Americans are willing to tolerate some 41,000 annually deaths from car accidents. If we wish to decisively curtail automobile deaths, the national speed limit should be set at 10 miles per hour and vigorously enforced--yet we're not willing to do that, because that inconvenience outweighs the pleasure and efficiency of being able to get places quickly.\"", "title": "Banning cell phones is not the best way to save lives", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00051-000", "bm25_score": 213.66207885742188}, {"text": "Cell phones cause people to die. Family members lose their own children, own siblings or parents. They have to go their rest of their life with out those people. Yes phones do need to be used during emergencies, that's ok. But it's not right to text and drive or use your phone just to call someone. If you look down for a split second to read a text message, in that split second a little kid can come running out from behind a car because his ball went in the street. Then next thing you know your sitting in a jail cell for murder. And that family lost their precious little five year old. If your texting and looking down and back up every other second and the next second you look up there is a car in a dead stop on the high way and you don't have enough reaction time to swerve, to you re end them and kill a full car that has the whole family in it. You are responsible for all the deaths of the family and your in jail for just that one message. So therefore texting and calling while operating a vehicle Is not right.", "title": "Phones", "pid": "e598cf79-2019-04-18T17:58:13Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.6471405029297}, {"text": "\"Mobile-phone use while driving is common. It is generally agreed that using a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that brings risk of road traffic accidents.\" -->Which if true, is the reason why many states and countries are implementing a hands-free rule when driving. Only blue tooth headsets will be allowed, to allow the driver to pay more attention to driving his/her car. \".A little attention is received recently towards the potential impact of the kind of electromagnetic fields generated by cellular phones on the human brain. Accumulating evidence indicate that microwave radiation from mobile phones may cause serious diseases and disturbances in the physiology. This includes an increased cancer risk and genetic damage, disturbed brain function and other effects. Mobile phone radiation and health concerns have been raised, especially following the enormous increase in the use of wireless mobile telephony throughout the world.\" --> A claim that is not backed up with a link or a reference to verify such a claim. As I have shown in my previous round, studies of up to 10 years show minimal to no cancer effects from cell phone usage. ~Conclusion~ No references and 3 forfeited rounds should obligate a vote for Con. My opponent has failed to show how cell phones are the curse for today's youth, and even dropped one of his points in the beginning.", "title": "mobile phones are a curse for todays youth", "pid": "e4f285c5-2019-04-18T19:36:52Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.6140594482422}, {"text": "This round is ONLY for defence and conclusions.1)\"Are you not aware that many things in are every day life emit radiation?\"How many of those things do you carry with yourself which are constantly in contact with your body, with just some clothe layers in between? X rays are harmful for the body to some extent. Air won't have so much radiation, it will be basically negligible. The sun gives of way more radiation than a phone. Absolutely right. But all of that radiation doest not reach to us. It is a small fraction. And even that fraction does harm like SKIN CANCER if you spend too long in it, GUESS WHAT A DEVICE IN YOUR BREAST POCKET CONSTANTLY EMITING RADIATIONS BECAUSE IT HAS TO CONNECT TO THE TOWERS AND WIFI AND WHAT NOT WILL DO. 2) \"toddlers cannot participate in any official sport till the age of 6\" Physical development doesn't need 'official' games. It requires baby games like tickling the kid, exercising his body, etc. And why did you choose the age 6? Official means - \"having the approval or authorization of an authority or public body\" The games little kids play are not unofficial. They are not offending anyone by playing copycat with their parents. \"Children will also by natural run around and play, the phone will not provide an obstacle for the children if the parents manage it properly\" They won't sit all day with the phones. But something like a smart phone is addictive for a small kid. Who hasn't seen videos on youtube, of adorable babies playing on a smart phone, and when it is taken from them, they start crying. Brain development at childhood is not SUCH a big problem that something like a smart phone is needed to help. Babies' brains used to develop just as well when smart phones were not given away so carelessly to them, assuming that it is 'helping'.3) \"Procrastination can be controlled by the parent and its there responsibility to dictate phone time.\"Easier said than done. When it comes to young teenagers, they can just sneak the smart phone out at night. Even if parents give a fixed time, it's hard for me to believe that more than 10% of those people at an age that humans tend to be the most stubborn at, will follow it. It is also not efficient for the parents to keep a check on the kid ALL the time since they have their own lives to deal with too.4) \"Books can be used yes, but googling can allow you to scroll through the information faster and become more multi perspective.\"Know about the Google effect? The Google effect, also called digital amnesia, is the tendency to forget information that can be found readily online. According to the first study about the Google effect people are less likely to remember certain details they believe will be accessible online.Now this might sound okay-ish to you, but to me, it sounds pretty bad. It is just dampening, or more suitably, destroying the brain's capabilities. Your brain thinks, \"I can look this up the internet without wasting much energy, no need to remember it then\" And, a student should not be dealing with such a problem. It will interfere with performance at school. And even in their future, they might be in one of the vast list of jobs that require you to remember many things, from school, from recent affairs, etc. Looking it up the internet every time would be highly inefficient, the brain has to be trained to do good, not be lazy.5)Writing down to practice and reading from a book is the safest way to study. The apps are designed to help, not to be depended upon. 6)\"So you make the ignorant claim that you threw your phone out because of negative affects and it should be enforced on other individuals?\"Quoting an incident does not mean trying to enforce it on others according to my senses.\"Lets look at any device, a computer\" \" So are you also saying that teenagers shouldn't have computers?\"If you read my rebuttals, you should know I already have talked why computers are better than phones and won't cause as much harm. It is quite easy to understand why spending (wasting) loads of time on a small lightweight phone is far easier than on a relatively large computer.7)\"by the age of 14 most parents have responded that it was okay for there children to watch pornography\"Okay this 'fact' is completely absurd. Everything from 'by the age of 14' to 'MOST parents' sounds a bit too farfetched. The source you mentioned speaks about effects of pornography on a couple. We are most definitely NOT talking about effects of porn on relationships here. Most parents would not want their kids to be watching such a thing, because - They are too naive and can get themselves into trouble. Once you are legal age, then you decide whether you want something like that, or stay a good 100 feet away. But we are talking about people less than 16 y/o.8)\"I will state that a simple flip phone will be bad for business\" The debate topic is whether children should be allowed smart phones or not, NOT how it affects business of the sellers.So, smartphones are bad for kids", "title": "Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o)", "pid": "70b67f9b-2019-04-18T12:33:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.53985595703125}, {"text": "A World Health Organization study released in 2010 showed that using a mobile for more than half-an-hour a day for ten years increased the risk of a brain tumor. Many public health experts believe that, as serious risks to children could be involved, we cannot wait for science to be conclusive. John Wargo, Ph.D., professor of Environmental Risk and Policy at Yale University and lead author of a report released in February 2012 by US health charity EHHI that \"The scientific evidence is sufficiently robust showing that cellular devices pose significant health risks to children and pregnant women.\" (mobilewise.org) Parents should be building relationships with their children and not relying on cell phones to keep tabs on them. There are many instances where a cell phone is useless, dead battery, poor signal or turned off any of these instances would add to a parents worries about their child. Victims of cyber bullying are the targets of lies or vicious gossip or are victims of impersonation. Most parents of victims have no idea it's happening. Victims often don't want to tell their parents about it; they may be embarrassed or, they may not fully realize that they are being bullied. They know that what is happening makes them feel bad but may not connect with the fact that it is wrong and something that they should tell someone about. Cyber bullying can lead to suicide. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), 4,400 children a year commit suicide and for every child who dies there are 100 suicide attempts. Cyber bullying has been linked to suicide, whether the child is the bully or the one being bullied. Children under 16 should not have cell phones but should supervised by adults.", "title": "Ban cell phones for people under 16", "pid": "53fc0783-2019-04-18T16:30:32Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.53472900390625}, {"text": "\"I believe that cell phones should be banned while driving because it poses a threat to other drivers. \" Last time I checked, cell phones do not pose threats to other drivers. They are merely electronic devices. \"Cell phones often cause accidents. \" No, they don't. \"Cell phones are a bigger threat of a distraction then radios are. \" Prove it. Thank you.", "title": "cell phone being banned while driving", "pid": "f7b7b428-2019-04-18T19:06:58Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.5319061279297}, {"text": "Cell Phones are destroying society now a days. When i walk around out in public all i see is kids, adults, etc. with their eyes glued to their phones, today you can't even hold a civil conversation with someone anymore which is dangerous to your health actually Cell Phones can affect your brain activity, for example talking on the phone with another person simply holding a phone to your ear for a extended amount of time increases activity in regions of the brain closest to the antenna. Researchers have found that Glucose metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole increased significantly when the phone was turned on and muted, compared with when it was off (P=0.004). This may be a acute affect but it contributes to reasons of why they are harmful. Social life, i enjoy being able to talk to someone face to face for others it may be different but studies show that social media is causing anxiety Forty-five percent of responders said they feel \"worried or uncomfortable\" when email and Facebook are inaccessible, while 60 percent of respondents stated \"they felt the need to switch off\" their phones and computers to secure a full-fledged break from technology. In other words, it's not being on social networks that makes people anxious. It's being away from them. This can cause to depression and other issues. Which is very harmful for a person.", "title": "Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good", "pid": "8e939d6d-2019-04-18T14:17:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.51174926757812}, {"text": "Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impairs concentration and reactions in braking tests.[8][studies?...] For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned.", "title": "Hands-free cell phones are just as distracting to drivers", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00064-000", "bm25_score": 213.50294494628906}, {"text": "Mobile phones are safe for children to use – we should ignore scare stories in the media. The lates...", "title": "Mobile Phones Used by Children", "pid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.49795532226562}, {"text": "\"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue\". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - \"Previous attempts to stop motorists using hand-held cellphones foundered in the face of arguments that cellphones are just one form of driver distraction. Eating, loading cassettes or CDs into car stereos, dropped cigarettes and even buzzing insects can be equally hazardous. But cellphone use, which contributed to 26 fatal crashes and 411 injury crashes between 2002 and 2007, is something the Government can do something about now.\"", "title": "Cell phones in cars can be regulated, unlike other distractions", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00052-000", "bm25_score": 213.4733123779297}, {"text": "Radiation around nuclear plants is well within safe limits", "title": "Nuclear energy", "pid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00028-000", "bm25_score": 213.46336364746094}, {"text": "Firstly, it has been found by some studies that cell phone use does not have a statistically significant impact in the reduction of car wrecks.[1] This might be plausible because being able to call ahead to work for example and tell them that you will be late reduces the chance that people will speed on the roads.  It also reduces the chance that you will attempt to weave between traffic to increase your speed even where acceleration might not be possible. Further, given the societal benefits from cell phone use in cars, such as better organisation for the entire population, it seems that a ban on the use of cell phones should not be implemented because the cost of doing so is too great when compared to the benefits allowing phones would confer.[2] [1] Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. \"Ban Cell Phones In Cars?\". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414 [2] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. “Ban Cell phones In Cars?” Cato.org 29/12/2000 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4414", "title": "Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard", "pid": "3fb6ba05-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 213.3787078857422}, {"text": "Mobiles may help people to connect the people around the world.But the disadvantages or the defects of these mobile phones are much greater specially for kids.Using mobiles by kids for various purposes such as playing,chatting...etc. can cause much disaster in these children.This is because these mobiles give out radiations which can cause a great damage to our brain.This can even lead to cancers among the children.So to avoid this children should not be given their own phones until they reach a specific age.", "title": "children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones.", "pid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.32275390625}, {"text": "Health Impacts The waste produced by nuclear power emits ionizing radiation, which can cause cancer and other adverse health effects in humans. Exposure to ionizing radiation can occur externally from material released into the air, or internally from the consumption of contaminated food and water. Scientists have concluded that there is no safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation, and that even the smallest dose is capable of contributing to the development of cancer.", "title": "THW ban the civilian use of nulear power", "pid": "e07687cb-2019-04-18T19:49:34Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.29437255859375}, {"text": "Social benefits of cell phones in cars outweigh risks", "title": "Banning cell phones in cars", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 213.28196716308594}, {"text": "\"Hands-free cellphone use while driving won't make the roads safer, studies show. Why? Brain overload.\" LA Times. 30 June 2008 - \"Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed.\"", "title": "Hands-free phones can cause drivers to scramble for head sets", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00065-000", "bm25_score": 213.26620483398438}, {"text": "Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand from the controls, making accidents more likely, while dialling is even worse, as it also requires the user to divert their attention away from the road. Research shows that drivers speaking on a mobile phone have much slower reactions in braking tests than non-users, and are worse even than if they have been drinking.", "title": "Using a mobile phone while driving is very dangerous. Physically holding a handset removes one hand...", "pid": "e0f3c01e-2019-04-19T12:46:51Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.24913024902344}, {"text": "I start my argument. Best of luck to my respectable opponent :)Health HazardsIn today's times, many parents give even their toddlers tablets and smart phones to play with. Now how could these young ones be expected not to be addicted to something even a mature adult gets addicted to? \"An interesting experiment conducted by researchers at the Center for Toddler Development at Barnard College, showed that children between 18 to 36 months old, when given an iPad to play with, were so absorbed, that they did not respond to their names.\" Smart phones cause addiction at any age, the difference lies in the level of maturity of the person. Now the person might become mature at an age earlier than 15, or not become mentally mature even after crossing 20, but the age 15-16 years has been selected by me as an average for when most people tend to become more responsible, i.e. more mature. AGE 0-5 y/o (toddlers and young kids (brain is in developing phase))If smart phones become an addiction at an early age, they do more harm than good. Radiations being at number one. When you are giving that innocent toddler a smart phone, you are actually giving him/her a radiation emitting box of terror. A child's brain tissues are more absorbent than an adult's, meaning that the radiations will do more harm to the young kids. Bone marrow of an average child absorbs 10X more radiation than an adult's. And as anyone would know, radiations come with a chance of causing diseases such as cancer.Brain development is negatively affected.Substituting physical activities and human interactions with smart phones would never do good, according to the common sense of a sane person. The young kids' brains are developing, they will obviously develop better if they face the physical world themselves, by using their own senses.The counter argument for this is that their are educational games for the kids, but the use of mobile devices in particular online games should support imaginative play instead of trying to use them as a way to keep children busy, which is normally the case.AGE 5-10 y/o ( young students)Hindrance to concentration and focus.Most people, CAN NOT multitask. Switching between two tasks is something that takes up a lot of energy, especially when the task which needs to be switched from is an addiction. A simple 'ding' for a message can and does shift focus of people (more of kids than adults). An average kid will, after checking the message, engage in online chats, games, etc. for the so called '5 minutes'(which ultimately turn out to be hours) before they realise they have not completed the project they had to submit the next day or did not study for the big test the next day. Though, the only difference this causes is that now they kill time by chatting and playing the games while stressing about what will happen the next day, instead of killing time with a calm mind which they were doing earlier.Reduced social skills and face to face interaction.Have you ever read about people who do terrible in interviews and get rejected? Funny stories, eh? This happens mainly because of lack of social skills. And guess what smart phones help in building ? THE LACK OF SOCIAL SKILLS.The age 5 - 10 involves stuff like brain development, learning social skills, learning important values amongst family and friends, starting to know which field best matches with your interests (Do you love learning? Are you good in athletics? Are you an all rounder?) And again guess what smart phones do? STOP ALL OF THIS IMPORTANT BUSINESS FROM HAPPENING IN THE NATURAL WAY!AGE 10 - 15 ('Tweenagers') Apart from the health problems and lack in social skills, the problems which prevail more in this age group are things like increased 'FOMO' (Fear of missing out), sleep disruption, procrastination and increased stress (I had a smart phone for a week when I was in my 'tweens' and I gave it back myself, because I noticed, IN JUST ONE WEEK, how my life was being affected in a bad way from it!) The tweenagers have hormonal changes taking place in them. They are naturally more irritable and irrational. Sleeplessness, procrastination, stress DOES NOT help, believe me, rather, these just help to make them more irritable. Moreover, these kids are more likely to be opened up to things they should not be watching or doing (pornography, etc.). They thus waste an important part of life on worthless activities. Now, the reason most kids get smart phones is because of safety reasons, to be always connected with the parents. But a simple cell phone does exactly the same, help ensure safety without a myriad of disadvantages which a smart phone poses. Till the age of 15 though, most people have developed to become responsible and have the important values hard wired within. Now they are ready to handle the otherwise 'poisoned chalice' to gain more advantages than the inevitable disadvantages. *SOURCES WILL BE MENTIONED IN LAST ROUND*", "title": "Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o)", "pid": "70b67f9b-2019-04-18T12:33:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.23118591308594}, {"text": "I believe that cell phones should be banned while driving because it poses a threat to other drivers, Cell phones often cause accidents, and Cell phones are a bigger threat of a distraction then radios are.", "title": "cell phone being banned while driving", "pid": "f7b7b428-2019-04-18T19:06:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.17066955566406}, {"text": "Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous", "title": "legalise the use of cell phones in cars", "pid": "3fb6ba05-2019-04-15T20:24:45Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.1659393310547}, {"text": "you have a cell phone yourself and I don't see you having a seizure every time you check a text or text someone a smiley face geez Antonio .....NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT PHONES ARE HARMFUL thanks for using your imagination Mitch", "title": "Should we use cell phones in school", "pid": "57e140e8-2019-04-18T18:27:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.12928771972656}, {"text": "\"Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue\". The Dominion Post. June 12th, 2008 - In Britain, a study a few years ago, using a driving simulator, found that motorists using hand-held phones took 30 per cent longer to react to hazards than motorists driving under the influence of alcohol and 50 per cent longer than drivers not under the influence.", "title": "Using a cell phone in a car is like drunk driving", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00042-000", "bm25_score": 213.12501525878906}, {"text": "When mobile phones first came out there was a lot of worry about the possible effect on children’s health. We now know there is little risk. But the advice from health experts is still that children should avoid too much use of mobiles. Experts still worry that the use of mobiles could be linked with behavioural problems in children, this can mean problems such as being disruptive or having difficulty sleeping.", "title": "There are possible safety concerns", "pid": "1fdda57c-2019-04-15T20:24:46Z-00021-000", "bm25_score": 213.1208953857422}, {"text": "At the end of the day, it comes down to if you want your kid to have a life outside of the world of a radiating phone that can cause ear cancer :O", "title": "Kids should have cell phones", "pid": "a6bcbd59-2019-04-18T17:58:11Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.0652313232422}, {"text": "Okay, I'm a little confused because your grammar is bad. I believe I understand, and what ask you to cite your sources.", "title": "Should we be worried about cell phone raiation", "pid": "9a803cbb-2019-04-18T11:41:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.04452514648438}, {"text": "Radiation only becomes dangerous when absorbed in large quantities, over short periods of time. According to the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, a dose of 100 rem causes a 1.81% increase in the likelihood of cancer in the next 30 years of a person's life. Astronauts inside a spaceship during any of the last 3 large recorded solar flares would have experienced doses of 38 rem; inside of the storm shelter - 8 rem. On the surface of Mars, which offers much radiation protection due to its atmosphere, the unshielded dose would have been 10 rem, the shielded dose 3 rem. In total, radiation doses of 52.0 and 58.4 rem taken on the missions, are well below dangerous thresholds -- even were they to come all at once. [3]", "title": "Solar radiation is no major danger to Mars astronauts.", "pid": "f932d81d-2019-04-17T11:47:29Z-00051-000", "bm25_score": 213.04217529296875}, {"text": "Fumbling for ringing phone while driving is dangerous", "title": "Banning cell phones in cars", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00038-000", "bm25_score": 213.01986694335938}, {"text": "Radiation only becomes dangerous when absorbed in large quantities, over short periods of time. According to the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, a dose of 100 rem causes a 1.81% increase in the likelihood of cancer in the next 30 years of a person's life. Astronauts inside a spaceship during any of the last 3 large recorded solar flares would have experienced doses of 38 rem; inside of the storm shelter - 8 rem. On the surface of Mars, which offers much radiation protection due to its atmosphere, the unshielded dose would have been 10 rem, the shielded dose 3 rem. In total, radiation doses of 52.0 and 58.4 rem taken on the missions, are well below dangerous thresholds -- even were they to come all at once. [4]", "title": "Solar radiation is no major danger to Mars astronauts.", "pid": "92418529-2019-04-17T11:47:30Z-00019-000", "bm25_score": 213.00552368164062}, {"text": "\"Editorial: Cell phone law worth pain\". Examiner. 3 July 2008 - \"California’s brand-new automotive cell phone restrictions can be seen as a sequel to the earlier cold-turkey readjustment — “Seatbelt Withdrawal Pains II.” In other words, don’t worry. Even cell phone addicts will be able to successfully stop driving with phones held to their ears, and the changeover will be worthwhile.\"", "title": "People will adjust to not using cell phones", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00061-000", "bm25_score": 212.9881134033203}, {"text": "Full-body scanners pose less risk than most natural radiation.", "title": "Full-body scanners at airports", "pid": "91a1b22c-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.9849395751953}, {"text": "As a person that was heavily attached to cell phones and social media and music while my sophomore years, and i have to say that it does way more harm than good. You were dead on with the \"makes people anxious. It's being away from them. This can cause to depression and other issues. Which is very harmful for a person\". The effects are unbelievable, and i am blessed from breaking away from this technology addiction. But it's sad to say that, because i am only one person. Many people of today aren't even close to aware of the addiction that some have to their phones. Having headphones in, checking and posting pics to places like facebook and snapchat and etc, only makes people even less aware. Many have to lose the source of addiction before they are able to be cured.", "title": "Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good", "pid": "8e939d6d-2019-04-18T14:17:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.97984313964844}, {"text": "US National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration: \"Drivers should make every effort to pull over in a safe stopping point before using their telephones. In an emergency, drivers should use their best judgement about whether or not to use their telephones.\"", "title": "Cell phones should only be used while driving in dire situations", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00062-000", "bm25_score": 212.96656799316406}, {"text": "there bad", "title": "Cell Phones", "pid": "b1f4c28-2019-04-18T17:48:48Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.9486083984375}, {"text": "Utah Pscycologists warn against cell phone use while driving. Much in the same way that you put yourself and others at risk by driving drunk, the same occurs when driving while using a cell phone.[5]", "title": "Talking on phone equally impairing as drinking and driving.", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00054-000", "bm25_score": 212.92684936523438}, {"text": "Passengers are less distracting than cell phones", "title": "Banning cell phones in cars", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00027-000", "bm25_score": 212.92642211914062}, {"text": "I don't actually own a cell phone, by the way, so I'm not biased here. Cell phone's batteries last for quite awhile. I doubt most power outages last for over 24 hours. Plus, most phones come with car chargers. Power outages don't really affect phone usage at all. I doubt anyone's afraid to sit in their own house without a phone, but if I were walking down to the corner store after dark to pick up a snack, I'd certainly feel safer with a phone in my hand to dial 911 just in case anything happened. Taking advantage of the systems we have set up for safety and convenience isn't codependence. One could argue that computers are just as bad as cell phones, but here you are online.", "title": "Phone on the wall, it was better for us all!", "pid": "a2dd679-2019-04-18T15:46:53Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.92486572265625}, {"text": "Btw. when i got into this debate i thought i was agreeing with the cell phones doing more harm, Lol considering im new to this but yea i messed up", "title": "Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good", "pid": "8e939d6d-2019-04-18T14:17:04Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.9198455810547}, {"text": "Mobile phones make children less safe. Firstly they are carrying an expensive fashion item that makes them a target for criminals. Millions of people are robbed of cell phones every year, sometimes with violence. Secondly, many children spend so much time talking on the phone or texting that they are less aware of what is going on around them. Each year young people get run over crossing the street because their attention was on their phone conversation, not the traffic.", "title": "Mobile phones keep children safer, as it is easier for parents to stay in touch with their children....", "pid": "522c7c3b-2019-04-19T12:44:42Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 212.91705322265625}, {"text": "Mark Brandly. \"The Case for Nuclear Power\". Virginia Viewpoint. October, 2001: \"Nuclear plants release no gaseous pollutants and the amount of radioactivity is miniscule. Those living near a nuclear plant face less radioactivity per capita than is encountered in many normal daily activities.\"", "title": "Radiation around nuclear plants is well within safe limits", "pid": "8b68ae4-2019-04-17T11:47:47Z-00143-000", "bm25_score": 212.89999389648438}, {"text": "I totally agree that children should not be given phones before the age of 14. Nowadays, there are companies which manufacture specially designed mobile phones targeted exclusively to the young children. There are cell phones for kids with pictures of cartoon characters in order to attract the attention of children and increase sales. Kids are a target audience for even mobile phones in today\"s age! When children by phones then it has adverse effects on them like: 1.Teachers in schools are complaining of increasing indiscipline in class ever since young children started bringing mobile phones to class. According to these teachers students who bring cell phones to school talk on the phone during class and send messages. They do not pay attention and play on their cell phones during class hours. They thus miss out on lessons being taught and fall behind the other students. Their entire concentration is on the mobile phone and not on their studies. The teachers say that students with mobile phones are uninterested in studies during class hours. Their attention is more on the mobile phone rather than on the blackboard. 2.According to some children who have a cell phone, it is a status symbol for them among the others. The more the phone is modern and stylish, the better because it increases prestige among friends and other schoolmates. Mobile phones have a major effect on children and can bring about undesirable changes in their lifestyle. These children become so obsessed with the phone. They are constantly checking messages, and do not do the important things that young children should do. Instead of spending time playing sports in the fresh air and engaging in other creative activities and hobbies, they spend most of their time on the phone. According to scientists, keeping in continuous contact with people can get addictive. 3.Studies recommend that mobile phones should only be given to children above fourteen years of age. Children below the age of fourteen should not be given mobile phones since their brain is too sensitive to withstand the effects of mobile radiation. Since the tissues in the brain and body are still developing, these radiations can cause cell damage. Due to absorption of radiation, children can have severe health issues. Although adults also get affected by these radiations it will be more severe in children because of increased absorption of these radiation levels. Experts also believe there is a link between childhood cancer and mobile phone usage among children. 4.There are high chances of misuse of the mobile phone, by children who have them. Children may send and receive vulgar messages and pictures. Children can have access to adult websites. 5.We live in a dangerous world where so many incidents of crime against children. Parents of children having mobile phones must take some steps to ensure safety of the child. Parents should warn and keep children aware of the various mobile phone crimes. Sometimes it is possible for a child to get stalked by strangers over the phone. Parents of young children who have a mobile phone must get a post-paid connection and check the cell phone bill when it arrives. I now wait for my opponent to respond and contradict my statements with specific reasons.", "title": "Chidren should not be given phones before the age of 14", "pid": "337d5b0b-2019-04-18T17:17:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.88107299804688}, {"text": "Dr. Joseph de Beauchamp. Subject: The Telephone. All Experts.com. 27 Mar. 2005 - \"Banning cell phone use on the road would save lives and the benefits to society would cancel out the costs of such a ban, according to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.", "title": "Savings from a vehicle cell phone ban would offset loses", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00073-000", "bm25_score": 212.87973022460938}, {"text": "I Agreed 100%, a big pet peeve of mine is when i talk with someone with headphones in one ear( i find that rude and annoying) and agreeing with you with you with not being able to \"stand someone that can't go 5 minutes without checking their phones\". I always ask myself if cell phones divide us more rather then unite us, even with social media. And i feel that it does, people of today seem way more divided. I remember trying to get a girls number once and she said \"just contact me on Facebook\" which i feel is pointless, i would rather get a personal experience and get to know you more through talking face to face(what i like more) rather then being on my phone for a extensive period of time. And you are dead on point with phones leading to depression, many can look like social outcast do to the fact that they never get off their phones and meet new people, many might find it easier to make friends without the effort of using their voice, but i prefer to get to know someone by voice not by text. If i wanted to know someone by text, i would read a biography or autobiography book.", "title": "Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good", "pid": "8e939d6d-2019-04-18T14:17:04Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.86888122558594}, {"text": "Throughout history, phones have become so advance that it became a daily part and need in many people lives. But i feel that technology has become so advance that many people feel too attached to them. You can have someone constantly checking their social media page every two minutes, or you can see someone having headphones in, even if someone is currently having a conversation. Many could argue that \"phones are important for emergency purposes, but throughout history, many have been able not survive without phones. With the first portable cellphone not being invented until the year 1973, so you have to ask how people survived without them. And many people are said to not even have a cellphone such as myself. Cited: www.theatlantic.com", "title": "Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good", "pid": "8e939d6d-2019-04-18T14:17:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.85643005371094}, {"text": "PRO claims that I am referring to humans. Is PRO claiming that children are not human? PRO provided no sources for his definition of child. Therefore my definition from Round 1 stands - a young person under age 18. Thus PRO'S argument must include anyone under 18. Again PRO ignored my argument concerning the necessity of phones in a digital age. He concedes them. My opponent provided links but did not support them with arguments. I reaffirm my position. The National Institute of Environmental Health Science states that there is no evidence to link \"cell phone use with any adverse health problems\" [1]. PRO also provided no proof that radiation is emitted by other activities. We can discount this claim. Even if the radiation was harmful, which I have proven there is no evidence to suggest, PRO is still arguing that no one under 18 should have a phone. I thank PRO for a great debate and urge you to vote CON! [1] http://www.niehs.nih.gov...", "title": "children should not be given the permission to own mobile phones.", "pid": "1a94f253-2019-04-18T17:01:12Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.84811401367188}, {"text": "Food Irradiation: exposure of food to electron-stripping energy sources. Due to exposure to irradiation, this issue raises health concerns. One concern that is overlooked, but deserves to be addressed, is the health and safety of workers. Workers in tons of fields do dangerous work, including military, police, fire department, nuclear plant workers, and so on. Irradiating food might raise concerns regarding the health for people who do such a thing for a living. However, while valid concerns, they are not serious. For one thing, what makes working dangerous is if there were to be any accidents or disasters. For irradiation facilities, severe accidents aren't possible. (http://uw-food-irradiation.engr.wisc.edu...) Also, unlike uranium at a nuclear power plant, irradiation facilities give off gamma rays, which can be recycled or regenerated, and they have no radioactive waste, which minimizes exposure to radiation from both workers and the public. So if the facilities are safe, then how could anyone justify an argument claiming irradiated food to be dangerous?", "title": "Food Irradiation", "pid": "a56dda91-2019-04-18T16:23:19Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 212.82540893554688}, {"text": "INTERPHONE [[http://www.newsweek.com/id/80966]] completed a study based upon phone use and brain tumours. They specifically found no correlation between the two phenomenon. Given that hand held phones are held to the ear with the antennae near the brain, surely this is where most of the damage would be caused. Given this, it is high time that we stopped scaring ourselves out of using technology and move forward with it", "title": "the link between phone usage and brain tumours has been disproved", "pid": "9aa2da1b-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 212.8072509765625}, {"text": "Arthur Weinreb. \"Full-body scanners; it's just common sense.\" Canada Free Press. January 8, 2010: \"The CBC warned that the scanners emit radiation. Well, if ways have been found protect x-ray technicians and others who work with radiation, then the screeners can be protected. And there was nothing to suggest that flyers who get scanned are at risk although when the machines are put into use, that will inevitably come up.\"", "title": "Full-body scans pose no more risk than x-ray machines", "pid": "91a1b22c-2019-04-17T11:47:28Z-00071-000", "bm25_score": 212.78921508789062}, {"text": "Banning cell phones is not the best way to save lives", "title": "Banning cell phones in cars", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00030-000", "bm25_score": 212.77838134765625}, {"text": "Cell phone use in cars does not cause many accidents", "title": "Banning cell phones in cars", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00032-000", "bm25_score": 212.7761993408203}, {"text": "driving without due care and attention is a limited charge that can be very difficult to prove. In any case, every time a driver of a moving vehicle uses a mobile phone a potentially dangerous situation is created, as they are much less able to react to events around them. This justifies a specific offence being introduced.", "title": "Careless driving laws are inadequate; cell phone ban is necessary.", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00069-000", "bm25_score": 212.76046752929688}, {"text": "Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. \"Ban Cell Phones In Cars?\". Cato.org. December 29, 2000 - \"Indeed, it is likely that the market will more effectively address cell phone risks than will government intervention. If the cell phone problem becomes serious enough, car insurance companies can classify drivers who use cell phones in higher-risk groups and charge them commensurately higher premiums. Because an insurance company bears the burden of reimbursing injured parties for their losses, a company may decide to charge drivers who use cell phones higher premiums, to compensate for the increased risk that cell phones force the company to assume.\"", "title": "Markets are better at regulating cell phone use in cars", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00078-000", "bm25_score": 212.75369262695312}, {"text": "For example, it is responsible to use a cell phone while the car is at a standstill in gridlocked traffic, while waiting at traffic lights, or on a quiet road with good visibility ahead. The driver should be taught to use cell phones on the road with discretion, rather than rigidly banning their use all together.", "title": "Citizens' judgement should be trusted in using cell phones", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00046-000", "bm25_score": 212.75286865234375}, {"text": "\"Radiations being at number one. When you are giving that innocent toddler a smart phone, you are actually giving him/her a radiation emitting box of terror.\" Are you not aware that many things in are every day life emit radiation? Processed foods, medical xrays and even air. If you walk outside in an urban environment you will soak in just as much radiation as you would being on your phone. Even are sun gives off MORE radiation than a cell phone, this argument is not concerning as the radiation a cell phone emits is VERY little in comparison to objects in our everyday lives. http://www.livescience.com... \"Substituting physical activities and human interactions with smart phones would never do good\" Bear in mind that a toddler is between the age of 0 and 5, and toddlers cannot participate in any official sport till the age of 6. Children will also by natural run around and play, the phone will not provide an obstacle for the children if the parents manage it properly. Children can also learn a lot from IPad applications, I work in the special needs department at my school and we give them phones/ipads to give them educational and brain games. This only helps there social interaction and makes them learn something new. \"Most people, CAN NOT multitask. Switching between two tasks is something that takes up a lot of energy, especially when the task which needs to be switched from is an addiction\" Procrastination can be controlled by the parent and its there responsibility to dictate phone time. Banning phone use will negate a lot of opportunities a lot of present day applications use. Education brain games can be crucial and can help a lot of developing kids, as technology if used properly will make people smarter. Books can be used yes, but googling can allow you to scroll through the information faster and become more multi perspective. http://www.usatoday.com... \"The age 5 - 10 involves stuff like brain development, learning social skills, learning important values amongst family and friends, starting to know which field best matches with your interests \" In the article above the school uses smart phones to help kids with brain stimulating activities, it can also provide benefits to many children as well, as it can help them learn a wider array of topics. Learning important values among family members and friends will come through social interaction. Regardless if you have a phone or not, you will be able to develop social skills as elementary schools will enforce it. Family values do not correlate to whether someone has a phone or not, I actually do not see how you can even find that compatible. Family values should be taught by the family members, and I was able to learn and adapt to my family's expectations even getting a phone at the age of 10. \"AGE 10 - 15 ('Tweenagers') Apart from the health problems and lack in social skills, the problems which prevail more in this age group are things like increased 'FOMO' (Fear of missing out), sleep disruption, procrastination and increased stress (I had a smart phone for a week when I was in my 'tweens' and I gave it back myself, because I noticed, IN JUST ONE WEEK, how my life was being affected in a bad way from it!) \" So you make the ignorant claim that you threw your phone out because of negative affects and it should be enforced on other individuals? Lets look at any device, a computer. If you're on the computer for to long, the same affects will develop. Being on the computer will disrupt sleep, make you procrastinate and increase your stress. However phones have also debunked my stress because I use it to communicate with friends, talk to family members from faraway lands and use it to learn. A flip phone will prevent you from communicating from long distance relatives as well, unless you want to pay extra money. So are you also saying that teenagers shouldn't have computers? \"Moreover, these kids are more likely to be opened up to things they should not be watching or doing (pornography, etc.). \" I don't know what household you grew up in, but by the age of 14 most parents have responded that it was okay for there children to watch pornography, unless you align yourself with a different religion. It actually has a lot of benefits and can help kids understand what it really is. You may be saying it puts them in a different mindset, but they will be brought into the mindset regardless as teenagers and their surroundings, if you truly dislike that mentality, send your kid to a private school. http://sexuality.about.com... In your last argument, I will state that a simple flip phone will be bad for business. No one wants to manufacture them and its a waste of money, all in all a cell phone an is unconstitutional and should be left by the parent. I will conclude there", "title": "Children Should not be Allowed to Own Smart Phones Until They are in Their Mid Teens (15-16 y/o)", "pid": "70b67f9b-2019-04-18T12:33:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.74957275390625}, {"text": "Physically holding a handset removes one hand from the controls, making accidents more likely, while dialling is even worse, as it also requires the user to divert their attention away from the road. Research shows that drivers speaking on a mobile phone have much slower reactions in braking tests than non-users, and are worse even than if they have been drinking.[1] Such cell phone use has led, according to some estimates, to the death of roughly 2,600 drivers annually.[2]", "title": "Cell phone use in cars impairs driving, causes accidents", "pid": "240561fd-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00041-000", "bm25_score": 212.74880981445312}, {"text": "Nuclear reactors are very dangerous and threaten the safety of human lives. Radiation caused by the nuclear reactors there are two. First, direct radiation, which occurs when the radiation emitted by radioactive directly on the skin or the human body. Second, indirect radiation. Indirect radiation is radiation that occurs through contaminated food and drink radioactive substances, either through air, water, or other media. Both the radiation directly or indirectly, will affect organ function through cell-cell formation. Organs that are sensitive to and become damaged. Cells of the body when contaminated radioactive description as follows: the occurrence of ionizing radiation can damage the relationship between the atomic cell with molecules of life, can also alter the condition of the atom itself, alter the original function of the cell or even to kill him. In principle, there are three due to radiation can affect cells. First, the cell will die. Second, there was a doubling of the cell, can eventually lead to cancer, and the third, damage can occur in the egg or testes, which will start the process of deformed babies. In addition, also cause burns and an increasing number of cancer patients (thyroid and cardiovascular) as much as 30-50% in Hryvnia, respiratory inflammation, and inhibition of the respiratory tract, as well as psychological problems and stress resulting from radiation leaks. There are some latent dangers of nuclear power plants that need to be considered. First, human error (human error) which may cause leakage, which is a very broad range of radiation and be fatal for the environment and living things. Secondly, one of which is generated by nuclear power plants, namely Plutonium has a very powerful warhead. Plutonium Because of this, one of the raw material for making nuclear weapons. Hiroshima city destroyed simply by 5 kg of plutonium. Third, the waste generated (Uranium) can affect genetics. In addition, nuclear power emits radioactive radiation that are dangerous to humans. THINK IT OVER! NUCLEAR REACTOR IS HARMFUL!", "title": "Go Nuclear", "pid": "691fdd5d-2019-04-18T17:30:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.74200439453125}]}
{"idx": 36, "qid": "38", "q_text": "Should marijuana be a medical option?", "qrels": {"174daad7-2019-04-18T18:53:23Z-00005-000": 0, "174dab34-2019-04-18T18:36:44Z-00003-000": 0, "174dab53-2019-04-18T18:33:55Z-00007-000": 0, "174dab53-2019-04-18T18:33:55Z-00001-000": 2, "174dab53-2019-04-18T18:33:55Z-00005-000": 2, "2b92e4a-2019-04-18T18:14:31Z-00003-000": 0, "4d3852ce-2019-04-18T18:53:13Z-00009-000": 2, "4e37ca8c-2019-04-18T16:58:48Z-00001-000": 0, "575d733a-2019-04-18T18:04:36Z-00005-000": 0, "a33194f5-2019-04-18T18:29:39Z-00004-000": 2, "174daa99-2019-04-18T19:27:29Z-00001-000": 2, "9ba29485-2019-04-19T12:44:59Z-00035-000": 1, "90bdd4aa-2019-04-18T18:38:03Z-00004-000": 2, "8e815158-2019-04-18T20:01:50Z-00002-000": 2, "86fcaa7d-2019-04-18T16:34:06Z-00004-000": 0, "86da9e6a-2019-04-18T18:38:11Z-00006-000": 0, "82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00003-000": 2, "6c71015a-2019-04-18T16:09:02Z-00000-000": 2, "6c2b1862-2019-04-18T12:29:02Z-00004-000": 0, "6231af08-2019-04-18T14:56:41Z-00004-000": 2, "6231ab47-2019-04-18T16:20:48Z-00007-000": 2, "59d1f83c-2019-04-18T18:35:46Z-00003-000": 2, "aa2a4a53-2019-04-18T15:07:29Z-00003-000": 2, "74e911ad-2019-04-18T15:23:52Z-00001-000": 2, "174daa99-2019-04-18T19:27:29Z-00004-000": 1, "d267a533-2019-04-18T18:20:55Z-00001-000": 1, "e00385e6-2019-04-18T19:34:57Z-00004-000": 1, "2a5141f4-2019-04-18T12:43:08Z-00002-000": 0, "d9e09240-2019-04-18T19:13:37Z-00006-000": 0, "d3fcb9ba-2019-04-18T11:58:12Z-00001-000": 0, "11a47e3f-2019-04-18T16:37:04Z-00005-000": 0, "575d7777-2019-04-18T16:50:05Z-00005-000": 2, "711b9599-2019-04-18T13:44:23Z-00005-000": 2, "174daa99-2019-04-18T19:27:29Z-00000-000": 0, "82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00004-000": 2, "c416873d-2019-04-18T18:19:50Z-00001-000": 0, "fc44452e-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00003-000": 1, "d267a913-2019-04-18T16:17:41Z-00006-000": 0, "d267a913-2019-04-18T16:17:41Z-00007-000": 0, "fc44452e-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00013-000": 2, "d267ad12-2019-04-18T11:40:03Z-00000-000": 2, "d267acf3-2019-04-18T11:47:51Z-00001-000": 2, "e4c4f298-2019-04-18T12:58:30Z-00002-000": 0, "e5ccda7-2019-04-17T11:47:44Z-00094-000": 0, "e8143261-2019-04-18T11:47:16Z-00000-000": 1}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes, because it has been shown to be an effective pain reliever, and is less harmful to the liver than most other prescription painkillers. Especially in the case of those who are terminally ill, the negative effects of the drug are insignificant when compared to the improved quality of life it provides to suffering patients. It can likewise reduce the anxiety of the patient during severe medical procedures, and again this is further the case in terminal patients. Severe anxiety has been shown to have immediate detrimental affects on the body, and can complicate some medical procedures. Having yet another option that a doctor may, but need not necessarily prescribe or utilize, only adds more options for the medical system to serve patients. This is not to say that it necessarily should be available for the general public, but certainly for medical usage, as prescribed by licensed doctors, it has a utility that outweighs any possible negatives in many situations.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267ad12-2019-04-18T11:40:03Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.33834838867188}, {"text": "I challenge my opponent to debate the merits or lack thereof of medical marijuana. I believe that Medical Marijuana should be legal because it has been proven to have medical benefits and relieve pain. It is less addictive and has less severe side effects than many of the opiates currently prescribed for pain. Making medical marijuana illegal could therefore be detrimental to therapy fro people suffering from sever diseases. I await your response and f", "title": "Medical Marijuana should be a legal option", "pid": "82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.2882843017578}, {"text": "I believe that medical marijuana should be legal. Marijuana is customarily known as a street drug, but in recent years it has gained its credibility as a medication to treat chronic pain and sooth side effects of chemotherapy for cancer. Already 72% of doctors support medical marijuana. Cancer patients had positive feedback when they tried medical marijuana. They said things like \"It made me feel like I had an appetite for the first time in probably six months\". For the people who benefit from medical marijuana should not be criminalized. Current remedies for pain like Vicodin and Percocet are far more addictive and dangerous. In states where medical marijuana is legalized, doctors have seen a decline in opioid abuse. Making sure people actually need marijuana for medical use and are using it solely for that is where there is a valuable argument. Regulations and government involvement would need to be necessary as with any drug. This also opens up a new industry that could be profitable. There are many ways to consume marijuana than to just smoke it, which is safer to for your lungs. It is unfair to compare the legalization of the medical and recreational use of marijuana, it is a different debate as a whole. The legalization of medical marijuana could steer away from the abuse of opioids and give patients a new way of treatment that has been proven to be effective. It could also change the perception of the drug from a street drug to a medication.", "title": "Should Medical Marijuana Be Legal", "pid": "d7c339a6-2019-04-18T11:47:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.71405029296875}, {"text": "Marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. 15 of 50 US States and DC have legalized the medical use of marijuana. It can be a safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, glaucoma, epilepsy, and other conditions. Scientific studies show that for many years marijuana has pointed to medicinal help. Six of these studies sponsored by U.S. states in the 1970s and 1980s, demonstrate that smoking marijuana reduces nausea and reduces pain for many patients, especially those facing cancer chemotherapy and glaucoma. Plus thousands of patients and their families and doctors have experienced and witnessed the medical benefits of marijuana. They have testified at public hearings and appeared in the media with these findings. Too many people are suffering from these diseases and if marijuana can help them, we should legalize it so they can get better.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized", "pid": "4d3852ce-2019-04-18T18:53:13Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 216.6114959716797}, {"text": "Medical Marijuana has been clearly demonstrated by many studies to be a safe non-toxic medicine, useful in the treatment of some of our most disabling medical conditions including multiple AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "174daa99-2019-04-18T19:27:29Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.5975799560547}, {"text": "I challenge jamccartney to a debate about medical marijuana. I will be arguing that marijuana should be legal for medical purposes. My opponent will be argue that marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes. My opponent and I already agree on the issue of recreational marijuana. Before we begin, I would like to state the debate structure:Round One: Acceptance and stating your stanceRound Two: Main ArgumentsRound Three: Rebuttals and ConclusionBoth jamccartney and I share nearly identical views and I will therefore not list the debate rules. They are obvious to both of us.", "title": "Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes.", "pid": "fa1a69b6-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.5908203125}, {"text": "Medical marijuana hasn't been proven to help any otherwise treatable disease, and is pointless really. Marijuana also disconnects you from the outside world and is a depressant (Like alcohol) which makes you relaxed and not wanting to do anything, not wanting to get the treatment either. The proper treatment.", "title": "Medical marijuana should be legal", "pid": "c416877b-2019-04-18T15:36:17Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.56544494628906}, {"text": "Should medical marijuana be legal or no?", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267ad12-2019-04-18T11:40:03Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.51914978027344}, {"text": "Although marijuana has been proven as a alternative to treating cancer, it is still a dangerous drug. There are other medical options that have the same effect on cancer patients without being as dangerous. Different medicines can diminish pain and cause relief without having as dangerous side effects.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a8d5-2019-04-18T16:58:41Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.4922332763672}, {"text": "Although marijuana has been proven as a alternative to treating cancer, it is still a dangerous drug. There are other medical options that have the same effect on cancer patients without being as dangerous. Different medicines can diminish pain and cause relief without having as dangerous side effects.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a8f4-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.4922332763672}, {"text": "Medical Marijuana is Marijuana and would therefore be considered as a potential drug which can not only cause addiction but also create unwanted side effects. As my opponent previously stated, Medical Marijuana can be used as a treatment for cancer and neurological disorders. However, the way in which Marijuana actually treats these symptoms should be considered. Marijuana, according to most websites, stimulate and then muffle the nervous system in such a way that the human body is no longer concerned with the disorder but rather feel the need for more Marijuana. This its self is addiction. Therefore, we can conclude that although Marijuana can treat symptoms, it does so in a dangerous way which creates more side-effects than results.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a533-2019-04-18T18:20:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.41140747070312}, {"text": "Pro will argue that Marijuana has several useful medical purposes for treating diseases such as Glaucoma and HIV/AIDS. Con will argue that marijuana has no such uses. Medical Marijuana: Medical cannabis (also referred to as medical marijuana) is the use of cannabis and its constituent cannabinoids such as THC as a physician-recommended form of medicine or herbal therapy. . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "174daad7-2019-04-18T18:53:23Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.40721130371094}, {"text": "I will be taking the stance of 'Marijuana should not be legal for medical purposes' while he shall be taking the stance of 'Marijuana should be legal for medial purposes. As he has already stated the rules and procedures, I see no reason to say any more in round 1. I patiently await his first argument in round 2.", "title": "Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes.", "pid": "fa1a69b6-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.35531616210938}, {"text": "I accept your argument. This should be interesting.", "title": "Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes", "pid": "9821cb64-2019-04-18T15:54:34Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.3538055419922}, {"text": "It has been proven that medical marijuana can be safe and effective for treating cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, epilepsy, glaucoma, and other conditions as well. Marijuana is actually less toxic then many of the medicines and drugs that doctors prescribe today to relieve the same symptoms. The tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in this plant, along with many other cannabinoids, cause relief unlike any other drug.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a8d5-2019-04-18T16:58:41Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.3227081298828}, {"text": "It has been proven that medical marijuana can be safe and effective for treating cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, epilepsy, glaucoma, and other conditions as well. Marijuana is actually less toxic then many of the medicines and drugs that doctors prescribe today to relieve the same symptoms. The tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in this plant, along with many other cannabinoids, cause relief unlike any other drug.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a8f4-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 216.3227081298828}, {"text": "About this debate:Welcome to my debate. As you can see you and I will be debating whether the legalization of marijuana should be used for medical purposes (only). Not only should marijuana be used to cure cancer, but also various other diseases.Rules: 1. No profanities2. No plagiarism3. Forfeiture causes disqualifications.Rounds: Round #1: Acceptance from opponentRound #2: ArgumentsRound #3: Rebuttals Round #4: Conclusion/Summary", "title": "Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes", "pid": "9821cb64-2019-04-18T15:54:34Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.29965209960938}, {"text": "The fact that there are alternatives to medical marijuana for many treatments is not necessarily an argument against medical marijuana. It is always important to have many alternatives, largely due to differing personal preferences, beliefs, and physical reactions to different drugs.[15]", "title": "Marijuana is a good alternative medicine to suit individual needs", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00118-000", "bm25_score": 216.26275634765625}, {"text": "Marijuana is the best drug to be put into medical use since it was ranked lowest for withdrawal symptoms, tolerance and dependence (addiction) potential. It ranked close to caffeine in the degree of reinforcement and higher than caffeine and nicotine only in the degree of intoxication.", "title": "Due to low addiction rates, marijuana is good for medical use.", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00149-000", "bm25_score": 216.23831176757812}, {"text": "Medical Marijuana is the future of medicine. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance meaning it has the greatest potential for abuse with no medical value, according to the FDA. While the FDA doesn\"t consider marijuana a medicine, 76 percent of doctors approve of medical marijuana use to help diagnose over 25 different conditions. Medical Marijuana is already legalized in 24 out of the 50 states in the US and the number is currently growing. For example, in Colorado, a state where Medical Marijuana is legalized, 1 in every 30 people are Medical Marijuana patients meaning they have a Medical Marijuana card allowing them to purchase their medicine from dispensaries. These are just a few numbers to prove the increase of Medical Marijuana use in America. Almost thirty percent of people suffer from pain or pain related symptoms every day. Physicians that can prescribe medical marijuana have found that they have prescribed about 1,826 fewer doses of drugs, such as opioids. As this topic grows and affects American culture, we have to decide what the right choice will be to help cure our loved ones. Medical Marijuana is also a short-term cure for cancer and is used for patients with autism. The family\"s that have to go through these problems would do and try anything to help the pain and suffering of their loved ones. Doctor\"s and families rely on Medical Marijuana to help alleviate pain, so why does the FDA want to stop the sales and distribution of Medical Marijuana?", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267acf3-2019-04-18T11:47:51Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.22296142578125}, {"text": "I completely disagree with making the decision to make marijuana a legal medication. Yes, it does have many benefits as a medical drug. However this can also be labeled as a mind controlling substance. There are different types of cannabis and not all strains are actually used for medical purposes. I believe marijuana should remain under strict watch among doctors, distributors and health professionals. I must also add the criminal and violence aspect of this as well. U.S citizens aren't out causing voilence over tylenol or aspirins. But there are infact doing so over this cannabis, as it is my literal definition of a \"drug\". I would not stand firm and call this a \"medicine\" or \"medication\".", "title": "Medical Cannabis", "pid": "e1d1a698-2019-04-18T15:18:36Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.17315673828125}, {"text": "Forgive me for posting this argument close to the deadline. The internet at the motel is absolutely horrible and I have limited time to be online anyway. I will have to make this argument shorter than I wished it to the be and I would appreciate the opportunity to expand on my points later. Main ArgumentI do not believe you have seen CNN's documentaries Weed and Weed 2: Cannabis Madness. I am going to recap the basics for you: Cannabis can be bred in order to have certain traits. Marijuana has two main components: THC and CBD. CBD (cannabidiol) will reduce brain activity and will lower the occurances of seizures. Weed as a drug will be destruction. Weed as a medicine can be the last hope. There is the risk of addiction, of course, but when taken in moderation, it can be beneficial. You cannot deny this. Also, in the second CNN documentary, they told how cannabis can be more beneficial than other epilepsy medicines. This cannot be denied. I have a challenge for you: Deny it. Due to limited time to be online, I could not cite the sources in the proper format. Please forgive me. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Marijuana should be legal for medical purposes.", "pid": "fa1a69b6-2019-04-18T16:31:37Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.1589813232422}, {"text": "Marijuana is a major concern to the United States. Marijuana, if allowed into the country, would spread like wildfire throughout the US. Recovering addicts would have relapses, more addicts would be created, and rehab facilities may be forced to stop taking in marijuana addicts. Also, Marijuana is unnecessary. Other, less powerful medication can accomplish the same thing, though to a lesser degree, without the major negative repurcussions of Marijuana. Marijuana must not come back to the US.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a5af-2019-04-18T18:07:23Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 216.12664794921875}, {"text": "I maintain my position", "title": "Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes", "pid": "9821cb64-2019-04-18T15:54:34Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.1247100830078}, {"text": "It has been proven that marijuana can be used for medicle purposes. Well if it can be used to benifit a persons health then they should be able to use. Now it's not like somebody says hey lets go to the doctor and get some drugs. No marijuana can just be given away. The doctor has to have a valid reason as to why they need to use marijuana. And, the doctor has to notify his advisors of his actions. Therefore marijuana should be used for medical uses.", "title": "Medicle Marijuana", "pid": "c6aab7ec-2019-04-18T19:30:19Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.12017822265625}, {"text": "Philip Denney, MD, co-founder of a medical cannabis evaluation practice, stated the following in his Nov. 17, 2005, testimony to the Arkansas legislature in support of House Bill 1303: \"An Act to Permit the Medical Use of Marijuana\": \"I have found in my study of these patients that cannabis is really a safe, effective and non-toxic alternative to many standard medications.\"", "title": "Marijuana is a safer alternative to many medications", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00116-000", "bm25_score": 216.1003875732422}, {"text": "I concur to the terms.", "title": "Medical marijuana should be legal", "pid": "c416873d-2019-04-18T18:19:50Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.06089782714844}, {"text": "I accept the challenge! If you allow sick people marijuana as medicine, they may become addicts once they are better, and begin to use it illegally. Marijuana is not medicine, it is a recreational drug, and should remain illegal.", "title": "Marijuana Medicine", "pid": "89fd39b5-2019-04-18T18:04:03Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.0192108154297}, {"text": "Ok, here are my reasons: A. Marijuana contains 60-70% more carcinogens than tobacco has. It increases the risk of cancer in people drastically. B. Marijuana is a known hallucinogen. It causes people to believe that they are actually in a different situation. However, unlike some drugs that can cause hallucinations (such as Kedamine, which is used in chronic pain sufferers to induce a coma, essentially rebooting the brain to relieve the pain), Marijuana's medical use is on an outpatient basis. Despite the warnings that show up for the FDA, people use the drug while driving or doing other things in life. This would mean that people are hallucinating while driving a car. I don't know about you, but I don't want to have a second go at avoiding a person who slams on reverse on a 40 MPH road (it turned out he was high on, guess what... Marijuana). There are other reasons, but I want this to be concise, since I am moving at the time.", "title": "Medical Marijuana should be legal.", "pid": "94bd510e-2019-04-18T19:53:10Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.00241088867188}, {"text": "There are 2 strong arguments that throughly justify the legalization of medical marijuana: Support 1: Restricting the use of medical marijuana violates the needs of individuals. People who need this as medicine are barred from their treatment. Support 2: Medical marijuana has extensively proven in a myriad of cases to be a treatment including for cancer and neuro-disorders. (See www.medicalmarijuana.net/uses-and-treatments/cancer-and-chemotherapy/). Giving legal access would be the same as allowing a cancer patient to be given treatment. Why would one deny treatment to another? Sources: www.medicalmarijuana.net/uses-and-treatments/cancer-and-chemotherapy/ norml.org/component/zoo/.../recent-research-on-medical-marijuana", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a533-2019-04-18T18:20:55Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.99807739257812}, {"text": "Gabriel Nahas, MD, PhD. Editorial, Wall Street Journal. Mar. 1997: \"[T]he use of marijuana [for the terminally ill] can no longer be considered a therapeutic intervention but one of several procedures used to ease the ebbing of life of the terminally ill. But for this purpose doctors should prescribe antiemetic and analgesic therapies of proven efficacy, rather than marijuana smoking. This therapeutic course is not based on bureaucratic absolutism, political correctness, or reflexive ideology - but on scientific knowledge and the humane practice of medicine.\"[22]", "title": "Alternatives to marijuana should be used to ease the terminally ill", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00130-000", "bm25_score": 215.92864990234375}, {"text": "======== Introduction ======== I will be arguing that Medical Marijuana should be illegal while my opponent will argue that medical marijuana should be and/or remain legal. For the purposes of this debate, medical marijuana will stand as Marijuana used to help manage, suppress, or reverse symptoms from medical disorders, such as but not necessarily limited to AIDS, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, etc. If my opponent feels that there is something I haven't made clear then tell me during the first round of this debate and I will be more than happy to clarify as best as I can. I want to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate. I will let my opponent start his argument first. ====== Definition ====== Marijuana: The female leaves of the Cannabis plant as used to create a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs. Medical: Relating to the study or practice of medicine.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "174daab8-2019-04-18T19:00:10Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.91110229492188}, {"text": "My first debate!Round 1: AcceptanceI think Medical Marijuana should be legal and ther are many benefits.Definitions:Marijuana - Marijuana (marihuana) Cannabis sativa L., also known as Indian hemp, is a member of the Cannabaceae or hemp family, thought to have originated in the mountainous districts of India, north of the Himalayan mountains.http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...LETS DO THIS!", "title": "Resolved: Medical Marijuana should be legal", "pid": "84f999d5-2019-04-18T18:09:59Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.9095916748047}, {"text": "1. Proven Medical Benefits There are many who say that there are many proven medical benefits to smoking or otherwise ingesting marijuana. First off, I would like to ask my opponent to cite a source saying, and proving, the medical benefits of medical marijuana. I have a source that says the following, \"There is plenty of evidence to show that marijuana can help people cope with a variety of diseases,\" Of course it can help people cope with diseases. If I took cocaine, the same effect would happen, in fact I might forget that I even had a disease. Being able to help people cope is no reason to legalize marijuana for medical use. The same source goes on to say, \"That said, medical marijuana is not right for every patient. Nor is it even the first drug of choice,\". Not even the first choice. Medical marijuana would not replace current medical practices, it would only supplement them. The legalization of medical marijuana is bad for many reasons, which brings me to my next point. . http://www.post-gazette.com... 2. Ill Effects of Ingesting Marijuana The Office of Drug Control Policy says the following, \"Marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and impaired cognitive and immune system functioning, among other negative effects. Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia. Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50‐70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke,\" This goes to show why any use of marijuana, even for medical uses, is a bad thing for the health of any users. If marijuana for medical purposes was legalized, it would harm many more people than it would help. Is forgetting about your pain through smoking a joint worth it if you can get schizophrenia from smoking it? Or any other medical complication? No, its not worth it, and that is why medical marijuana should not be a legal option. . http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov... In conclusion, I have yet to see a source that legitimately proves the benefits of medical marijuana. Not only is there a lack of health benefits from ingesting it, but there are serious medical issues that could result from ingesting the drug.", "title": "Medical Marijuana should be a legal option", "pid": "82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.89402770996094}, {"text": "Argument: Many doctors agree that marijuana is very beneficial for medical purposes. Diseases like cancer, glaucoma, epilepsy, and many other mental disorders are all well treated with marijuana. Marijuana is capable of killing pain and helps rise your metabolism. It has been proved that marijuana is better than pain killers. Marijuana has been legalized in 18 states, and in most of them marijuana is less costly than many medical prescriptions that treat pain. Marijuana has been legal during the 1930s-1940s, and later on this medical treatment has been becoming more limited (1).Here is what doctors say about medicinal marijuana:1. 69% of doctors say it can help with specific illnesses.2. 67% it should be an opportunity for many patients.3. 56% agree making it legal throughout the world.4. 50% of doctors agree it should be legal in their state.5. 52% call for making new laws on medical marijuana in their state (2).[1]: http://www.teenink.com...[2]: http://www.medscape.com...", "title": "Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes", "pid": "9821cb64-2019-04-18T15:54:34Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.87710571289062}, {"text": "Hello, my name is dtien and I accept your challenge.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use.", "pid": "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.8721923828125}, {"text": "Alternatives to marijuana should be used to ease the terminally ill", "title": "Medical marijuana dispensaries", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00046-000", "bm25_score": 215.87051391601562}, {"text": "I was looking at your profile, and i saw that you think that medical marijuana should not be legal. I disagree but i want to know why you believe that medical marijuana is unsuitable to be legal in the us. And a debate will follow. It is currently used to make peoples with diseases better, so i dont see why not.", "title": "Medical Marijuana should be legal.", "pid": "94bd510e-2019-04-18T19:53:10Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.8515167236328}, {"text": "NOTICE: This debate is apart of the Revive DDO Debate Competition. RESOLUTION: Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized For Use As Medicine or for Medical Purposes.", "title": "Medical Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized.", "pid": "5d56b6d8-2019-04-18T16:58:57Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.8486785888672}, {"text": "If marijuana is less toxic than many of the drugs that physicians prescribe every day, then why should it not be legalized for medical purposes? Although cannabis has been smoked widely in Western countries for more than four decades, there have been no reported cases of lung cancer or emphysema attributed to marijuana. Professor Lester Grinspoon, MD, from the Harvard Medical School, comments \"I suspect that a day's breathing in any city with poor air quality poses more of a threat than inhaling a day's dose -- which for many ailments is just a portion of a joint -- of marijuana.\" Every drug has side effects, and most have potential risks. However, no other drug can do exactly what medical marijuana would do for a patient. Therefore, it should be legalized in order to benefit those suffering from illnesses such as AIDS and cancer.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a8f4-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.84463500976562}, {"text": "First of all my opponent points to where his source says \"medical marijuana is not right for every patient. \" If you have ever seen a drug commercial on TV they say that about just about everything, while they are listing off the long list of side effects. Morphine is a drug often prescribed as an anesthetic or painkiller, yet it has worse side effects than marijuana and is more addictive and is an opiate. [1] [2] [3] There are proven benefits with less problems. [4] [5] It helps with cancer and is less devastating to health than chemo. [6] \" Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. \" Which is why people taking it shouldn't be allowed to drive or do certain tasks that require high levels of motor skills, just like some other drugs. \"Studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and schizophrenia. \" This is also true of many antidepressants when prescribed to teenagers. Other research has shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. Marijuana smoke, in fact, contains 50‐70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke\" There are other ways to ingest marijuana rather than just smoking it. For consistency, if we were going to make marijuana illegal for medical purposes shouldn't opiates such as morphine and oxycodone and codeine also be illegal even as prescriptions? I thank my opponent and look forward to the next round. 1 . http://www.softlandingrecovery.com... 2 . http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk... 3 . http://www.kstatecollegian.com... 4 . http://www.thenewstribune.com... 5 . http://news.google.com... 6 . http://www.kxly.com...", "title": "Medical Marijuana should be a legal option", "pid": "82c12bae-2019-04-18T18:49:36Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.8419647216797}, {"text": "Marijuana is a good alternative medicine to suit individual needs", "title": "Medical marijuana dispensaries", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00061-000", "bm25_score": 215.80877685546875}, {"text": "Medical Marijuana can treat patients of cancer and AIDs, but it leads to more problems. Andrea Bathwell, who used to be the Deputy Director for the White House once said, \"\"By characterizing the use of illegal drugs as quasi-legal, state-sanctioned, Saturday afternoon fun, legalizers destabilize the societal norm that drug use is dangerous. They undercut the goals of stopping the initiation of drug use to prevent addiction.... Children entering drug abuse treatment routinely report that they heard that 'pot is medicine' and, therefore, believed it to be good for them.\" Even if marijuana is used for medical purposes, it leads to addiction and that's why it should not be legalized for treatment.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a8f4-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.80540466308594}, {"text": "Cannabis has many medical properties, notably the alleviation of suffering in chronic diseases. It should therefore be freely available", "title": "THW Require the Provision of Cannabis in Any State Funded Medical Program", "pid": "fc44452e-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.773681640625}, {"text": "I will be arguing that marijuana, not necessarily in it's smokeable form should be legal for persons over a yet to be determined age(18-21) for medical and recreational use. Con will argue that it shouldn't be legalized for any age in any form, for any reason. Any source can be used until that source has been proven false or unreliable. Please respect your opponent. Debate can be informal. Con may begin with his or her argument in the first round or accept. Any further rules must be discussed and agreed upon in the comments section. Thank you and good luck.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use.", "pid": "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.76695251464844}, {"text": "Due to low addiction rates, marijuana is good for medical use.", "title": "Medical marijuana dispensaries", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00027-000", "bm25_score": 215.76681518554688}, {"text": "In many states, they have begun to drop the noose that restricts medical marijuana use. In my state of CA you will find more dispensaries then star bucks. . however I think everyone should have this choice, and that it shouldn't be only ok for the terminally ill. I want to argue that this should be the federal standard(legal), and that marijuana has been taboo for so long, based on ignorance and denial. I am (pro) so will be defending and asserting this motion. (con) will argue marijuana should remain and/or be permanently illegal. The way it goes. .. .", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized", "pid": "59d1f899-2019-04-18T18:19:38Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.75543212890625}, {"text": "Marijuana should be completely legalized for medical and recreational use. Marijuana is completely safe. Marijuana is very healthy. The illegality of Marijuana and criminalization of Marijuana users is an unnecessary and harmful restriction on American culture and its citizens. I await someone to challenge these three points.", "title": "Legalize Marijuana for ALL uses.", "pid": "c0ff09ad-2019-04-18T20:00:02Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.74801635742188}, {"text": "Marijuana is a safer alternative to many medications", "title": "Medical marijuana dispensaries", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00063-000", "bm25_score": 215.74356079101562}, {"text": "Due to the overwhelming evidence of the social and legal benefits, Marijuana should be legalized in both Medical and Recreational fields.", "title": "Marijuana Legalization", "pid": "6231ab28-2019-04-18T16:19:10Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.73294067382812}, {"text": "I accept. Good Luck.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a533-2019-04-18T18:20:55Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.728271484375}, {"text": "Medical marijuana has serious side effects, although many argue it can stifle pain, I argue pain is healthy although it may not feel like it because pain relieves body stress. Marijuana is infamous for being detrimental to a person. Now I know you are arguing medical marijuana my argument is that legalizing the medical use of marijuana allows this deadly substance to be obtained by normal people, exposing them to the harmful effects of this deadly poison, plus this drug doesn't realy do anything, all it does is relieve pain temoporaily and then send you into a state of depression.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "174daad7-2019-04-18T18:53:23Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.72348022460938}, {"text": "I do agree with marijuana being used for medical purposes, but making it 100% legal is just an awful idea. Can you imagine college kids being able to obtain marijuana as easily as alcohol? Marijuana should not be legal, for very obvious reasons. It should ONLY be used for medical purposes, and quite honestly, there are few medical purposes for it anyway.", "title": "Marijuana Legalization", "pid": "6231ab47-2019-04-18T16:20:48Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.72076416015625}, {"text": "Cannabis has been used as a medicine for the longest time. Recently, cannabis has became illegal in many parts of the world. However, I do not believe cannabis deserves it's legal status and it has high medicinal value and is realitvely safe if used properly. My opponent of this debate will try to disprove Cannabis's medicinal potential and show why it should not be used as a medicine. There are no exceptions to this.", "title": "Medical Cannabis", "pid": "e1d1a698-2019-04-18T15:18:36Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.70297241210938}, {"text": "I do also believe that by giving peopel \"medical\" MJ people will start to become addicted to it. I accept this debate and look forward to the following rounds Def: Medical- med�i�cal (md-kl) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characterizing the study or practice of medicine. 2. Requiring treatment by medicine. n. A thorough physical examination MJ-A common street and recreational drug that comes from the marijuana plant: the hemp plant cannabis sativa. The pharmacologically active ingredient in marijuana is tetra-hydro-cannabinol (THC). Marijuana is used to heighten perception, affect mood, and relax. Many people think marijuana is harmless, but it is not. Signs of marijuana use include red eyes, lethargy, and uncoordinated body movements. The long-term effects may include decrease in motivation and harmful effects on the brain, heart, lungs, and reproductive system. People who smoke marijuana are also at increased risk of developing cancer of the head and neck. A pharmaceutical product, Marinol, that contains synthetic THC, is available as a prescription medication. It comes in the form of a pill (eliminating the harmful and cancer-causing chemicals present when marijuana is smoked) and is used to relieve the nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients and to treat loss of appetite in AIDS patients. mood-altering herb they smoked marijuana Legal-1. Of, relating to, or concerned with law: legal papers. 2. a. Authorized by or based on law: a legal right. b. Established by law; statutory: the legal owner. 3. In conformity with or permitted by law: legal business operations. 4. Recognized or enforced by law rather than by equity. 5. In terms of or created by the law: a legal offense. 6. Applicable to or characteristic of attorneys or their profession. n. 1. One that is in accord with certain rules or laws. 2. legals Investments that may be legally made by fiduciaries and certain institutions, such as savings banks and insurance companies. Also called legal list these came from: . http://www.medterms.com...(MJ) . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... If there are any problems with the above let me know and ill explain each.", "title": "Resolved: Medical Marijuana should be legal", "pid": "84f999d5-2019-04-18T18:09:59Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.69549560546875}, {"text": "Medical Marijuana should be legal in all states because trying to only provide it to clients and not a regular citizen creates more problems in society. A majority of marijuana users find themselves abusing it more than using it as a prescription. It is nearly impossible to keep it only for clients, so why make the job harder for the police departments and try to arrest anyone who carries marijuana. Marijuana is not a serious drug and does not make anyone become violent, yet this generation acts as though it is a crime to enjoy your own free time and relaxing to a natural plant that grows from this earth. What one person is doing to de-stress should not bother anyone else. Although it is rare to hear about someone using medical marijuana for it's main purpose (easing of pain/illness). In 2010, researchers at Harvard Medical School suggested that that some of the drug's benefits may actually be from reduced anxiety, which would improve the smoker's mood. Although some may say that medical marijuana does more harm than it does good, there is plenty of evidence to counteract this. In addition to Medical Marijuana helping to prevent seizures, it can also help to stop cancer cells from spreading. According to an article written by Kevin Loria and Jennifer Welsh, \"Cannabinoids like the active ingredients in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol (also known as THC), control seizures by binding to the brain cells responsible for controlling excitability and regulating relaxation.\" Loria and Welsh go on to claim that \"CBD may also help prevent cancer from spreading, researchers at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco reported in 2007.\"", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267acd4-2019-04-18T12:17:49Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.69532775878906}, {"text": "Bernard Rimland, PhD, Founder of the Autism Society of America (ASA). \"Medical Marijuana: a Valuable Treatment for Autism?\" Autism Research Review International. 2003: \"It is important to keep in mind the distinction between legalizing marijuana for medical uses, which has been done in some states, and 'recreational' drug use which is illegal throughout the U.S.", "title": "Legalizing medical marijuana is not legalizing recreational use", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00162-000", "bm25_score": 215.6901092529297}, {"text": "I apologise to my opponent for the delay in getting this up, and for the abbreviated nature of this argument. Recently, my country legalised medicinal cannabis use (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Since then, we haven't had any significant cases of abuse. Our insurance costs have not skyrocketed, and niether have our taxes. We are not a destination for drug tourism, and we have not undermined our anti-cannabis stance in wider society. When people take medicinal cannabis, their doctors first assess their condition. The doctor's \"do no harm\" mantra prohibits them from proscribing anything that is significantly harmful for the patient. Obviously, most if not all medicines have side effects, but we allow doctors to assess what will work best for the patient because they - not the government - are the ones who know the medicine best. Ultimately we leave the decision down to the patient when a range of options are available for the same reason. To presume that some government buraeucrats have a better understanding of each patient's individual condition (if you will excuse my RoyLatham-esque expression), and thus what treatments should be available, is to undermine the entire healthcare system. Healthcare is a personal thing. Our right to life confers a responsibility for it, and our responsibility for our life empowers us to choose what medicine we take. We make exceptions in various circumstances - for young children, for instance, and for mentally impaired people who cannot understand what is involved with these decisions - but in general the rule is that illness does not rob us of our general autonomy, but rather extends it. It allows us access to public facilities, such as hospitals, just as it opens up access to prescription drugs, for the simple reason that we cannot make a choice when certain choices are prohibited. As a principle, we feel it is entirely consistant with the role of the healthcare system to legalise cannabis. You can't make a full medical choice when certain medical options, endorsed by many scientists globally, are not available to you. For instance, cannabis causes pain relief. It would be a mistake to assume that cannabis is not the right pain reliever for anybody. That's why the choice must be available, in these kinds of difficult medical situations, not narrowed down to a few government-approved alternatives. I personally do not believe there is any evidence cannabis cures anything, or has any helpful effect beyond suppression of symptoms (such as pain). However, since doctors will not have the prescribed the medicine in any situation where it would be harmful, the cannabis would never be used when it is harmful to the patient's health. Since a person who's in hospital all the time undergoing chemo is not exactly going to be drug driving or doing property crime, there's no harm to the public either. Furthermore, research on cannabis is still ongoing. Perhaps it has some helpful effect that science has not yet isolated. It must be the patient, informed by the advice of their medical professional, who makes that decision, not me, because I have no responsibility for their health. My contention is that it should be on the basis of harms to the patient, not the benefits to the patient, that medicine is administered. We already accept the principal that the relative value of benefits must be decided by the patient because we allow patients to refuse treatment. Since cannabis has no real harms when administered in the right way under proper, doctor-specified and recommended conditions, as and when appropriate, there is nothing wrong with medicinal cannabis legalisation. We do not ban the use of placebos if patients want to take them voluntarily. Patients can, if they so wish, hug a teddy bear instead of undergoing chemotherapy and pray to God to remove the desease. These are examples of placebos, and they confer no benefits, nor do they have any particular harms. Cannabis can, under most circumstances, fall in the same category. In the remainder of circumstances, doctors will intervene. As can be shown with countries where it has been legalised, such as New Zealand, this does not translate into a broader problem for society. If you don't accept medicinal marijuana, then as a principle, you deny patient autonomy. You limit the scope of healthcare. But what is of greater value than human life? Even if cannabis has few, if any, beneficial effects, that is no grounds for banning it as a choice. That is why we need to legalise cannabis for medicinal use.", "title": "Medical marijuana should be legal", "pid": "c416873d-2019-04-18T18:19:50Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.67384338378906}, {"text": "All drugs can be used for a variety of purposes some appropriate some inappropriate that’s a matter of choice, treatment should be based on medical reality", "title": "THW Require the Provision of Cannabis in Any State Funded Medical Program", "pid": "fc44452e-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.6737518310547}, {"text": "Full resolution: Medical Marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. I will be affirming that medical marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. This debate only pertains to medical marijuana, not marijuana in general.STRUCTURE:Round 1-AcceptanceRound 2-Cases/CON rebuttalRound 3-RebuttalRound 4-Conclusion/Summary Definitions:medical-curative; medicinal; therapeutic [1]marijuana-the most commonly used illicit drug; considered a soft drug, it consists of the dried leaves of the hemp plant; smoked or chewed for euphoric effect [2]I would like to thank 16kadams for agreeing to debate this topic. This should be a very fun and informative debate!Sources:1. http://dictionary.reference.com......2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "174dab53-2019-04-18T18:33:55Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.6720733642578}, {"text": "Treating diseases with smoked marijuana isn't a valid option. It has negative effects on the heart, lungs, brain, and immune system no matter how long they've been treated with it. Cannabis weakens the immune system which is very valuable to someone who is undergoing a deadly disease. These patients will become dependent on the drug and even when they are not sickly anymore they will feel the need to use it.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a8d5-2019-04-18T16:58:41Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.6448974609375}, {"text": "Treating diseases with smoked marijuana isn't a valid option. It has negative effects on the heart, lungs, brain, and immune system no matter how long they've been treated with it. Cannabis weakens the immune system which is very valuable to someone who is undergoing a deadly disease. These patients will become dependent on the drug and even when they are not sickly anymore they will feel the need to use it.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a8f4-2019-04-18T17:01:16Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.6448974609375}, {"text": "I just want to say that marijuana, while proven to have some negative side effects, are nothing compared to another recreational drug, alcohol. The side effects of marijuana are often temporary, and can be reduced to none when the drug is no longer in the users system. Marijuana as a medicine is often much safer than the legal counterparts, prescription drugs. Side effects from prescription drugs often include death, organ failure, etc.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use.", "pid": "dc68ec3e-2019-04-18T13:40:55Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.641845703125}, {"text": "I feel stupid for missing my last round. I'm sorry. But in conclusion. I think I speak words of wisdom. The pharma industry has produced a prescription drug that is derived from THC, thus poking holes right in argument that \"smoking marijuana has medicinal properties.\" Furthermore, weed is currently the number one most abused illegal drug in this country, and through numerous studies aptly defined as a \"gateway drug.\" Viscerally speaking, allowing a greater access to a drug that ostensibly leads to more drug use is never a good idea.", "title": "Weed should be legal and also for cancer patient .", "pid": "987a36b5-2019-04-18T17:17:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.63671875}, {"text": "Medical cannabis has been proven to ease symptoms of painful illness. Medical cannabis has been used in easing symptoms of cancer and many other illnesses, and has proven effective. If you were in the position of these people. In pain and nothing can take that pain away, wouldn't you want medical cannabis to cure the pain? Your connotations of marijuana are making your view of this effective treatment blocked. Think of this argument from their point of view. They're in pain and suffering and what may take this away they aren't granted? Medical cannabis can avoid misuse with appropriate tests and papers. Medical cannabis has been proven to work, and should be legalized. You need to look at cannabis separately from recreational marijuana to fully understand why cannabis should be allowed.", "title": "Medical cannabis", "pid": "7e67fe99-2019-04-18T15:47:36Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.63116455078125}, {"text": "Arguments Extanded.", "title": "Medical Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized.", "pid": "5d56b6d8-2019-04-18T16:58:57Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.61520385742188}, {"text": "I believe that for terminal diseases such as cancer Medical Marijuana should be used as much as possible in place of man made drugs", "title": "Medical Marijuana is better than man made pills", "pid": "daa1c0-2019-04-18T14:20:22Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.61477661132812}, {"text": "The main problem, is that Medical Marijuana is often used as an excuse for drug addiction. Since legalizing Marijuana allows young children and adults to become possibly addicted to the drug, it is best that we avoid taking risks by making Medical Marijuana illegal. This, however, will not offend one's rights as harmful substances should not be legally administered under any circumstances. This is why, poisonous substances are not allowed to be prescribed legally, as they are often more harmful than helpful. In conclusion, using Marijuana as a therapy or medicine is highly dangerous as there are more than effective ways to treat symptoms. Legalizing this drug, will only be overall counterproductive to a patient's physical and mental health.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a533-2019-04-18T18:20:55Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.55706787109375}, {"text": "I still await my opponent's argument.", "title": "Medical marijuana should be legal", "pid": "c416873d-2019-04-18T18:19:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.5519256591797}, {"text": "I think that Marijuana Should be legalized because it can be used for much more that just medical use. I believe it can be used for things like clothes, string, sowing material and of course medical use. Now I now there are some people out there who would disagree with me and that is fine but i have knee issues and every now and again my knee dislocates do to sporting activities and when I am given morphine and multiple doses to be exact it still isn't enough to ease the pain, I also have other medical issues as well and there some points that I wish had something to ease the pain.", "title": "Should Marijuana be legalized", "pid": "d6ea1958-2019-04-18T18:02:20Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.53367614746094}, {"text": "The choice to use marijuana should be based on individual experience", "title": "Medical marijuana dispensaries", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00021-000", "bm25_score": 215.5133056640625}, {"text": "Health policy on marijuana should not be decided by individual doctors.", "title": "Medical marijuana dispensaries", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00064-000", "bm25_score": 215.50245666503906}, {"text": "Millions of Americans smoke marijuana both for recreational uses and also medicinal uses. Whoever accepts this debate must justify why these people are criminals and also disprove Marijuana's use of medicine. With the economy in the tank why wouldn't marijuana be considered a viable stimulus to a sputtering economy. This is all I'll say for now and to whoever trys to disprove me good luck.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized and should be taken seriously as a medicine.", "pid": "8c493086-2019-04-18T19:25:29Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.47381591796875}, {"text": "this was fun- my first debate ever. well here it goes- Maybe marijuana isn't as harmful as it is rumored to be, however, does not take away the fact it is still harmful. it causes hallucination, lung infections, and obstructed air ways.heart race and anxiety, just to name a few. Overall, you have made a very strong argument on legalization on marijuana as a recreational drug. However, you have completely missed the focal point of the debate- marijuana as medicine. You have provided no evidence of how marijuana could be used as medicine. My closing statement is that as you have no evidence supporting your claim, we may not assume that marijuana is a medicine without solid evidence.", "title": "Marijuana Medicine", "pid": "89fd39b5-2019-04-18T18:04:03Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.45040893554688}, {"text": "Marijuana is natural; dispensaries should be allowed", "title": "Medical marijuana dispensaries", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00087-000", "bm25_score": 215.44818115234375}, {"text": "Now I have personally never heard of a case where a patient who has partaken in the smoking of Marijuana having a stroke or heart attack, but for the sake of argument I will just assume that these events are a possibility. Many cancer medicines are ineffective in relieving the pain brought on by the disease. Marijuana offers something that is known to work in this area. While medication that are prescribed to cancer patience are not only often ineffective they also have side effects that can be detrimental. For example opioids are often prescribed to patience with sever pain brought on by cancer, the side effects of this type of medication are constipation, trouble sleeping, nausea, vomiting, and respiratory depression. This commonly used medication for cancer can actually make a person suffocate, while also causing severe discomfort to the patient. While Marijuana offers a much safer alternative that is often times more effective in relieving pain, or building an appetite, or sleeping. I challenge my opponent to back up his following statement:\"It has been known for some time that the effects of marijuana are extremely detrimental. Some of these devastating effects are heart attacks, strokes, as well as abnormalities in the amygdala and hippocampus regions of the brain. This causes severe mental disabilities. With so many other anesthetics out there, that have NO detrimental side effects such as listed,. .. \" I ask him to find one case where smoking Marijuana has induced a heart attack, stroke or any abnormalities in the amygdala and hippocampus regions of the brain. I also challenge him to find an anesthetic for a terminally ill patient that has NO detrimental side effects.", "title": "Should Marijuana Be Legalized for Medicinal Use", "pid": "5acb3c54-2019-04-18T19:31:09Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.44439697265625}, {"text": "In my opinion, cannabis or marijuana should be legalized in the United States. I believe that it would have many useful medical, as well as recreational purposes. If the proper laws are instituted, cannabis legalization would prove very useful in the United States.", "title": "Cannabis Legalization in the United States (Medical and Recreational Uses)", "pid": "bc00ee1b-2019-04-18T13:20:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.43228149414062}, {"text": "Although marijuana poses some danger, so do most other drugs prescribed by doctors. It is a powerful drug, but the dangers associated with it are the same associated with smoking cigarettes. Also, many patients only would need medicinal marijuana for a short amount of time, and therefore would not receive many negative smoking effects. The harms of this drug are within the range tolerated for other medications. Cannabis is one of humanity's oldest medicines;China used it in medicinal tea, and for thousands of years people have used this drug without knowing any negative effects. With this being said, the positive effects of marijuana outweigh the slight risks.", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a8d5-2019-04-18T16:58:41Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.42459106445312}, {"text": "Finally!", "title": "Medical Marijuana", "pid": "d267a970-2019-04-18T15:26:34Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.4238739013672}, {"text": "I find it absurd to think that there are people in the world who think that marijuana has no medicinal benefits to patience with such diseases as Cancer, Glaucoma, Multiple Sclerosis, and Cerebral Palsy. I feel strongly that the use of cannabis should not only be legalized but encouraged in cases where it could actually help. My uncle was diagnosed with MS 9 years ago and slowly his body started to deteriorate from the inside. He became unstable in his walking ability and the pain from the deterioration caused him to have extreme difficulty sleeping. Once he was prescribed Marijuana he called my father in tears of happiness, for the medicine had allowed him not only to walk with complete balance, but even to jog. Upon use of his medical Cannabis in the evenings he was able to sleep without any problems. Now as the disease has progressed his walking has become even more unbalanced but there is no denying that the Marijuana still helps him manage the searing pain from the deterioration of his nerves. Cannabis still allows my uncle to sleep through the night without having to worry about waking in the middle of the night in terrible and excruciating pain. This herb has made the life of a terminally ill person that much easier, and how dare anyone deny him this right. It is ludicrous to think that the federal government wishes not only to deny him the right to a less painful way of life but they also wish to arrest him and others in similar positions for simply wishing to live as much of a pain free life as possible.", "title": "Should Marijuana Be Legalized for Medicinal Use", "pid": "5acb3c54-2019-04-18T19:31:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.42343139648438}, {"text": "I find it absurd to think that there are people in the world who think that marijuana has no medicinal benefits to patience with such diseases as Cancer, Glaucoma, Multiple Sclerosis, and Cerebral Palsy. I feel strongly that the use of cannabis should not only be legalized but encouraged in cases where it could actually help. My uncle was diagnosed with MS 9 years ago and slowly his body started to deteriorate from the inside. He became unstable in his walking ability and the pain from the deterioration caused him to have extreme difficulty sleeping. Once he was prescribed Marijuana he called my father in tears of happiness, for the medicine had allowed him not only to walk with complete balance, but even to jog. Upon use of his medical Cannabis in the evenings he was able to sleep without any problems. Now as the disease has progressed his walking has become even more unbalanced but there is no denying that the Marijuana still helps him manage the searing pain from the deterioration of his nerves. Cannabis still allows my uncle to sleep through the night without having to worry about waking in the middle of the night in terrible and excruciating pain. This herb has made the life of a terminally ill person that much easier, and how dare anyone deny him this right. It is ludicrous to think that the federal government wishes not only to deny him the right to a less painful way of life but they also wish to arrest him and others in similar positions for simply wishing to live as much of a pain free life as possible.", "title": "Should Marijuana Be Legalized For Medicinal Use", "pid": "66907055-2019-04-18T19:31:34Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.42343139648438}, {"text": "No my opponent is the king of babbling.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized and should be taken seriously as a medicine.", "pid": "8c493086-2019-04-18T19:25:29Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.38119506835938}, {"text": "Marijuana dispensaries should be regulated, but allowed", "title": "Medical marijuana dispensaries", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00088-000", "bm25_score": 215.3780517578125}, {"text": "Marijuana should not be legalized for disposal of all. I say this because we would have a world of crazy people running around delirious trying to do harmful things. We have enough issues already with DUI. We can't enable people to do worse. Marijuana has long-term and short-term effects. It's addictive, it's not a one time thing. However, Marijuana should be medically legalized in every state and only be at disposal to medical professionals. If it helps people, let's do it. If it hurts people, let's trash it. Marijuana does both. Therefore, should be legal, but managed by qualified professionals. Thank You!", "title": "Marijuana should be at disposal for all.", "pid": "34ee1a0c-2019-04-18T13:59:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.36749267578125}, {"text": "This is my god damn fourth, I REPEAT FOURTH TIME, that someone has quit on me. Just great.", "title": "Medical marijuana should be legal", "pid": "c416877b-2019-04-18T15:36:17Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.35000610351562}, {"text": "There are less dangerous, equally effective alternatives to marijuana", "title": "Medical marijuana dispensaries", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00059-000", "bm25_score": 215.34384155273438}, {"text": "Marijuana is an effective medicine and treatment for many illnesses", "title": "Medical marijuana dispensaries", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00075-000", "bm25_score": 215.3386993408203}, {"text": "In most countries where there is an acceptance of the medical value of cannabis it is fairly easily available, this would simply condone its recreational use", "title": "THW Require the Provision of Cannabis in Any State Funded Medical Program", "pid": "fc44452e-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.335693359375}, {"text": "I maintain my position, con has already lost this debate (according to the rules).", "title": "Should marijuana be legalized for medical purposes", "pid": "9821cb64-2019-04-18T15:54:34Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.33448791503906}, {"text": "Marijuana slows the growth of cancer cells", "title": "Medical marijuana should be legal", "pid": "c416877b-2019-04-18T15:36:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.31800842285156}, {"text": "I believe marijuana should be legal ONLY on certain terms. The certain terms being to help with a disease, such as cancer, epilepsy, AIDS, etc. Now, this marijuana isn't smoked, it's taken orally. It's for cancer patients whom suffer nausea and vomiting; It helps reduce both problems. Some cancerous treatments cause those effects. For epilepsy, it helps reduce stress. For AIDS patients, it helps gain appetite, which allows them to gain weight. Marijuana should only be used medically, whether than to just be using it. People react differently when induced on marijuana -- Some contain themselves, acting mellow...Some act wild and out of control. My real argument is: Marijuana should be used medically, and medically ONLY, because if it were just legal and any one could use it, it would be JUST like if it were illegal. People would still lace it with other drugs and hallucinogens, people would still kill over it, and etc. [What I said in the comments, basically.] I'm in between about it. Allowing it be legal, could be a pro and a con; Along with being illegal, pro and con.", "title": "Marijuana ought to be legalized", "pid": "d0a9155a-2019-04-18T19:00:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.30343627929688}, {"text": "Look at this from a different point of view. In your argument you stated \"Medical cannabis has been used in easing symptoms of cancer and many other illnesses\" There are many other medications that are being developed and have been developed for quite some time that have effects similar to the effects of cannabis without the risk of being used for the wrong purposes. In many cases the use of medical marijuana is abused by the patient who requested it, they over exaggerate the pain that they are in, it results in a more medication then they would need. \"Medical cannabis can avoid misuse with appropriate tests and papers\" This is not always true as the illness is not always well known and there is little research out for it, sometimes patients request more than is necessary. Medical marijuana is also very expensive and is not always covered by insurance companies. In short marijuana is pointless and not necessary for pain relief. In the least the only thing it would be good for is a substitute for other drugs out there that are better known and are more efficient pain relievers.", "title": "Medical cannabis", "pid": "7e67fe99-2019-04-18T15:47:36Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.2904510498047}, {"text": "My bad I read the post wrong. I believe medical marijuana is a legitamate way of treating a sickness (within reason of corse. ) But marijuana that anyone can receive would catastrophic in that anyone could receive marijuana even younger children. Meaning that if my theoretical son Timmy wanted some pot to smoke with the cool kids and I happened to be in possession of it he could easily get it. Of course fast too he might be able to receive some from other children. And the transfer of marijuana would be legal too, as the government would have no way of determining who can receive marijuana whether the person is responsible or not. Also I never said alcohol nor cigerets should be aloud. In all reality they should be illegal as well but that's a debate for later", "title": "Marijuana should be legal", "pid": "6c71015a-2019-04-18T16:09:02Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.28775024414062}, {"text": "Winning.", "title": "Medical marijuana should be legal", "pid": "c416877b-2019-04-18T15:36:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.28668212890625}, {"text": "The matter of legalizing medical marijuana is an important issue for several reasons. From the data observed in the link below [1] there are currently 23 states with laws legalizing marijuana, some still more restrictive than others. This of course is a significant step in the right direction. However, I believe that all states should follow the examples of Alaska, Colorado, Washington and Oregon to legalize not only cannabis for medicinal usage but also for recreational consumption. I will list my reasons further below. Before doing so I would like to specifically define the meanings of marijuana itself and respectively medical and recreational cannabis to avoid any confusions or misunderstandings. Marijuana is defined as \"a commonly used illegal drug made from dried leaves of the hemp plant\" and \"a strong-smelling plant from whose dried leaves a number of euphoriant and hallucinogenic drugs are prepared.\" Marijuana goes by many other names such as cannabis, hemp, weed etc. [2] Medical marijuana is defined as the usage of marijuana for medical or medicinal purposes. [3] [4] Recreational marijuana is defined as any other recreational drug which is described as \"a drug (as cocaine, marijuana, or methamphetamine) used without medical justification for its psychoactive effects often in the belief that occasional use of such a substance is not habit-forming or addictive.\" [6] I acknowledge the many different types of marijuana that exists for different purposes, most, I understand, are hybrids made for different specific medical needs. However I do not know enough on the subject of them, their effects and upsides as well as downsides. I would therefore appreciate if this debate could be exclusively on the matters of the aforementioned descriptions of cannabis, medical and recreational. Now I will present my arguments as to why I believe medical and recreational marijuana should be legalized in all US states.R32;R32;First of all I would like to point out that there is no scientific background with evidence as to exactly why marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug in the first place. The definition of a Schedule 1 drug from the Drug Enforcement Administration itself clearly states, that \"Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.\"[6] This definition leaves no room for doubt that no Schedule 1 drug has any medical use. However it has been a known fact for centuries that cannabis has been used for medical purposes with positive effects. This can easily be found true when looking at many different sources. Here I have merely linked one. [7]R32;The National Institute on Drug Abuse also states that there are medical benefits from marijuana. [8] R32;There can be many reasons as to why marijuana was classified the way it was and still has not been re-classified but that is a completely different debate. Here are links with possible explanations that no matter what do not justify why it was classified so harshly. [9] [10] R32;All in all, there can be no doubts that this classification of marijuana is deeply illogical and misleading. Second, I would like to stress that America would merit tremendously from the economic profits caused by legalizing marijuana. It can be no surprise to any logical thinking creature that America spends enormous sums of money on dealing with and prohibiting crime related to illegal marijuana sales and consumptions. All of this money would of course not be spent if marijuana was legalized. In stead I propose that all states start off like Oregon, Alaska, Washington and Colorado by legalizing recreational marijuana as well. These states all have different laws that specifically suits them and I believe this is a good way to start. R32;R32;The legalization of medical as well as recreational marijuana would be the only solution to properly profit economically from the marijuana businesses that are currently not legal. This is because these businesses will probably still exist if only medicinal marijuana was legalized. [11] [12] Third and last I believe, as mentioned, that marijuana should be legalised for recreational use. This is because I believe in every individual\"s right to care for him or herself\"s own health and decide what is best. Especially when it comes to smoking tobacco or marijuana for pleasure. I am aware of the fact that marijuana has other effects than regular tobacco smoking. However tobacco smoking is the leading cause of preventable death here in America and I do not see how it in any aspect is justifiable, that tobacco smoking has no legal restrictions when a harmless plant such as cannabis is classified as a schedule 1 drug and illegal in most states. [13] I believe that cannabis should be legalized for medical and recreational use. Of course all sale should be done by an approved salesperson to ensure and uphold a certain safety. This will still leave room for illegal sales but not in the same measure as it is now. I am not trying to say that tobacco smoking should be classified as a schedule 1 drug as well. I am saying that the laws making marijuana illegal are so illogical that I am astonished this can happen in a well educated country in the 21st century. http://www.governing.com... https://www.vocabulary.com... http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com... https://www.leafly.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.dea.gov... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... https://www.drugabuse.gov... http://www.ibtimes.com... http://www.drugwarrant.com... http://www.dailydot.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.cdc.gov...", "title": "Medical as well as recreational marijuana should be legal in all US states", "pid": "711b9599-2019-04-18T13:44:23Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.2857666015625}, {"text": "This is for a devil's advocate tournament. I hope for a really fun debate - I'll try and offer something different from the usual boring old arguments that always seem to get presented for medical marijuana.This first round is for acceptance. I'll start my case in round two.", "title": "Medical marijuana should be legal", "pid": "c416873d-2019-04-18T18:19:50Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.2842254638672}, {"text": "The benefits of marijuana for the terminally ill outweigh risks", "title": "Medical marijuana dispensaries", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00047-000", "bm25_score": 215.27413940429688}, {"text": "I believe that Marijuana should be legalized for Recreational use. I will let my opponent go first.", "title": "Marijuana should be legalized for both Medicinal and Recreational use", "pid": "c0722593-2019-04-18T19:00:13Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.27227783203125}, {"text": "My position: 1- Marijuana should not be legal in ANY quantity for ANYONE to do ANYTHING with. 2- Marijuana should not be considered for medicinal purposes...medical professionals are not witch doctors. 3- Since marijuana shouldn't be legal, there's no reason to discuss taxing it. 4- The growth of marijuana for personal use should be considered a crime. 5- Since marijuana shouldn't be legal, there's no reason to discuss the acquisition of it.", "title": "Marijuana Legalization", "pid": "d9e09240-2019-04-18T19:13:37Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.26296997070312}, {"text": "Marijuana is not an effective drug for treating illnesses", "title": "Medical marijuana dispensaries", "pid": "87b8c230-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00070-000", "bm25_score": 215.25830078125}]}
{"idx": 37, "qid": "39", "q_text": "Should the federal minimum wage be increased?", "qrels": {"4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00000-000": 2, "be6172f8-2019-04-18T18:29:04Z-00004-000": 0, "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00003-000": 2, "42f73de0-2019-04-19T12:44:05Z-00008-000": 0, "342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00004-000": 0, "342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00002-000": 0, "1f0e65df-2019-04-18T15:25:46Z-00004-000": 0, "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00006-000": 0, "be6172f8-2019-04-18T18:29:04Z-00007-000": 0, "da0b362d-2019-04-18T16:13:49Z-00000-000": 2, "c351e247-2019-04-18T15:06:51Z-00007-000": 0, "c351e266-2019-04-18T15:00:50Z-00005-000": 0, "c3be22c5-2019-04-18T15:44:46Z-00000-000": 0, "cf3fd0e3-2019-04-15T20:22:17Z-00001-000": 0, "cf73b6a8-2019-04-18T17:59:52Z-00003-000": 1, "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00004-000": 2, "e4c4f298-2019-04-18T12:58:30Z-00004-000": 0, "f5589b65-2019-04-18T12:40:16Z-00004-000": 0, "1b03f390-2019-04-18T18:42:36Z-00004-000": 0, "beb2c569-2019-04-18T16:49:14Z-00003-000": 0, "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00002-000": 2, "5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00005-000": 2, "4eea5161-2019-04-18T15:47:34Z-00005-000": 0, "b2b9af30-2019-04-18T11:15:59Z-00005-000": 0, "4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00002-000": 0, "aedf4350-2019-04-18T16:44:31Z-00000-000": 0, "aedf4350-2019-04-18T16:44:31Z-00001-000": 0, "a071780f-2019-04-18T14:46:37Z-00001-000": 0, "9443a255-2019-04-18T19:43:34Z-00004-000": 1, "9225fb53-2019-04-18T16:40:29Z-00004-000": 1, "b6f6e654-2019-04-18T17:09:58Z-00003-000": 2, "86b6274-2019-04-18T18:28:52Z-00001-000": 0, "88d4f7ff-2019-04-18T19:23:32Z-00003-000": 2, "7a99c7cf-2019-04-18T16:20:28Z-00005-000": 2, "7a99c7cf-2019-04-18T16:20:28Z-00003-000": 2, "7a99c7b0-2019-04-18T16:23:13Z-00005-000": 2, "77de8255-2019-04-18T18:29:30Z-00003-000": 0, "74df972a-2019-04-18T14:06:51Z-00004-000": 2, "630f7c6f-2019-04-18T12:52:49Z-00002-000": 1, "5993a6ac-2019-04-18T16:46:48Z-00005-000": 0, "51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00006-000": 0, "8064f764-2019-04-18T14:38:10Z-00000-000": 2}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "I accept. The US federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.", "title": "The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour", "pid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.73548889160156}, {"text": "Excited to debate with someone, good luck :)", "title": "The federal minimum wage should be increased", "pid": "6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.34054565429688}, {"text": "Acceptance! ^_^ The minimum wage should be raised to benefit families, immigrants, and middle class people all across america.", "title": "The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.", "pid": "47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.285400390625}, {"text": "The current Federal Minimum wage if raised would increase unemployment, increase overall costs, and cause a negative ripple through the economy. Many states have their own minimum wage laws which are higher now. I say leave the federal minimum where it is. If individual states want to raise their rate, that is their decision. But the federal minimum must not be raised.", "title": "The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised", "pid": "b6f6e654-2019-04-18T17:09:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.18804931640625}, {"text": "The minimum wage in the US should be increased each year to help provide a higher income to those working on minimum wage.", "title": "Minimum wage should be increased in the US.", "pid": "630f7c6f-2019-04-18T12:52:49Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.944091796875}, {"text": "Forfeit, sorry.", "title": "The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.", "pid": "47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.92369079589844}, {"text": "My opponent has forfeited... extend arguments. :)", "title": "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15.", "pid": "9329eedd-2019-04-18T14:04:54Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.896240234375}, {"text": "With the worst recession in a generation still being felt across the nation, state and federal leaders are focused on getting their economies moving again while helping working families make ends meet. Raising the minimum wage is a key strategy for doing both and should be part of an economic recovery agenda. By boosting pay in the low-wage jobs on which more families are relying than ever, a stronger minimum wage will help restore the consumer spending that powers our economy and that local businesses need in order to grow. A robust minimum wage is a key building block of sustainable economic recovery.SOURCE: http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...;", "title": "The US Federal Minimum Wage Should Be Raised to $11/hr", "pid": "7021d6d5-2019-04-18T16:45:34Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.87503051757812}, {"text": "Simple debate on whether the minimum wage should be raised to 15 dollars. I'm Con on this, so Pro will debate for a 15 dollar minimum wage in the United States.RulesBOP is shared1st round acceptanceNo K'sAny violations of rules will be result in an immediate loss.", "title": "The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour", "pid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.83799743652344}, {"text": "I accept. I wish you good luck.", "title": "The minimum wage should not be raised to$9.00 as campaigned for by the President.", "pid": "1374527e-2019-04-18T17:17:19Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.82498168945312}, {"text": "I accept!", "title": "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15.", "pid": "9329eedd-2019-04-18T14:04:54Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.8099365234375}, {"text": "Unfortunately, I have to forfeit this round. I been too busy with school, and wasn't able to make my arguments in time. It's up to my opponent whether he believes I should be penalized for this. I'll accept his choice.Sorry for the inconvience.", "title": "The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour", "pid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.80323791503906}, {"text": "I would like to clarify that we are talking about the United States' federal minimum wage. Is this correct?But I do accept.", "title": "The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020", "pid": "b3c6f9b8-2019-04-18T12:20:53Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.7909393310547}, {"text": "According to Heather Boushey, Executive Director and Chief Economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, raising the minimum wage is an important anti-poverty measure. A person earning the current minimum wage and working a 40-hour week makes $15,080 per year, which is barely above the poverty line for a single adult and is well below it for someone supporting children. The most recent proposal to increase the federal minimum wage would have raised it to $10.10 per hour, though it didn\"t pass. More than half of the states (including the District of Columbia) already have higher minimum wages than the federal minimum wage. The District of Columbia is currently the highest at $10.50/hour. There has been discussion lately about increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, which would bring a family relying on a single wage-earner above the poverty line. Minimum wage laws in the states as of January 1, 2016 so therefore, it should not be increased", "title": "Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour", "pid": "5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.72805786132812}, {"text": "Extend arguments and rebuttals.", "title": "The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.", "pid": "47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.69320678710938}, {"text": "Resolution: The Federal Minimum Wage Should be IncreasedRules1. Burden of proof is shared. 2. No semantical games -- they will result in an automatic 7-point loss.3. Con will begin his arguments in round 1, and will post \"no round, as agreed upon\" in round 5. Failure to do so will result in an automatic 7-point loss.4. Forfeitting is an automatic loss.5. By accepting this debate, you agree to these rules. Let the debate begin.", "title": "The minimum wage should be increased", "pid": "d55c8fd6-2019-04-18T16:31:33Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.61929321289062}, {"text": "I accept. Small raises in the US federal minimum wage is beneficial to low wage employees and has never been shown be a financial detriment to the US economy or employers, when spaced out over spans of time.", "title": "Raise the minimum wage", "pid": "7245daba-2019-04-18T15:27:44Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.60411071777344}, {"text": "I will be arguing for the US federal government to increase the minimum wage every year by one dollar. My opponent will argue that the government should not increase the minimum wage.", "title": "The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage.", "pid": "51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.5944061279297}, {"text": "Resolution: The US Minimum Wage should not be raised to $15 an hour. Rules:- No semantics. - The time-frame for increase must be reasonable. - Sources may be in an external link. - Spelling and Grammar / Conduct sources are void. Summary:The topic of the US Minimum Wage has been a hot spot for political and economic debate since it's creation in 1938. Created by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and set to $0.25 an hour, the wage has been the centerpiece of an unchallenged quantity of studies and academia. Pro (LordHelm) and Con (Romanii) will debate whether the Minimum Wage should be increased to $15 an hour within a fair time-frame (as high as 2025). Voters may only use Sources and Arguments to decide a winner. The debate has been reset to allow the opponents a chance to review their arguments, as neither side felt satisfied with their rounds. Romanii has been picked for the debate, as he was the most qualified debater.", "title": "Minimum Wage should not increase to $15.", "pid": "d13faac7-2019-04-18T14:24:38Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.5896453857422}, {"text": "I will be arguing for a stable federal minimum wage in the United States. I personally believe that the minimum wage should be abolished altogether, as I believe in almost nonexistent government intervention in business. However, I am arguing that we should not increase the minimum wage any higher then it already is on a federal basis. This comes from the fact that Seattle, NYC, LA, and Chicago have all raised their minimum wages to an exorbitant amount, which will eventually end up in loss of jobs and working hours. First round will be acceptance and an overall statement of your intended debate, as well as any definitions you shall use for your debate. If you feel that a word or sentence is vague, please define it using a common dictionary, and then list the name of that dictionary in your overall debate. No trolling, no usage of profanity, and all statements that are not opinionated but are not backed up by sources will be looked over, as I will not believe it unless I see a credible source.", "title": "Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised", "pid": "bf184b88-2019-04-18T14:33:20Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.57550048828125}, {"text": "*Whistle*", "title": "The minimum wage should not be raised to$9.00 as campaigned for by the President.", "pid": "1374527e-2019-04-18T17:17:19Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.5624542236328}, {"text": "I accept", "title": "Resolved: The United States should incrementally raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15/hr", "pid": "9e83cfe2-2019-04-18T14:18:48Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.48500061035156}, {"text": "I accept. Per our discussion in the comments, I will be arguing that the federal minimum wage should be raised to $10/hr. We will both assume for purposes of this debate that $10/hr constitutes a \"living wage,\" regardless of whether in actual fact $10/hr is sufficient to provide for necessities throughout the United States.Good luck.", "title": "Living Wage", "pid": "a071780f-2019-04-18T14:46:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.46157836914062}, {"text": "Extend all.", "title": "Resolved: The United States should incrementally raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15/hr", "pid": "9e83cfe2-2019-04-18T14:18:48Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.3895263671875}, {"text": "I believe the minimum wage should be raised on a federal level.Con will argue the opposite.", "title": "Raise The Minimum Wage", "pid": "e4c4f298-2019-04-18T12:58:30Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.37850952148438}, {"text": "I believe raising the minimum wage to $12.50 would benefit The American economy. Round 1 will be acceptance only. This is my first debate so I don't really know what to expect, but please just be cordial. Thank you.", "title": "The minimum wage should be raised to $12.50 gradually, by the year 2020", "pid": "b3c6f9b8-2019-04-18T12:20:53Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.36827087402344}, {"text": "The first round will be to accept this debate The minimum wage has been a major issue recently, with fast food workers calling for it to be raised to $15 an hour. Rules: 1: No cursing, be polite", "title": "The minimum wage should not be increased in the United States", "pid": "beb2c569-2019-04-18T16:49:14Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.3558807373047}, {"text": "No.", "title": "The US minimum wage should be raised to 20$", "pid": "352cc700-2019-04-18T16:23:02Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.35459899902344}, {"text": "I accept", "title": "The Minimum Wage should be increased.", "pid": "342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.34674072265625}, {"text": "Yes", "title": "The US minimum wage should be raised to 20$", "pid": "352cc700-2019-04-18T16:23:02Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.31678771972656}, {"text": "Raising the minimum wage, as promoted by President Barack Obama, would be destructive to jobs and to business, and should not be raised to $9.00.", "title": "The minimum wage should not be raised to$9.00 as campaigned for by the President.", "pid": "1374527e-2019-04-18T17:17:19Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.3112335205078}, {"text": "- The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourThe federal minimum wage has been $7.25 / hour since July 24, 2009. [1]“In the 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama called again on Congress to raise the national minimum wage, and soon after signed an Executive Order to raise the minimum wage for the individuals working on new federal service contracts.” [2]There is much debate among policy makers about the merits of minimum wage and about the effects of different policies. The conservative narrative is that having a minimum wage increases unemployment among teens and other unskilled workers. The liberal position points to research done by David Card and Alan Krueger that concludes that there is no evidence that raising worker pay had killed jobs. [3]There is so much conformational bias among those writing on the subject that the experts look at the same data and come to opposite conclusions. Some researchers say that raising the minimum wage will cause increased unemployment. Card and Krueger found that an increase of 19% in the minimum wage ($4.25 to $5.05) did not reduce employment rates. [3]Some say that an increase in minimum wage will cause an unacceptable increase in prices. If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent, according to a new study. That would mean a McDonald’s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16. [4]Some claim that an increase in the minimum wage will reduce staff turnover. “In 2013, the turnover rate for franchises was 93 percent, and it can cost $4,700 per worker who leaves. A previous study found that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, turnover drops by 2.2 percent, and a $15 wage would come with $5.2 billion in savings for the fast food industry.” [4]All of this calls into question the published literature on the minimum wage. “The minimum-wage effects literature is contaminated by publication selection bias, which we estimate to be slightly larger than the average reported minimum-wage effect. Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains.”[5]The misinformation around the minimum wage is so constant that the U.S. Department of Labor has set up a web page trying to debunk the common myths. [6]In light of this we need to do a controlled experiment on a national scale to see both the value and the harm done by raising the minimum wage raised by a significant amount.The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.This should be introduced incrementally so we can measure the effects of the change to the federal minimum wage. (I suggest $2.58 / hour increase on Jan 1 each year for 3 years).This would give us good data to draw some conclusions about what effects the minimum wage has on around issues of poverty and economics.Here are some questions that need more data. Does increasing the minimum wage reduce jobs? - Current data says job growth is better with an increase in minimum wage. Does increasing the minimum wage help the poor? - Current research suggest it will mostly help middle class white women.Does increasing the minimum wage reduce poverty? - Current research suggests that most in poverty are not working at minimum wage jobs. The prime factors causing poverty are: Current Poor Economy; Drug Use; Lack of Education and Medical Expenses.[7]Do we even have a good definition of poverty? [8] Current definitions of poverty (for government policy considerations) have nothing to do with insufficient food or insufficient housing.The minimum wage debate is crippled by a lack of good information. Statements of position are presented like articles of faith which demand belief without question. We should raise the minimum wage substantially so we can see what effect, if any, all our minimum wage policies have. Then we can see if the minimum wage is a useful economic too or not.- The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour1. www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm2. www.whitehouse.gov/raise-the-wage3. www.davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf4. www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/5. www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x/abstract6. www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm7. core197b.wikispaces.com/Major+Causes+of+Poverty+in+America8. www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor", "title": "The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour", "pid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.30162048339844}, {"text": "I still maintain that it should not be increased", "title": "The Minimum Wage should be increased.", "pid": "342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.25962829589844}, {"text": "Extend All", "title": "Resolved: The United States should incrementally raise the federal minimum wage to at least $15/hr", "pid": "9e83cfe2-2019-04-18T14:18:48Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.24179077148438}, {"text": "Harry Truman wins by knockout!", "title": "The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage.", "pid": "51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.2135467529297}, {"text": "This debate regards the following statement:\"The minimum wage in the United States should be raised to $15 an hour to support the economy.\"I am arguing against the statement and believe that the minimum wage should not be raised so high. My opponent must argue for a $15 minimum wage.", "title": "The Minimum Wage Should be Raised to $15 an Hour", "pid": "d93e6b4a-2019-04-18T14:23:03Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.168212890625}, {"text": "Thanks to LordHelm for challenging me. I'll be using this round only for acceptance. Good luck!", "title": "Minimum Wage should not increase to $15.", "pid": "d13faac7-2019-04-18T14:24:38Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.15367126464844}, {"text": "The minimum wage in the United States is currently $7.25. My opponent will be arguing that it should be raised. My opponent shall argue that it should be raised any increment higher then 1 dollar so any wage $8.25 or above. All definitions in this resolution are self explanatory.", "title": "BIRT minimum wage should be raised in the United States", "pid": "84bee0b1-2019-04-18T13:28:44Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.1307830810547}, {"text": "Sometimes the utility of a debate is that it helps to refine one's statement. When I say \"The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised\", I mean it should not be raised NOW. The debate question had its genesis in news articles from New York and elsewhere as a response to people protesting for an increase. Raising the wage now is the wrong response , to the wrong problem and at the wrong time. With the current level of unemployment, and those who are not in the labor market, the minimum should not be raised until those issues are resolved. To raise it NOW only compounds the overall problem with the economy. When the federal government begins to act responsibly, this issue could be revisited. California may be raising their in-state minimum to $10 per hour. Let's wait and see what their experience shows. In the meantime, I still stand that \"The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised at this time.\"", "title": "The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised", "pid": "b6f6e654-2019-04-18T17:09:58Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.11050415039062}, {"text": "I will be arguing that he Federal Goveronment should not raise the minimum wage for a number of reasons: Reason #1 - The intention of the minimum wage - The minimum wage is just a entrance wage, thus it should not be something you can live comfortably off of, because the idea is you're supposed to work, invest, and get a better job over time. Furthermore, the minimum wage was invented to protect workers from corporate greed. Reason #2 - The Constitution - The Consdtitution never grants the Federal Government the power to establish a Federal minimum wage, rather, under the Tenth Amendment, as this power isn't prohibited to the states, the power to establish a minimum waste should be given to the states respectively (state minimum wages), or to the people (labour unions) Reason #3 - Economics - In the United States, we are having an inflation rate of 8-13%, and raising the minimum wage will only make it worse. Besides, raising the minimum wage will harm small businesses the most, and since 60% of new jobs come from small businesses, this will significantly raise the unemployment rate.", "title": "The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage.", "pid": "51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.08367919921875}, {"text": "Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate.Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy.I will use numerous reliable, reputable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. There are also other benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate.I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will negatively hurt the U.S. Economy.First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!", "title": "Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy", "pid": "7a99c7b0-2019-04-18T16:23:13Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.0749969482422}, {"text": "First of all, though the constitution can be amendment, no official amendment was passed allowing the Federal government to create a Federal Minimum wage. And the supreme court was never given the power to amend the constitution, and even if it was, they never even ruled that this was constitutional, thus the Federal Government does not have the power to establish a minimum wage. Secondly, I do believe I proved that Switzerland, as a result of not having any minimum wage, has increased the average wages of its workers through competition. This actually happened in the US during WW2, the reason is that there were more jobs than employees, thus employers competed over employees by offering benefits, higher wages, safer conditions etc. Furthermore, labor unions during the progressive movement were able to get better wages as of the 1890's, the Federal Government couldn't increase wages until 1941. This means that labor unions are much better at achieving a better wage than the federal government. Thirdly, I never said there are benefits to a 7.25$ a hour minimum wage, only that it isn't necessary because states have proven to be much better at increasing their minimum wage than the federal government. And the same is true about labor unions, thus, the federal government increasing the minimum wage wouldn't do much because it would be incapable of consistently updating it with inflation, which is severely miscalculated.", "title": "The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage.", "pid": "51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.07115173339844}, {"text": "I'm sorry my argument is stupid >< I didn't have enough time to research it correctly. I'm just going to say that It would help people who are working very hard but struggling to pay the bills.", "title": "The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.", "pid": "47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.06556701660156}, {"text": "No? You do realize your arguing in favor of the law, right?", "title": "The US minimum wage should be raised to 20$", "pid": "352cc700-2019-04-18T16:23:02Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.05746459960938}, {"text": "I will be arguing that the US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage. I would like more my opponent to note that I agree that the US Federal government should raise the minimum wage one dollar every year until we get to 10 dollars in order to make small businesses adjust to the wages. Now, I will begin my case. -------------------------------------- Democracy Advantage: Before, I begin to state the statistics on how many people in America support an increase in the minimum wage; I want to stress the importance of this argument. The Founding Fathers intended for our representatives to listen to what the American people want. These are one of the fundamental principles of America, and what defined our country in the 1700s as a democratic nation. My opponent is libertarian. If there is anything libertarians, liberals, and conservatives can agree with; it is that we should all be able to agree that when 76% of Americans agree on simple legislation that should be passed, than the government is obligated to listen and pass the legislation a majority of Americans want to be passed. If the government does not listen to the pleas of the American people, than our democracy is not functioning properly. 76% of Americans support raising the minimum wage. A great majority of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 dollars an hour. I offer this question to my opponent. I believe that if the government continues to deny the pleas to raise the minimum wage, than how can we still call ourselves a functional democracy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Benefits: My opponent is of the few in America that claim that raising the minimum wage will hurt jobs. I will debunk this popular myth in this contention. Note that 73 million people are paid hourly wages. 1. Improved living standards: The first benefit is that millions of Americans would see a pay raise that could go toward meeting their basic needs and living expenses. A 2013 report from the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 16.5 million low-wage workers would benefit from a $10.10-per-hour wage, including 900,000 workers who would climb above the poverty threshold. A more recent analysis by CNN was even more aggressive, implying that 5 million Americans would be lifted out of poverty at $10.10 per hour. More workers being able to pay for their basic expenses is a good thing, as it may lead to less reliance on government- and state-sponsored financial-aid programs --------------------------------- 2. Increasing the federal minimum wage to $9.80 by July 1, 2014, would raise the wages of about 28 million workers who would receive nearly 40 billion dollars in additional wages over the phase in period. ------------------------------------ 3. GDP has been proven to increase roughly by 25 billion dollar resulting in the creation of approximately 100,000 net jobs. -------------------------------------- 4. Around 54% of affected worker work full time, over 70% are in families with incomes of less than 60,000 dollars, more than a quarter are parents, and over a third are married. ------------------------------------------------ 5. The average affected worker earns about half of his or her family's total income. ----------------------------------------------------------- 6. The immediate benefits of a minimum-wage increase are in the boosted earnings of the lowest-paid workers, but its positive effects would far exceed this extra income. Recent research reveals that, despite skeptics\" claims, raising the minimum wage does not cause job loss. In fact, throughout the nation, minimum-wage increases would create jobs. Like unemployment insurance benefits or tax breaks for low- and middle-income workers, raising the minimum wage puts more money in the pockets of working families when they need it most, thereby augmenting their spending power. Economists generally recognize that low-wage workers are more likely than any other income group to spend any extra earnings immediately on previously unaffordable basic needs or services: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Europe: Europe is also a good example of how the minimum wage actually benefits workers more than it harms workers. -Great Britain's minimum wage is $10.31 an hour. There GDP is 2.8 trillion dollars. There are 4.9 million small businesses that are fully capable of managing this wage without loosing jobs. -Germany's minimum wage is $11.50 an hour. Germany's GDP is 3.85 trillion dollars. -France's minimum wage is $10.70 an hour. France's GDP is 2.83 trillion dollars. -Australia's minimum wage is $10.50 an hour. Australia's GDO is 1.45 trillion dollars. - America's minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. America's GDP is 17.48 trillion dollars. I offer my opponent these questions. -Why is it that America was the wealthiest country in that list, yet had the lowest federal minimum wage? -Why is America able to access an abundant amount of benefits from raising the minimum wage, and the government is still not pass it into law? -Why is it that that the US Federal Government will not raise the minimum wage when 76% of Americans believe that it is the right thing to do? I look forward to these answers. It is up to my opponent whether to address these questions in his case or rebuttal. Sources: . http://www.reuters.com... . http://www.forbes.com... . http://www.msnbc.com... . http://www.bing.com... . http://www.timeforaraise.org...", "title": "The US Federal Government should raise the minimum wage.", "pid": "51c34db5-2019-04-18T13:22:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.0391845703125}, {"text": "3rd round rebuttals 4th round closing arguments and rebuttals LMF will argue that the minimum wage should be raised to fifteen dollars per hour. I will argue we shouldn't.", "title": "The Us should raise th minimum wage to 15 dollars per hour.", "pid": "e9139e64-2019-04-18T13:46:58Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.0216064453125}, {"text": "Win!", "title": "The Minimum Wage Should be Raised to $15 an Hour", "pid": "d93e6b4a-2019-04-18T14:23:03Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.9617919921875}, {"text": "Win!", "title": "The Minimum Wage Should be Raised to $15 an Hour", "pid": "d93e6b4a-2019-04-18T14:23:03Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.9617919921875}, {"text": "There was a glitch that prevented me from posting the previous round and in the comments me and lannan13 have agreed for voters to vote based on R1 - R3 (excluding my forfeiture), any votes placed against my forfeiture will be reported and removed. Thanks for a great debate that was unfortunately interrupted by many glitches on either side.", "title": "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to", "pid": "74df972a-2019-04-18T14:06:51Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.96163940429688}, {"text": "The minimum wage increasing will allow more people to have more money, stimulating the economy and helping citizens who are currently in poverty reach out of it, take a foothold, and stay in the middle class. (1) These workers are not making enough to live on in this economy, and they need more. Unfortunately, jobs are very limited due to our ever rising population. (2) There has been discussion about how increasing the minimum wage will increase prices, and this is always a fear but unfortunately for this side; increasing the minimum wage and increasing prices would be disaster for these companies. The more money they have, the more they are willing to spend on luxury goods and more expensive food. This would increase sales and return on investment for companies. They must be made aware of this, and there must be checks in place to protect the costumers from overzealous companies and organizations. Most of the big names who are against the minimum wage increasing, tend to be owners, backers, or stockholders of very large companies that have had very shady practices regarding the minimum wage. Such as Walmart, McDonald's, etc. (1) http://www.postcrescent.com... (2) http://www.salary.com...", "title": "The federal minimum wage should be increased", "pid": "6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.95614624023438}, {"text": "In round 4 I want to cover the following : 1. Arguments for a $15 federal minimum wage. 2. Summary of and Responses to CON’s statements 3. Closing statement.1. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour. The primary reason the Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage is so it have hard data on all the effects of this public policy tool. The majority of current research suggests that increasing the minimum wage will do the following: a) “Provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers.” [1] b) Stimulate the economy as workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth. [1] c) Senator Edward Kennedy once called the minimum wage “one of the best antipoverty programs we have.”. [2] d) Reduce the number of single moms living in poverty. [1] e) It is good for public health [3] Not only are these benefits backed by the data, but the following are likely. [4] a) Job Hunt Motivation b) Single Parents benefit c) Job Creation d) Increased Morale e) Greater odds of high school completion [3] f) Reduced costs for state Medicaid [3] g) Less people choosing welfare over work. These are all excellent reasons to increase the minimum wage. The Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage because that is a substantial increase, and we will see clear trends in the data to help us understand all the effects of a minimum wage that is above the poverty line. Another reason for proposing a $15 minimum wage, is because it will place our minimum wage earners above the poverty line. Our federal government uses two measures of poverty: “poverty guidelines” and “poverty thresholds” [5] Poverty thresholds were developed in 1963-1964, based largely on estimates of the minimal cost of food needs. Poverty guidelines are a dollar figure used by the census bureau to calculate the number of people in poverty. [6] As an example, the poverty guideline for a single person living in “48 Contiguous States and D.C.” is $11,770 for 2015. It would take 1624 hours at the 7.25 minimum wage to earn this amount. Many minimum wage workers get 30 hours a week or less, and can not rise above the poverty guideline. If the minimum wage were $10 this same worker could earn $15600 a year, which is almost enough to support a spouse or child at the poverty line($15,930). If the Federal minimum wage were $15, this same person would earn $23400. This is enough for three people to be above the poverty line, or for four people to almost rise out of poverty. [6 - poverty guideline table] The issue of public health is often forgotten in the Minimum wage debate: “Last year, Minnesota legislators successfully enacted a raise in the minimum wage, taking Minnesota from one of the lowest-paying minimum wage states to one of the highest. State Health Commissioner Edward Ehlinger described the move as the greatest legislative victory of the year. - “I’d argue that it was the biggest public health achievement in that legislative session — and probably in the four years I’ve been health commissioner” [3] The Federal Government should mandate a $15 minimum wage because it will improve the health of low income earners. This means there will be less drain on medical resources and possibly even net savings as federal costs of Obama Care rise. A study “in APHA’s American Journal of Public Health, found that the wage increase would decrease the risk of premature death by 5 percent for adults ages 24 to 44 living in households with an income of about $20,000. In addition, the children of such workers would experience substantially increased odds of high school completion and a 22 percent decrease in the risk of early childbirth.” [3] A “higher minimum wages reduce enrollment in traditional Medicaid — the portion of the health insurance program in which states pay a substantial share.” There are many other reasons why a $15 federal minimum wage would be good for minimum wage earners, and for the country. One helpful way to think of it is: You get more of what you pay for! I would rather see workers paid a living wage. I would rather not see increased spending on welfare and medicaid. 2. Summary of and Responses to CON’s statementsCon has the following concerns / issues - Cost of Living - Will lead to job loss - Does very little to help the poor - EITCLet me respond to some of his errors. - Cost of Living “Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.” CON is taking a simplistic view that any increase in prices as absolutely bad. For the worker earning minimum wage, their purchasing power at $15/hour is far greater than it was at $7.25/ hour. For the rest of us, a Big Mac meal ($3.99) would cost about 17 cents more ($4.16) which is hardly going to hurt us.[7] One of the problems with the current Federal Minimum Wage is that it is not indexed to the consumer price index or the cost of living. [8] Adjusted for inflation/cost of living, the highest minimum wage was in 1968, when it was equivalent to $10.69/hour in purchasing power.[9] The effect on the cost of living will be small, but the effect on those earning the minimum wage will be huge. - Will lead to job loss CON seems to ignore all the scholarly papers that state that an increased minimum wage will have little effect on the unemployment rate. The literature concludes “we find no evidence that the rise in New Jersey's minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state.” [10] The Pew Research Center found that the strongest opposition to a minimum wage increase came from Republicans, and that the opposition in the debate are more partisan politics that based on fact.[11] - Does very little to help the poor CON is correct that not all people in poverty are the working poor. Many are on some form of welfare. I want to reward the working poor with a higher minimum wage so they will be not so poor. Raising the Federal minimum wage to $15/ hour will even allow some to be above the poverty line. It will increase the health of these working poor. It will encourage people who are on welfare to consider working. CON is absolutely incorrect in suggesting that an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage will not benefit the working poor. - EITC CON sings the Republican party line that tax breaks are the answer. This is absolutely false. The people who benefit the most from tax breaks are the wealthy who can afford to hire an accountant to protect their money from government. I have a good income. I pay almost no taxes because the wealthy have a high motivation to find tax breaks. There is one great advantage of the EITC. It often encourages people who are on welfare to participate in the workforce.[12] As such, I applaud it. It is a good tool to reduce welfare abuse. Combined with a decent ($15) minimum wage there should be even more benefits for the working poor, and for tax payers.Closing Statement. We need a Federal Minimum Wage of $15[1] http://www.epi.org...[2] http://www.forbes.com...[3] http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org...[4] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/[8] http://www.dol.gov...[9] https://www.fas.org...[10] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...[11] http://www.pewresearch.org...[12] http://www.cbpp.org...[13] http://www.tylervigen.com...this is a good resource https://www.policyalternatives.ca...", "title": "The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour", "pid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.9423370361328}, {"text": "All points extended. I'll let my opponent decide what he's doing in his final round.", "title": "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the Federal Minimum wage standard to", "pid": "74df972a-2019-04-18T14:06:51Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.9193572998047}, {"text": "Terms: We: The United States of America Federal Government Minimum wage: the lowest legal amount per hour businesses are allowed to pay to employees, currently being $7.25 per hour. challenge accepted. Oh yeah, and who has BOP?", "title": "We should raise the minmum wage", "pid": "8c866652-2019-04-18T18:27:57Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.91641235351562}, {"text": "I accept, here is the resolution, Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $10.10. Rules Round 2 is for contentions, no rebuttles. Round 3 is for rebuttles. Round 4 is rebuttles and conclusions No trolling. Wikipeadia shall not be an acceptable source for this debate. Should- Used to express obligation or duty (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Raise- To increase in size, quantity, or worth (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)", "title": "Do anything", "pid": "1d5f1558-2019-04-18T15:25:13Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.90699768066406}, {"text": "But again, the cost of living is increasing. The only way to fix that problem, caused by inflation, is to stimulate the economy through an increase in the minimum wage. Increasing the wage would assist many people, mostly those who are in poverty. As discussed by CNN (1). Quoting from the article: \"Last week Oxfam released a new study that dispels many of the political myths surrounding the nation's minimum wage debate. It shows not only that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour would give some 25 million workers across America a much-needed raise, but also that, on average, one in five workers in every single congressional district in America -- red or blue -- would benefit from such a raise. In fact, according to our data, a hike in the minimum wage would benefit more than 55,000 workers in the average congressional district.\" This increase has been proven to assist workers across America, helping those in every state. Quoting from the Study done by Oxfam: \"The districts with the highest percentages of workers who would benefit from a higher minimum wage are a diverse mix \" at least 29 percent of workers in districts like South Florida, rural South Texas, and Bakersfield, California.\" (2) This increase would benefit workers across the nation, but assisting those mainly in the states with the highest number of workers. This is what America needs, a chance to fix this poverty problem by attacking the source; low income. The price to live has risen over these seven years, and it is time that we fix that mistake. Sources: (1)http://www.cnn.com... (2) http://www.oxfamamerica.org...", "title": "The federal minimum wage should be increased", "pid": "6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.88128662109375}, {"text": "Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate. (I will also be arguing that the federal minimum wage should be indexed to inflation, to keep up with the rising cost of living--a point which my opponent can either choose to refute or ignore.)Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy.I will use numerous reliable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. But there are other numerous benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate.I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will overall negatively hurt the U.S. Economy.First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!(Disclaimer: for this debate the use of the comments section to post working links that appear dead in the actual debate will be allowed. Neither debater can use the comments section to extend the debate. The comments section shall be used only for non-scored comments and to post working links to sources that are inactive in the actual debate.)", "title": "Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy", "pid": "7a99c7cf-2019-04-18T16:20:28Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.86749267578125}, {"text": "I accept. I look forward to a great lively debate.", "title": "The Us should raise th minimum wage to 15 dollars per hour.", "pid": "e9139e64-2019-04-18T13:46:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.86546325683594}, {"text": "Forward, again.", "title": "The minimum wage should be increased", "pid": "d55c8fd6-2019-04-18T16:31:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.83706665039062}, {"text": "Definitions:USFG - short for United States Federal Governmentminimum wage - the lowest wage permitted by lawraise - increase the amount, level, or strength of Significantly - to at least $10 an hour Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: Con rebuts Pro's arguments in Round 2 and vice versaRound 4: Both sides defend their original arguments in Round 2 Look forward to a great debate!", "title": "March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage", "pid": "8c9c7325-2019-04-18T13:31:47Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.81936645507812}, {"text": "My position for this debate is that minimum wage should not increase. Currently, minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. I believe that it is a terrible idea that would prove to be no benefit to America or her people. First off, this is a sustainable salary. For a 40-hour week, that is about $1,250 a month, before taxes. This is obviously enough to survive with. If you do the math, housing, bills, food, and other necessities can be handled with $1,250/month. Now I will state that life on minimum wage is difficult, but it is possible. Second, (I am aware that this will draw some offense.) minimum wage paying jobs usually do not require much skill. I know this simply because I used to work at minim wage. In most cases, there is not much prior education/training needed for most minimum wage jobs. Since the labor is elementary, (once again, in MOST cases, not all. I understand that some off the jobs are labor intensive and difficult) the workers do not necessarily deserve more than $7.25/hr. The easier the job, the smaller the pay. It is that simple. Thirdly, and most importantly, a raise in minimum wage would severely damage the economy. If minimum wage was to increase by $2.85, then the value of the dollar would decrease substantially. Inflation would occur. The economy would be a wreck, money's worth would deteriorate, and we would be back to square one: wanted a raise in minimum wage. Every time there is an increase in minimum wage, the cost of living increases. This would continue in a never ending cycle of raising the salary of blue-collar workers. Yes, an increase in minimum wage looks like a great idea on paper, when you look at the reality of it, there are essentially no long term benefits from it. I do not support the raise in minimum wage. This is the end of my one, and only, argument of this debate.", "title": "Minimum Wage Should Increase From $7.25/hr to $10.10/hr", "pid": "db76a53d-2019-04-18T16:19:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.81532287597656}, {"text": "I Accept.", "title": "The minimum wage should be raised.", "pid": "f3364f42-2019-04-18T13:05:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.79454040527344}, {"text": "I will allow my opponent to make the starting argument...", "title": "Should Minimum Wage Be Raised To 15 Dollars", "pid": "4c9dc9d3-2019-04-18T15:00:27Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.7873992919922}, {"text": "The argument that raising the federal minimum wage would cost business owners more money, and thus force them to either lay off workers or not bring on additional workers, seems to assume that the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce. Instead, raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. As the federal minimum wage stands, there are people who feel it is not worth their time to work for the minimum wage, and instead would be able to sustain a lifestyle they are comfortable with by continuing to stay on welfare for as long as they can. The argument that raising the minimum wage would increase \"overall costs\" seems to be reasonable in the short-term; in that, business owners would likely try to compensate for the increased wages of their employees. However, there are many other factors that have a direct impact upon the \"overall costs,\" and such a discussion seems to be beyond the scope of this debate. As far as your statement that raising the minimum wage would have a \"negative ripple through the economy,\" I will note that the very purpose of the enactment of a federal minimum wage is to increase consumer-spending power in order to stimulate the economy. That said, due to the inflation of our dollar over time, it would be reasonable for the federal government to raise the minimum wage in accordance with economic inflation, to preserve the intent of having a federal minimum wage in the first place. Without doing so, due to the already increase in \"overall costs\" of the standard of living in our country, minimum wage workers will continue to fall behind and the very purpose for a federal minimum wage would eventually become compromised. Lastly, I agree with you that if states want to raise their minimum wage that is their decision. However, if the federal government feels the need to step in and set a floor for what it believes the minimum wage should be, it has every right to do so. (Darby)", "title": "The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised", "pid": "b6f6e654-2019-04-18T17:09:58Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.7506866455078}, {"text": "I'm going to extend two main points to you in order to argue in favour of a higher minimum wage: I'll talk about the benefits to the American (or any) economy of a workforce with a greater disposable income, and I'll explain the social benefits of a minimum wage, extending beyond the purely economic ones. Before I get there however, I'd like to offer a few points of extraneous rebuttal against the argument extended by the other side, specifically against James' view of inflation. Any further rebuttal will be interwoven into my speech. James' argument against a higher minimum wage is that any rise in the minimum wage would be purely inflationary. I presume that the reasoning here is that Aggregate demand would rise, people, would want more things, and the price of these things would rise to keep up with demand. James' argument neglects to realize, however, that workers earning more will be more motivated, more efficient, and more willing to put work into their jobs, thus raising productivity. This means that the effect of inflation here is overstated. Even if it weren't, I feel that equality is more beneficial, when balancing benefits. A minimum wage increases the disposable income of poorer workers, allowing them to purchase more expensive goods and services. This means that people on welfare have a greater incentive to find work, and that there is more money to be spent on often more expensive American products, rather than cheap foreign imports. Money will flow around the economy, rather than being holed up in banks. Things like Health insurance, College tuition, and fresh food become more affordable when the people at the bottom aren't forced to live at the bottom: The savings in medicaid, the amount of extra tax raised, and the side benefits, such as better education, lower incentive to commit crime, and longer life expectancy are immeasurable. The benefits of a higher minimum wage clearly outweigh the cons, and thus, I propose.", "title": "Minimum Wage Should Increase From $7.25/hr to $10.10/hr", "pid": "db76a53d-2019-04-18T16:19:38Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.749755859375}, {"text": "Extend", "title": "The Us should raise th minimum wage to 15 dollars per hour.", "pid": "e9139e64-2019-04-18T13:46:58Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.72715759277344}, {"text": "Rules 1. No trolling 2. Please keep some sort of format when responding 3. BOP is shared 4. 1st round is a constructive speech round Definitions Federal minimum wage: The wage set by the American government as the lowest possible wage for American workers set at $7.25 an hour. https://www.dol.gov...... I negate the resolution that the US federal government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour for the following contentions: Contention 1: States are much better actors The economies of different states vary drastically for a reason. Certain states may be able to only support one minimum wage due to circumstances such as the labor pool, average education of workers, and how many businesses pay at minimum wage to any of their employees. Mr. Holzer, a previous chief economist of the Department of Labor wrote for the Brookings Institute in 2015 and has stated the following: “In a city like Washington D.C. where unemployment among those with a high school education or less is at a worrisome 15%, jobless rates will almost certainly rise. Many employers will be very reluctant to pay high wages to workers whose skills – including the ability to speak English, in the case of many immigrants – are so modest. A likely result would be not only increases in unemployment but also drops in formal labor force activity (where workers work or search for legal jobs) and perhaps some growth in undocumented work among immigrants.” http://www.brookings.edu...... We can see proof of this in the status quo with the failed project in Washington D.C where the minimum wage was raised, which failed miserably as there was little job growth in industries with low-wage workers as well as the fact that benefits and expenses on employees were cut so businesses could stay in the red. http://www.forbes.com...... This gives a valid example of how a minimum wage can actually harm the very people we are trying to help federally, which applies to the whole country. However, individual states are more understanding of their own limitations and can fairly regulate, and possibly raise, the minimum wage to fit the needs of the people while not being too stressful on the job market. A much more reasonable way to fix the problem would be to mandate that states raise the minimum wage by at least five percent, and at most 15%. We could see a moderate increase in revenue for people that could push more people into jobs with a higher incentive to join the labor market. However, as it stands, we cannot pass the resolution on the pretext that we are relying on the federal minimum wage, and not the states. Contention 2: Increase price for consumers Businesses exist for a one, primary goal: to make a profit. So, if we raise the minimum wage, we would see that businesses would be paying more on their employees and less on their products while demanding a higher price to still maintain a profit. A fifteen-dollar minimum wage, which is a huge increase for many states, would no doubt have this affect. In fact, we can look at Breitbart in August of 2015 which shows this exact problem occurring as pizzas, an everyday consumer item, cost thirty dollars at one pizzeria. This is only one example listed in the article. There have been estimates in the article from the National Federation of independent businesses that point out other harms as well as illuminate the problems associated with the minimum wage hike as well which includes the following escribing a possibility of legislation that would come through the state congress in California: “…The state’s 2013 legislation raising California’s minimum wage rate to $9 per hour in 2014 and $10 by 2016 would shrink the state’s economy by $5.7 billion in the next 10 years and would cost the state roughly 68,000 jobs–63% of which would come from small businesses.” http://www.breitbart.com...... We can see another example of this problem if we were to look at the American Enterprise Institute in 2016 where it is shown that: “• In our weekly survey of ten of Chipotle’s markets, we found the company implemented price increases in half of the surveyed markets this week—San Francisco, Denver, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Orlando. In most markets, the price increases have been limited to beef and average about 4% on barbacoa and steak, toward the lower end of management’s expectation for a 4% to 6% price increase on beef. • San Francisco, however, saw across-the-board price increases averaging over 10%, including 10% increases on chicken, carnitas (pork), sofritas (tofu), and vegetarian entrees along with a 14% increase on steak and barbacoa.We believe the outsized San Francisco price hike was likely because of increased minimum wages (which rose by 14% from $10.74 per hour to $12.25 on May 1) as well as scheduled minimum wage increases in future years (to $13 next year, $14 in 2017, and $15 in 2018).” https://www.aei.org...... We can clearly see from the examples shown that there is no such thing as a minimum wage that does not affect prices for consumers, showing that there is a balance that needs to be achieved between the personal need of people working the minimum wage and the consumer’s need for affordable goods and services. Since the fifteen dollar minimum wage does not account for this, we need to negate, if only to keep a fair and balanced system that can be tweaked later to bring about better effects. Contention 3: Counter-plan I will concede the following, the minimum wage needs to be increased moderately and on the state level to ensure that the previously mentioned points do not take effect. What also needs to happen is that we need to guarantee that there is a happy medium between the hike of the price for consumer goods and the individual need of money to support families for the people on the minimum wage. That being said, we should also incentivize getting into higher education and high-skilled jobs through prioritizing education in less affluent regions of the country and try to make college more attractive to those who come from poverty. Finally, we need to ensure that small businesses do not fail, so an annual audit of small businesses in all states should be done by the Department of Labor to ensure that progress is being made economically and to combat poverty and raise the standard of living. This will also help determine what states would need higher minimum or lower minimum wages. Until my opponent can refute my counter plan as a worse idea, we can’t pass today’s resolution with a clean conscience as we can tell there is a much better solution that could be enacted. As clearly shown, one must negate the resolution and favor the counter plan instead to ensure that the previous points mentioned will not occur and we can have job security. Thank you.", "title": "Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour", "pid": "5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.72386169433594}, {"text": "While people working for minimum wage would earn more, this would also mean the employer would have to pay them more. This means many people could get fired from work. Also as you mentioned, this would result in higher prices for their goods. In the long run, these higher prices could hurt everyone, not just those living on minimum wage. A CBO report from 2013 states that half a million jobs would be lost if the federal wage would be raised to $10.10 ( as many people want it to be ) The report also estimates that many job benefits would be lost, such as paid vacation and reimbursed parking. Another point I want to add is a higher minimum wage would hurt the development of people. Say you're in highschool and the new minimum wages looks pretty good to you. Many teens chose to drop out of highschool and not bother to attend college. These higher wages very well could entice teens and others to not go/go back to college because they are already making more money doing something so easy, like working at a fast food restaurant. In 2011, 3.8 million Americans were working for the federal minimum wage, more than half of them teens. About 70% of minimum wage employees work fewer than 35 hours a week. They work less, and their job is a lot easier than ones that require a college education. Why should we give more money to people doing less work? They work less and the job is easier, thus they earn proportionally less. In conclusion, we should not increase the federal minimum wage. By doing so, the quantity and quality of jobs decrease, and people very well may lose their strive to go to college and get a better education. Sources- Salary.com, Economicshelp.org, Balancedpolitics.org", "title": "The federal minimum wage should be increased", "pid": "6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.70970153808594}, {"text": "Forward all points", "title": "The US Minimum wage ought to be raised substantially.", "pid": "baa5c71f-2019-04-18T16:44:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.70843505859375}, {"text": "I accept this challenge to debate upon the fact that the minimum wage should be raised. It is unjust in my opinion that millions of the working class will have to partake more than one job to support their families. I will be arguing on the basis that the last time the federal minimum wage was raised was in 2009. And the fact that numerous citizens will have to survive on meager means from the minimum wage pay. I acknowledge you for providing this debate so I can provide my opinion on the issue at hand. Okay, that sums up what I'm gonna do.", "title": "Minimum Wage Should Not Be Raised", "pid": "bf184b88-2019-04-18T14:33:20Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.69735717773438}, {"text": "So because these people are not the ideal societal members, we should forget about them and leave them to their fates? We should leave the group who is forced into these jobs to suffer and make below the amount required to live? You also forget that the price to live has increased, and it will only continue to increase. And with the current minimum wage, these people will continue to seep deeper and deeper into poverty. (1) Quoting from the article: \"When the cost of living goes up, so should wages. It's common sense. While serving in the US Congress, we supported reasonable periodic increases in the federal minimum wage to enable workers to better support their families and keep up with the economy. And we rallied our Republican and Democratic colleagues to make it the law. But the last time Congress voted to raise the wage to its current rate of $7.25 an hour was seven years ago. Since then, the cost of life's essentials have shot up. Groceries cost 20% more, a gallon of gas costs 25%more, and average tuition at a community college increased 44%. But the minimum wage remains at $7.25. If it had kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be almost $10.70 today.\" These people deserve to have their wages increased as the price of living increases, for the time that was a proper minimum wage. Now? Prices have increased and to live costs more. Should they be forsaken to this fate as the prices continue to rise every year? Raise the minimum wage and leave it that way for ten years then go back and review the situation. Change the minimum wage to be parallel to the price of living. As it increases, raise the wage, as it decreases, lower the wage. Sources: (1) http://www.usatoday.com...", "title": "The federal minimum wage should be increased", "pid": "6ac98ba6-2019-04-18T15:12:23Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.6798858642578}, {"text": "Summary from Round 2Pro - 1. Economists are not agreed on the of the effects of a minimum wage.2. The literature is split. We need more data by way of a large scale experiment.3. Too small a change to the minimum wage is unlikely to give use clear data. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 /hour.Con - Oops - no arguments Regarding CON’s arguments in Round 3The cost of living There are 2 problems with Con’s arguments about the cost of living.1. CON argues there should be no FEDERAL minimum wage, which is outside the scope of this debate. He also does not suggest a different value.2. Con says that a $15 minimum wage will hurt employers or overpay workers. Both these statements have no data to back them up. It seems that Con is suggesting that the FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE should be decided by each state or be different in each state. This is not the definition of a FEDERAL minimum wage. The idea of a FEDERAL MINIMUM is that it is decided nationally, and states can choose to have local or state legislation that mandates an increase above this. In CON’s example the state of New York could mandate a $20 minimum if they thought the cost of living merited an increase to improve the lot of people in their state. CON recognizes that states can have higher minimums than the federal minimum. CON does not seem to recognize that setting a federal minimum wage is designed to get people at a better standard of living in all states. CON seems to be arguing that there should be NO federal minimum wage. This is outside the realm of this debate. Note that CON says “Something such as minimum wage is best left to the local counties or municipalities”, which implies that the Federal Government should not set any minimum wage. Some who argue against paying workers a living wage say that the cost of living would go way up for all of us if we raised the federal minimum wage to $15. I am glad that Con did not try this argument as it is directly refuted by the evidence.Will lead to job lossCon makes up a fictional scenario with fictional numbers. Any employer with numbers like those given by con would already be out of business. Please give us real numbers for a real business in a real state in a real world.CON gave a completely fictional “example” to try to sway the reader about an important question. “Will an increased minimum wage lead to any significant job loss?”One source referenced by CON is “Do Economists Agree on Anything? Yes!” which concludes that “The efficacy of the minimum wage continues to divide economists.” [1]The data presented say that 48.1% of economists want to decrease or eliminate the minimum wage, while 52.0% are in favour of it. (Note this does not specify local or federal minimum wage). Not only were 52% in favour of a minimum wage, but 37.7% of economists were in favour of a substantial increase. NOTE This is from Table 3 in first source that CON presented.The US Department of labor refutes CON’s claim. Here is what they say “In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, \"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.” [2]In the special case of tipped workers who get both the minimum wage plus tips (so they receive even more than the minimum) the department of labor states: “As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour — before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase.” [2]There are many more studies that come to the same conclusion: There is no evidence that increasing the federal minimum wage will cause job loss or hurt job growth. The NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, which produces policy papers for government and industry, has an important 2008 paper on optimizing the value of the minimum wage.[3]It talks about supply, demand, competitive equilibrium and tax policy, and it takes the complexity of the issues seriously. Looking at all these factors we need a federal minimum wage of $15 so we can learn how to adjust taxes and welfare to give the most good to the most people.Does very little to help the poorCON seems to say that because the minimum wage does not fix every problem for the poor, we should abandon it as a tool for helping low wage earners. That is like saying that because everybody dies we should stop spending money on hospitals and doctors.CON suggest a low minimum wage BECAUSE WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH. This is a fallacy. In response to CON and people with similar logic we need to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 (and indexed for cost of living)CON says that 60% of those in poverty are not in the workforce. This is true, many are the children and non working spouses of the working poor. Raising the wealth of poor communities will help many who are not employed.EITC CON says there should be a tax credit for those earning so little that a minimum wage increase would affect them. I agree that a comprehensive strategy to help the poor needs to include MORE than the minimum wage. Our debate, however, is about the fact that the federal minimum should be increased to $15.CON’s (false) conclusions Con points to his false understanding about the cost of living and minimum wage. Con wrongly claims that a minimum wage increases unemployment Con rightly claims that a minimum wage increase is not the ONLY way to help the poor. Con suggests tax breaks (which are outside the scope of this debate). The facts prove CON wrong. The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourRegarding CON’s “rebuttals” - The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hourDavid Card’s study - CON says the study didn’t show any proof that the minimum wage increase was a good thing. I’m sure that those receiving the increase were happy to receive it. Con makes a nonsense comment that it compared 2 cities with similar cost of living. This is the way science works, you try to minimize changes in every variable but the one you are studying. I’m glad CON pointed out that this is good science. His comment is a pont in favour of my understanding of the subject, not his.Con says that Alan Kruger was against raising the minimum wage to $15. Since he gives no reference, I’ll assume he is referring to the 1992 study in my references. I agree that $15 / hour would be excessive in 1992 when the study was between $4.25 and $5.05 per hour.Price Increases If the minimum wage were increased to $15 an hour, prices at fast food restaurants would rise by an estimated 4.3 percent.[5] That would mean a McDonald’s Big Mac, which currently goes for $3.99, would cost about 17 cents more, or $4.16. This is a trivial amount. If I buy a Big Mack meal every day of the week my total cost increase is $1.19 per week. The price increases would be trivial.CON states “I'll admit I'm a bit confused now.”CON seems to have missed my main premise that : The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.This is because we need better information about the cause and effect relationship between minimum wage and other economic indicators. A federal minimum wage increase to this level would give good data for policy makers and a better understanding for economists. Most of CON’s arguments prove my point that we need good data that we can only get from a large increase in the federal minimum wage. For example, one main source for CON is a blog page from a software developer and CEO of a software company.[6] He is possibly a great guy, but not an authority on government policy and economics.CON basically ignores the position of the US Dept. Of Labor.Please read here to see them refute his fallacies one by one.http://www.dol.gov...Vote PRO The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.[1] http://ew-econ.typepad.fr...[2] http://www.dol.gov...[3] http://journalistsresource.org...[4] http://davidcard.berkeley.edu...[5] www.thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/08/03/3687171/15-minimum-wage-big-mac/[6] http://wheniwork.com...", "title": "The federal minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour", "pid": "4d04459a-2019-04-18T14:01:20Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.65432739257812}, {"text": "Myth: Raising the minimum wage will only benefit teens. Not true: The typical minimum wage worker is not a high school student earning weekend pocket money. In fact, 89 percent of those who would benefit from a federal minimum wage increase to $12 per hour are age 20 or older, and 56 percent are women. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, \"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.\" Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage. Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase \"would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities.\" Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would hurt restaurants. Not true: In California, employers are required to pay servers the full minimum wage of $9 per hour � before tips. Even with a 2014 increase in the minimum wage, the National Restaurant Association projects California restaurant sales will outpace all but only a handful of states in 2015. Myth: Raising the federal tipped minimum wage ($2.13 per hour since 1991) would lead to restaurant job losses. Not true: As of May 2015, employers in San Francisco must pay tipped workers the full minimum wage of $12.25 per hour � before tips. Yet, the San Francisco leisure and hospitality industry, which includes full-service restaurants, has experienced positive job growth this year, including following the most recent minimum wage increase. Myth: Raising the federal minimum wage won't benefit workers in states where the hourly minimum rate is already higher than the federal minimum. Not true: While 29 states and the District of Columbia currently have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum, increasing the federal minimum wage will boost the earnings for nearly 38 million low-wage workers nationwide. That includes workers in those states already earning above the current federal minimum. Raising the federal minimum wage is an important part of strengthening the economy. A raise for minimum wage earners will put more money in more families' pockets, which will be spent on goods and services, stimulating economic growth locally and nationally. Myth: Younger workers don't have to be paid the minimum wage. Not true: While there are some exceptions, employers are generally required to pay at least the federal minimum wage. Exceptions allowed include a minimum wage of $4.25 per hour for young workers under the age of 20, but only during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer, and as long as their work does not displace other workers. After 90 consecutive days of employment or the employee reaches 20 years of age, whichever comes first, the employee must receive the current federal minimum wage or the state minimum wage, whichever is higher. There are programs requiring federal certification that allow for payment of less than the full federal minimum wage, but those programs are not limited to the employment of young workers. Myth: Restaurant servers don't need to be paid the minimum wage since they receive tips. Not true: An employer can pay a tipped employee as little as $2.13 per hour in direct wages, but only if that amount plus tips equal at least the federal minimum wage and the worker retains all tips and customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. Often, an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly wage. When that occurs, the employer must make up the difference. Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the federal and state wage laws, he or she is entitled to the provisions of each law which provides the greater benefits. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for businesses. Not true: Academic research has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy. Not true: Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised. Myth: The federal minimum wage goes up automatically as prices increase. Not true: While some states have enacted rules in recent years triggering automatic increases in their minimum wages to help them keep up with inflation, the federal minimum wage does not operate in the same manner. An increase in the federal minimum wage requires approval by Congress and the president. However, in his call to gradually increase the current federal minimum, President Obama has also called for it to adjust automatically with inflation. Eliminating the requirement of formal congressional action would likely reduce the amount of time between increases, and better help low-income families keep up with rising prices. Myth: The federal minimum wage is higher today than it was when President Reagan took office. Not true: While the federal minimum wage was only $3.35 per hour in 1981 and is currently $7.25 per hour in real dollars, when adjusted for inflation, the current federal minimum wage would need to be more than $8 per hour to equal its buying power of the early 1980s and more nearly $11 per hour to equal its buying power of the late 1960s. That's why President Obama is urging Congress to increase the federal minimum wage and give low-wage workers a much-needed boost. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support. Not true: Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase. Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a �last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired� scenario. Not true: Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs. Myth: The minimum wage stays the same if Congress doesn't change it. Not true: Congress sets the minimum wage, but it doesn't keep pace with inflation. Because the cost of living is always rising, the value of a new minimum wage begins to fall from the moment it is set.", "title": "Resolved: The US Federal Government should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour", "pid": "5194bbe-2019-04-18T17:30:08Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.64512634277344}, {"text": "I challenge ProgressiveDem to this debate. He will argue that the US minimum wage should be 20$, while I will argue against this. I think little more clarifications are needed. Obviously, sources and graphs should be used whenever possible to support your case.", "title": "The US minimum wage should be raised to 20$", "pid": "352cc700-2019-04-18T16:23:02Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.6422576904297}, {"text": "Resolution: If the United States Government increased minimum wage, the total federal spending would decrease. Definitions:Increased: To make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment;add to Minimum wage: The lowest wage payable to employees in general or to designated employees as fixed by law or by union agreement.", "title": "Raising Minimum Wage Would Decrease USFG Spending", "pid": "3774807f-2019-04-18T13:57:28Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 215.62069702148438}, {"text": "The minimum wage should be raised to $16.97 or more. According to the Huffington Post, the amount of money a full time worker needs to be paid in order to survive in the cheapest county in the US is $10.20.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "title": "Raise Minimum Wage", "pid": "e92323d6-2019-04-18T15:10:51Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.59437561035156}, {"text": "Extend my original arguments for another round. Can't tell if Pro's interested in having a debate here.", "title": "The minimum wage should not be increased in the United States", "pid": "beb2c569-2019-04-18T16:49:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.59364318847656}, {"text": "I accept this challenge and negate the resolution which is in favor of raising the federal minimum wage.", "title": "Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people", "pid": "5339b784-2019-04-18T15:45:56Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.58474731445312}, {"text": "Wow.....maybe I will win in this debate and then challenge you on another motion", "title": "The Minimum Wage should be increased.", "pid": "342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.5818634033203}, {"text": "You are a flip flopper, but even those win a lot. You are devious.", "title": "The Minimum Wage Should be Raised to $15 an Hour", "pid": "d93e6b4a-2019-04-18T14:23:03Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.57635498046875}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "The minimum wage should be raised", "pid": "ce0a06c8-2019-04-18T13:05:11Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.5743865966797}, {"text": "CON Many economists argue that raising the minimum wage won't alleviate poverty and would shake an already fragile economy. We can raise the minimum wage to $11 but if no one chooses to hire people or hires fewer people then we have effectively raised unemployment. Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and an expert on wage policy. He says that employers would likely chose to scale back jobs. Increasing the minimum wage could result in a lot of people who have been earning the minimum wage earning less than the minimum wage. How is that possible? Mall employers, farmers, lots of occupations are exempt from the minimum wage. So the last time we raised the minimum wage, lo and behold, the percentage earning less than the minimum wage rose to 4.2 percent of the wage and salary workers - three million. You basically have more people trying to compete for grape-picking jobs, or working in selling hot dogs in the street or day laborer or babysitting and that sort of thing. Fast food restaurants typically pay more than the minimum wage. When you talk minimum wage, it's really entry-level, and it's usually young people trying to get that first job. And if they do pretty well, three months, six months down the road, they get a little raise. That would effectively end if employers are starting people at $11. Actually there really aren't very many people who are working full time who are poor according to Reynolds. Maybe one percent. People are poor very often because they can't work for one reason or another. Disability, unemployment, so on and so forth. Obviously, doing something that will raise unemployment isn't going to help poverty. People who can't get work at 7.25 an hour aren't going to find work at 11.00 an hour. By such a dramatic jump they know there'd be a big hike in youth unemployment. The youth wouldn't get the experience they need to get the second job, which is a better job. And it's just basically a bad idea all the way around. To push the minimum wage to $11.00 at a time when the economy is facing high energy prices and rising inflation seems outrageous to me. I think it's probably a very bad idea to try to help the poor by raising prices. Liberal arguments for increasing the minimum wage have a fundamental flaw: They restrict the set of policy choices to either a minimum wage increase or doing nothing. That means they overlook the single most important federal policy for the poor: the Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is a measure in the federal tax code to support the living standards of the poor without creating a \"welfare trap\" by diminishing the incentive to work. Economists widely consider the credit a success for reducing poverty while increasing employment. Created in 1975, the credit has been successively expanded in five times since. It is now the nation's largest anti-poverty transfer program. In its latest iteration, for families with two or more children, the credit is 40 percent of the first $10,750 of earned income. After earned income exceeds $15,040, the credit is phased out at a rate of 21.06 cents per marginal dollar, and it goes away fully at the point when earned income reaches $35,458. (The EITC code is similar for smaller families, childless married couples and singles.) 1) Cato institute 2) Bloomberg.com 3) NPR.org", "title": "The US Federal Minimum Wage Should Be Raised to $11/hr", "pid": "7021d6d5-2019-04-18T16:45:34Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.56170654296875}, {"text": "The minimum wage debate played a massive role in the 2016 election, and has swept the nation. I will be advocating against raising the federal minimum wage to $15. My opponent must advocate in favor it. The structure of the debate is simple: Round 1. Acceptance Round 2. Arguments Round 3. Rebuttals Round 4.", "title": "$15 Minimum Wage", "pid": "7a5dcb0b-2019-04-18T12:33:14Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.54017639160156}, {"text": "If the national minimal wages were raised then prices in EVERYTHING will go up as well. Gas may go up to $4.50 a gallon \"Big Mac's\" might raise to $5 Ect.... Not only that, but, students in primary and secondary school will have the idea that going straight out of high school he/she will be making $15 dollars an hour as a cashier at a fast food restaurant, instead of actually getting an education and a respectable job.", "title": "The minimum wage should be increased", "pid": "d55c8fd6-2019-04-18T16:31:33Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.53158569335938}, {"text": "I wish her well and I know she will present me with a good challenge. This is, after all, the purpose of these debating engagements. As I stated in ROUND 1, I will be defending the position that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U. S. economy; I will also be arguing that any proposed minimum wage hike should be indexed to inflation, to allow it to rise with the increasing cost of living. A minimum wage hike will increase the number of jobs in the United States and is likely to increase the nation's gross domestic product--this according to the congressional budget office's latest projections on such a hypothetical raise [1]--and it will have a mostly positive impact on low wage workers, or those that make minimum wage or less to about 5 times the poverty threshold [1]; to give you an example of what this means, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour would not only directly benefit those making the new minimum wage but it would also benefit a single person family (working) that makes up to $68,825 per year, by putting more money in his pocket--this according to the congressional budget office's estimation [1][2]. And of course larger working families will see even greater monetary rewards [1]. But before we get into that discussion, I'm going to demonstrate in this ROUND why a minimum wage increase is badly needed and why failing to raise it will only continue to hurt the nation's workforce, which has seen the purchasing value of its wages go down over the last 30 years because of inflation [3][4]. Purchasing Power of the Dollar isn't what it use to beBecause of inflation, the vast majority of America's workforce has either seen the purchasing value of its wages stagnate or decrease steadily [3]; low wage earners have seen the value of their wages decrease the most [4]. In comparison, the nation's top 1% of earners saw their incomes rise by 31.4% from 2009 to 2012, comfortably exceeding the 9% inflation rate during that period [5][6]. While the value of earnings of the top 1% of earners outpaces the rate of inflation, the vast majority of working Americans are seeing the value of their wages stagnate (upper-middle class) or decrease (below). Income inequality in the U. S. is now at the highest its ever been since 1928 right before the Great Depression [5]. According to economist/professor Emmanuel Saez at the University of Berkeley, the top 1% of earners in the nation get 22.5% of all pre-tax income while 90% of remaining earners get less than half, 49.6% [5]! Low-wage earners have the seen the value of their wages decrease the most. For the last 40 years, the federal minimum wage has badly fallen behind inflation in real terms. Studies by the U. S. Labor Department, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Pew Research Center have shown that, accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage of $7.25 is even less than what it was in 1968, when it had a value of $8.56 in 2012 dollars (see graph below) [5][7][8]. The U. S. Labor Department has concluded that today's minimum wage workers are paid even less in real terms because of inflation when compared to their 1968 minimum wage counterparts [8]! In fact, since it was last raised to $7.25 in 2009, the federal minimum wage has lost about 5.8% of its purchasing value due to inflation [7]. In a 2012 study, The Centers for Economic and Policy Research concluded that if the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since it was first enacted in the 1930s, it would now be at $10.52 an hour [5]. To provide an accurate sense of how badly lagging behind the federal minimum wage now is, in 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about $20,000 per year in today's dollars; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about $15,000 per year [4]. In 1968 a full-time minimum wage worker earned about half of the average annual income during that period; today a full-time minimum wage worker earns about 37% of the average annual income [4]. A steady decline. While the price of food, services, goods, and healthcare go up both in terms of cost and inflation, the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage has significantly eroded over the years [3]. While the average price of the McDonald's Big Mac has risen from $2.71 in 2004 to $4.62 in 2014--an increase of 70.1% over 10 years--the federal minimum wage has only increased by $2.10 to its current rate over the same period, or by 41% [9][10]. Over the years these less than adequate minimum wage increases accumulate and they create poverty were previously there wasn't any or where it was less pronounced. As the graph above shows, when accounting for inflation, the current minimum wage has less purchasing power now than it did in the late 1960s. In order to rectify the reduced value of the minimum wage, it needs to be elevated to at least $10.00 in today's dollar value! Failure to do so will only expand poverty in America and deepen the crisis facing low wage workers. Raising the Minimum Wage would directly benefit 21.4% of the worforceCurrently 3.8 million workers are paid the nation's minimum wage, but raising the wage to $10.10 would directly benefit 21.4% of the workforce--about 30 million workers--by putting more money in their pocket [5][4].21.4% of the nation's workforce would now have more money in their pocket; the accumulated losses caused by inflation over the years straining the minimum wage worker would be effectively eliminated! A fierce proponent of this idea, the current President has advocated tying this proposed minimum wage hike to inflation, that way any adverse effects created by inflation are effectively handled [11]. This is an even better idea! Recognizing the current crisis facing the nation's million of low wager earners, President Obama has already signed an exectuve order raising the minimum wage for federal workers from $7.25 to $10.10 [11]. The rest of the nation should follow this example. Who directly benefits? As of 2012, 49% of all minimum wage workers are 25 years old or older (see graphic below). However, more than 85.5% of all minimum wage workers are 20 years old or older (not teenagers) [7]. 55% of federal minimum wage earners work full time [4]. But of course many more people making less than $10.10 per hour would see a pay raise. As I stated earlier, nearly 30 million workers would get a pay raise with the minimum wage increase; 9 million of these workers are parents [4]. 57.3% of those who would be effected are women [7]; a low minimum wage is one of the reasons why females continue to make 77 cents per dollar that a man makes [12]. Increasing the minimum to $10.10 would help close that gap by 5% [12]. And increasing the minimum wage is the sensible thing to do. Already 19 U. S. states and the District of Columbia have a higher minimum wage than the federal minimum [7]. Numerous business executives and CEOs are in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10. Costco President and CEO, Craig Jelenik, has come out in favor of this proposal by President Obama, stating \"Instead of minimizing wages, we know it’s a lot more profitable in the long term to minimize employee turnover and maximize employee productivity, commitment and loyalty\" [5]; executives of GAP have come out in favor of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 as well [12]. Already a full 85% of small businesses pay wages higher than the minimum [4]. Conservative estimates by the congressional budget office (CBO)--a federal agency within the U. S. government that provides economic data to congress--places the total immediate gains of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 at $5 billion for working families that make less than the poverty threshold (live in poverty); their income would increase by about 3% and 900,000 people would be moved above the poverty threshold [1]. The CBO also projects that families making one to three times the poverty threshold would see $12 billion in additional real income; families making three to six times the poverty threshold would see $2 billion in additional real income [1]. Overall, the CBO estimates that the nation's poverty would be reduced and that a total of $2 billion would be immediately added to the U. S economy because of the minimum wage increase [1].2 out of 3 Americans Support Raising the Minimum WageFinally, a large majority of Americans approve of raising the federal minimum wage. As inflation continues to increase and as wealthy employers increasingly keep more of their profits and distribute less to their employees, widening the income gap, Americans are recognizing the need to increase the federal minimum wage! A recent Wall Street Journal/CNN poll shows that 63% of Americans support raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour [13][14]; some polls show even greater support for hiking the federal minimum wage [4]. [1] (. http://cbo.gov...)[2] (. http://aspe.hhs.gov...)[3] (. http://www.epi.org...)[4] (. http://www.epi.org...)[5] (. http://www.mybanktracker.com...)[6] (. http://www.bls.gov...)[7] (. http://www.pewresearch.org...)[8] (. http://www.dol.gov...)[9] (. http://news.yahoo.com...)[10] (. http://www.bls.gov...)[11] (. http://www.foxnews.com...)[12] (. http://www.whitehouse.gov...)[13] (. http://www.cnn.com...)[14] (. http://online.wsj.com...)", "title": "Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy", "pid": "7a99c7cf-2019-04-18T16:20:28Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.527587890625}, {"text": "The current minimum wage is 8$ an hour. I'm arguing that we should raise it to 15$ an hour, you're arguing that we should keep it at 8$ and that the Fight for 15 is nonsense.", "title": "Raise Minimum Wage to 15$ an hour", "pid": "93fbabb6-2019-04-18T12:38:32Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.52700805664062}, {"text": "I accept, and may Reason guide us!", "title": "The US Minimum wage ought to be raised substantially.", "pid": "baa5c71f-2019-04-18T16:44:24Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.49673461914062}, {"text": "Alright! Rebuttal time! I see you have some contentions which I will address in turn. First you claim minimum wages cannot be fairly proportioned to accommodate the city dwellers and the smaller townspeople. Actually that is not true. Fuel, groceries restaurants and rent, taxes all costs are often higher in small towns. This is because of the lack of competition it drives prices up. http://www.insidesources.com... so wages balance here. Therefore the city dwellers will make money with wage increase and the townspeople will also. Also because of the lack of stores the townspeople will flock too the city to do their shopping which will add moola to the city which will pay the minimum wage for many workers. Also again it will help stimulate the economy. http://www.investopedia.com... Next you claim Raising the minimum wage will negatively affect businesses. However studies say you are wrong. \"Raising wages reduces costly employee turnover and increases productivity. When the minimum wage goes up, employers can enjoy these benefits of paying higher wages without being placed at a competitive disadvantage, since all companies in their field are required to do the same. Raising wages also puts money in the hands of consumers, boosting demand for goods and services............For these reasons, nearly 1,000 business owners and executives, including Costco CEO Jim Singeal, U.S. Women\"s Chamber of Commerce CEO Margot Dorfman, Addus Health Care CEO Mark Heaney, Credo Mobile President Michael Kieschnick, ABC Home CEO Paulette Cole, and small business owners from all 50 states, signed a Business for a Fair Minimum Wage statement supporting the last increase in the federal minimum wage. As their statement explained, \"[h]igher wages benefit business by increasing consumer purchasing power, reducing costly employee turnover, raising productivity, and improving product quality, customer satisfaction and company reputation.\" http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com... The site also shows numerous studies that link higher wages to better business. Next you claim raising the minimum wage will kill many peoples jobs. However the United States Department of Labor has regard this as a myth. Due to extensive research they know it will benefit the economy when wages go up. They say, \"In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, \"In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.\"\" You say businesses won't have the money to pay wages. The Department of Labor says, \"A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase \"would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities.\"\" You say increasing the minimum wage is bad for the economy. US department of labor says, \"Since 1938, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times. For more than 75 years, real GDP per capita has steadily increased, even when the minimum wage has been raised.\" You say Increasing the minimum wage lacks public support. Department of Labor says, \"Raising the federal minimum wage is an issue with broad popular support. Polls conducted since February 2013 when President Obama first called on Congress to increase the minimum wage have consistently shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans support an increase.\" You say Increasing the minimum wage will result in job losses for newly hired and unskilled workers in what some call a \"last-one-hired-equals-first-one-fired\" scenario. The department of labor says, \"Minimum wage increases have little to no negative effect on employment as shown in independent studies from economists across the country. Academic research also has shown that higher wages sharply reduce employee turnover which can reduce employment and training costs.\" http://www.dol.gov... I personally believe everything you have brought to the table has been addressed on the link above. From negative affects on the economy to higher crime rates because of unemployment. Another thing is Huffington Post you have been using is not a very accurate site to use. https://en.wikipedia.org... TO CAP THIS ALL OFF... I have explained how wage increase will benefit the economy, benefit workers, and ultimately benefit the world. I have shown how it is moral to raise wages because no one should work their butts off and still live in poverty, \"An employee working a 40-hour week at the federal minimum wage would earn $15,080 per year. This income would leave a two-person household -- say, a single parent with one child -- just below the federal poverty threshold of $15,130.\" http://www.salary.com... I have explained well how raising the minimum wage will add money to businesses and add money to groth for the economy. For this reason vote Pro. I look forward to my opponents response.", "title": "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15.", "pid": "9329eedd-2019-04-18T14:04:54Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.4772186279297}, {"text": "The con side has forfeited the 2nd round so I will keep this short to keep it fair. The point of the minimum wage, as put by FDR, is to make sure someone can have a decent level of living. The current minimum wage is a poverty wage and needs to be raised. I do not want 15 dollars but more likely 10 dollars and will be implemented over a long time. The economic downfalls will be negligible and we will end up with a net gain.", "title": "The minimum wage should be raised", "pid": "ce0a06a9-2019-04-18T13:25:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.46438598632812}, {"text": "First off, you question whether \" the only factor effecting unemployment is the finances of those employing the workforce\" is true. Economics 101 would support that it is true in most if not all cases. Your statement \"raising the federal minimum wage may work to incentivize people who have previously relied on welfare to seek employment. \" seems more an indictment of welfare than a cogent argument for raising minimum wage. Here is another opinion (with a citation) From : http://www.essortment.com....... \"Beginning in 2008, the United States economy entered a recession. Yet, at a time when many companies found it necessary to cut labor costs, the minimum wage increased. Faced with the limited choices of ( remaining in business) or laying off workers, the minimum wage workers were the ones to suffer by being laid off, according to Forbes.com. In 2004, three states that had higher minimum wage laws than were required---Alaska, Washington and Oregon---were among the five states with the highest unemployment, according to an Economic Policy Institute article by Jeff Chapman. \" To clarify, I would support keeping the minimum where it is, but making it beneficial for companies to give \"merit' or \"service\" increases. In other words, keep minimum wage as a STARTING wage, but give increases based on performance. This would be much better than a blanket raising of the wage for workers, some of whom are more of a liability than an asset. On a personal note, I once worked for a Fortune 500 corporation that paid minimum wage plus commission on sales. Those that sold did well. Those that did not produce usually left for another job. Raising the minimum would not have changed anything at all.", "title": "The Federal Minimum wage should NOT be raised", "pid": "b6f6e654-2019-04-18T17:09:58Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.44500732421875}, {"text": "Introduction:First of all, my opponent's argument is not stupid. Don't accept that interpretation as it is unfounded. It may be incorrect, as I shall attempt to demonstrate (as in any other debate), but it is not stupid. Hopefully we can have the chance to debate this topic to a greater degree later.Families:My opponent asserted a boost in the minimum wage would benefit families, however, on net, this is completely false. The insinuation that a wage increase would be beneficial to families is erroneous when considering the harmful effects it contains. Unemployment, higher prices, and cut hours, to name a few, don't seem beneficial to families. From a statistical standpoint, it is also illogical to assume families would receive any noteworthy benefits from more than doubling the current minimum wage. The Commonwealth Foundation expressed this in their study regarding a raise in Pennsylvania alone. They quote \"Much of the wage gains would go to low-wage employees in higher income families, rather than those most in need. For instance, about two-fifths of the wage gains would go to employees in families with incomes of $40,000 or greater.\" [1] If these families are already earning enough, and are simply young teens (as the study also indicates), there is no real benefit to the family, as it is already doing fine.However, we also see significant job loss, which I examined in my previous round. Cross-apply all the evidence and explanation as it wasn't refuted in any capacity. The same applies to the other detriments I exemplified. Families can't be effectively benefited when the policy simultaneously increases unemployment and damages the economy by increasing prices and facilitating inflation.Immigrants:Many immigrants (particularly the ones my opponent is speaking of) are paid low-wages, often times the minimum wage. [2] Since many of these are also poor [2], and the minimum wage doesn't solve poverty [3] [4], immigrants can't feasibly be positively impacted.Middle Class:It seems rather dubious to assume raising the minimum wage would help the middle class. Since middle class workers generally are paid a wage far above the minimum, the raise would give them any more money. Adding that to rising costs makes no benefit to middle class, but higher costs, an obvious detriment.Struggling to Pay the BillsThis clearly refers to the impoverished. As I've alread shown, when accompanied with job loss, the minimum wage increase can't sufficiently reduce poverty. While some might receive small benefits, unemployment creates instantaneous poverty. Moreover, the policy can't specifically target the poor, which is how poverty is reduced. Thusly, it can't reduce poverty, and won't help those struggling to pay the bills. [5] [6]Conclusion:There are many detriments to a $15 minimum wage, and there is not sufficient reason to implement such a policy. I've demonstrated on moral and pragmatic grounds that raising the minimum wage is ineffective and a bad idea. My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments pragmatically, morally, or with evidence. Thus, you vote Con.Sources:[1] https://www.epionline.org...[2] http://www.epi.org...[3] http://www.nber.org...[4] http://www.forbes.com...[5] https://mises.org...[6] http://www.thenewamerican.com...", "title": "The US should should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.", "pid": "47041c36-2019-04-18T14:16:28Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.4398193359375}, {"text": "My opponent claims that those working on a minimum wage deserves an increased pay. But why so? What my opponent has failed to realize is that a simple increase of one dollar causes an increase of about 1.327 million dollars (per hour) for the US as a whole. Now let's be realistic. The US has a debt nearly the size of its GDP. The US is using basically stealing money from its citizens as it uses money from social security already piled up. Do you really and honestly think that we can afford increasing spending on minimum wage? Frankly, no. Even though it may be beneficial towards those working on minimum wage, as a whole, it would greatly impact the US. Furthermore, if so many people are working on minimum wage, the most effective way to better the income issue would be to increase the education of individuals, therefore increasing the amount of opportunities coming their way. Instead of using whatever insufficient, excess money that the US has on increasing minimum wage, why not better the public infrastructure? When increasing public infrastructure, it allows individuals to have better access to education (for example schools and libraries), ultimately increasing the capability of citizens in the US. Obviously, once public infrastructure is bettered and mean tested welfare programs are back and running, we cannot allow for there to be any leeway for the increasing of minimum wage. Maybe, when the US gets it debt substantially lower than its GDP, then there may be a chance for minimum wage to be increased. Even then, it would most likely be better not to increase minimum wage annually but maybe every couple of years. But until then, no course of action should be taken.", "title": "Minimum wage should be increased in the US.", "pid": "630f7c6f-2019-04-18T12:52:49Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.4376983642578}, {"text": "The Minimum Wage must be increased. Republicans claim it to be a \"job killer\", but they obviously do not know anything about how the American economy works. No person working full-time should have to live in poverty. It is most unfortunate that this is occuring right this instant. Entry-level employees make a certain amount of money an hour, they work full-time, they come home and try to support themselves and their families. With a Minimum Wage of $7.25 an hour (it is higher in some states), supporting yourself and your family would be nearly impossible. This is only my main point. Please allow me to elaborate in the next round.", "title": "The Minimum Wage should be increased.", "pid": "342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.43553161621094}, {"text": "How do you think a mother feels when her child goes up to her and tells her that she does not want a birthday present because that child knows that her mother can not afford to buy her a birthday present? What if I tell you that if the minimum wage was raised that this mother and many like her can afford to buy a birthday present for their daughter's birthday? Many believe that the minimum wage should not be raised because small businesses can not afford to pay employees more that the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, or waiters/waitresses for example, who get tips earn $2.13 per hour. This translates into an average of $ 14,500 a year for a full time worker. Another reason that people say that the minimum wage can not be raised is that if the federal minimum wage is raised then the prices of goods and services also increase. Many also say that increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. People argue that small businesses can not afford to pay employees more and as a result will end up firing many employees. This is just not true. In July of 2015 a survey found out that 60% of small business owners support a gradual increase to the minimum wage of $12.00. This survey also reports that small business owners preferred this because an increase of income would put money into the pockets of low- wage workers who will then spend the money on goods and services. This boost in demand will stimulate the economy and help create job opportunities. In fact, the White House published an article called Raise the Wage and it states that raising the minimum wage nationwide will benefit local economies and support millions of workers. Many people also say that the federal minimum wage should stay the same because if the minimum wage goes up then other prices will increase as well, and as a result everything becomes more expensive. Some states have placed rules in recent years causing increases in their minimum wages to help keep up with the already rising inflation. The federal minimum wage does not operate that way. According to the Department of Labor in their article Minimum Wage Mythbusters, in order for the federal minimum wage to increase it has to gain approval from Congress and the President. The plan is to gradually increase the minimum wage so it has time to adjust automatically with inflation. This will help low income families keep up with prices of the cost of living. People also say that increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs. What these people are thinking that the federal minimum wage is going to be raised immediately. In reality what President Obama wants to do is to raise the minimum wage in increments until it eventually reaches $15.00 per hour. He wants to do this because if he tells the whole country to pay their workers $15.00 per hour, employers will not have a chance to adjust to this sudden change. But if he asks to slowly raise the wage of employees, then employers will have the time to adjust. This way no jobs are lost. In fact 600 economists studied that increasing the minimum wage has no effect on employment of minimum-wage workers including at times of weakness in the labor market. Robert Reich (former Labor Secretary) in an article called Why we Should Raise the Minimum Wage published on CNBC\"s website on April 27, 2015,he states that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour from $7.25 per hour would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.", "title": "Minimum wages should be raised", "pid": "fb307db5-2019-04-18T12:46:41Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.42495727539062}, {"text": "Rebuttal Point 1: (The argument with no name) The main problem with this argument is that minimum wage plays a contributing factor to inflation. If you increase the minimum wage to the level proposed, it would only increase inflation, quickly and effectivly downplay the acutal purchasing value of the minimum wage. I elaborate this point more in my Point 2 rebuttal. Point 2: Economic Stimulation With the proposal to increase the minimum wage, businesses will have to shift to account for the increased labor costs. According to a paper by Péter Harasztosi and Attila Lindner, that cost primarily is pushed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices [3]. There is empirical evidence that such costs are pushed on to the consumer. Restaurant prices have been found to have positive correlation to the minimum wage in a paper by two senior researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and a senior researcher at the Economic Research Service [4]. In another study that looked at the effects of a minimum wage increase from $4.25 to $5.15 in California found that, \"The federal increase from $4.25 to $5.15 costs California families an average of $133 more per year for the goods they normally purchase. Since higher-income families spend more, they would pay more in absolute terms than lower-income families: up to $234 per year compared to $84 per year.\" [9] The new found money that minimum wage workers will receive, shrinks as a result of the inflation that accompanies minimum wage increases. Even though people spend more with wage hikes, the effects are not as clear cut. Aaronson and Eric French of the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank discovered that the money that was spent in response to a one dollar wage hike was often borrowed as such workers took on more debt [1]. Having households in America accumulate debt is not good for the economy because as debt grows, families have to spend less or risk default which wouldn’t be good for the economy [5]. Harvard University economists Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff came to the conclusion that rising household debts are the precedent to economic crisis. Another team consisting of economists Atif Mian and Emil Verner of Princeton University and Amir Sufi of the University of Chicago points to household debt as a source of instability and lower economic growth. They also connected such household debt to the 2008 economic recession.[2] As stated, in my previous argument, there will be many people who would be unable to spend their raised wages because they are out of a job. With the calculated job losses associated with the new minimum wage, the GDP is calculated to be decreased by 47 billion dollars. [6] Point 3: Good for native workers I’m not necessarily sure what point Pro is trying to make here. As the point I have made in my previous argument, raising the minimum wage would cause unemployment. It seems that Pro indirectly concedes this point, instead the unemployment would instead be shifted to the immigrants. Statistically, immigrants make up more of the poverty population than natives [7]. Minimum wage is supposed to help alleviate poverty and what Pro advocates is that we make income inequality even worse by discriminating against poor immigrants even the 6.6 million that became naturalized over the last decade [8]. Shouldn’t we also look out for these people too? Sources: [1] https://www.aeaweb.org... [2] http://equitablegrowth.org... [3] http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu... [4] http://davideharrington.com... [5] http://money.howstuffworks.com... [6] http://www.heritage.org... [7] http://www.migrationpolicy.org... [8] https://www.uscis.gov... [9] \"Increasing the Minimum Wage\" Public Policy Institute of California, May 2000.", "title": "March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage", "pid": "8c9c7325-2019-04-18T13:31:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.422607421875}, {"text": "Argument 1: Raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment One of the greatest shortcomings of raising the minimum wages is that wage increases are often correlated with the decrease of such low-paying jobs hurting those who are supposed to be help with this wage increase. The extra money for these workers has to come from somewhere and such comes primarily from the businesses that employ them. In a 2014 study by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that a half-million jobs would be lost if the minimum wage was increased to at least $10 an hour as this debate describes. [1] If you also look at the history of minimum wage, wage hikes do reduce employment. With the very first introduction of the minimum wage at $0.25, according to the US Department of Labor, the minimum wage led to 30,000 to 50,000 jobs lost which accounted for around 10-13% of workers who had jobs before the minimum wage. With the implementation in Puerto Rico, 120,000 jobs were lost within the year after the law was put into place. A review of the Minimum Wage Study Commission’s report in 1981 shows that a recent 10% increase in the federal minimum wage resulted in the reduction of teen employment by 1-3%. [2] With the added labor costs, businesses would have to raise their prices, cut employee hours and benefits, cut workers, or in the 21st century replace them with computers, machines and robots. Take for example BAXTER, a robot that costs less than the average worker’s salary at $25,000 capable of doing many unskilled jobs using pennies worth of electricity to operate [7]. Sure, it may not be as versatile as your average minimum wage worker, but if you look at computers, they developed from a programmer’s play thing in the 60’s to literally integrated into everything in society within a matter of decades. The Bank of England predicted that within the next 10 to 20 years, robots will take over 80 million jobs in the United States leaving those who are only capable of simple tasks out of the job market. By raising the federal minimum wage, you are only pushing employers to utilize more robots and computers in response to their raised labor costs. [3] Argument 2: Raising the minimum wage is ineffective at decreasing poverty. According to the Census Bureau, 34% of those living in poverty do not work. And if they don’t work, such individuals would not benefit from a minimum wage increase. And pertaining to my previous argument, if the minimum wage was increased, there will be less jobs inflating the percentage of people who will not benefit from a wage hike. [5] Another issue with raising the federal minimum wage is the fact that cost of living varies by state. The states where the cost of living is lower would be negatively affected by unnecessarily raising costs of businesses in areas where poverty is minimal. This map below illustrates areas where costs of living are high and low. [4] In addition, most minimum wage earners don’t even live in poverty. The average family income of a minimum wage earner is around $53,000. [6] Conclusion: I have proven that not only would increasing the federal minimum wage to $10 or above would be ineffective in reducing poverty, it would hurt businesses and ultimately the minimum wage workers through unemployment. Sources: [1] https://www.epionline.org... [2] http://object.cato.org... [3] http://money.cnn.com... [4] http://www.cnbc.com... [5] http://poverty.ucdavis.edu... [6] http://www.washingtonpolicy.org... [7] http://www.rethinkrobotics.com...", "title": "March Beginners' Tournament: The USFG should significantly raise the federal minimum wage", "pid": "8c9c7325-2019-04-18T13:31:47Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.42254638671875}, {"text": "Round 1 is acceptanceRound 2 & 3 are argumentsRound 4 is final statements; no new information this roundNo forfeitingHappy π Day.", "title": "The Minimum Wage should not be raised.", "pid": "e6c8a508-2019-04-18T13:35:49Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.39788818359375}, {"text": "There should be no minimum wage. In a free market economy it is up to the citizens to decide whether or not a business should stay in power. The higher the minimum wage the more deflation occurs. If we see an abolished minimum wag pretty soon one penny will be worth the equivalent of one dollar. It is this in fact that allowed America to dominate the economic landscape for many years. But with more government control of the economy does not help it, in fact it hurts it. The United States of America should enact this plan. The United States of America will abolish minimum wage laws to protect the interest of small business owners and the average American.", "title": "The Minimum Wage Should Not be Raised", "pid": "8a961be4-2019-04-18T13:49:07Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.3975067138672}, {"text": "In this debate, I will argue that the Minimum Wage should be increased. Unfortunately, most Republicans oppose the notion because they call it a \"job killer.\" I would like to prove them wrong. I look forward to debating this topic with anyone that disagrees with my view.The rules of the debate are the following:1. Sources, if any, must be cited correctly.2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used.3. Arguments must be sophisticated.4. Arguments must be as least biased as they can be. They must be based on fact, not opinion. 5. There will not be any forfeiting. If my opponent forfeits, he automatically loses the \"conduct\" points. I will not state the structure of this debate:Round One: AcceptanceRound Two: Main ArgumentRound Three: RebuttalsRound Four: Further RebuttalRound Five: Conclusion", "title": "The Minimum Wage should be increased.", "pid": "342cf7b6-2019-04-18T16:32:02Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.37527465820312}, {"text": "Hello. I welcome Adam to this debate. I would like to start off by stating that I do not have to state a specific amount the minimum wage should be raised to, therefore, my evidence can conflict in that regard. I would also like to note that in this topic we are speaking on a federal level; that is, we are assuming this is something the government would pass. In my opponents conclusion, he talks of how it is better to earn five dollars than no dollars. That would be lowering MW (minimum wage), therefore, he is in conflict with himself there. My opponent must maintain that the MW should be kept at the same rate. First, Small businesses say MW has little to NO IMPACT on small businesses. Eight in 10 small-business owners say they hire their new employees at a wage level that exceeds the current minimum wage. Of the 14% of small businesses who do hire employees at the minimum wage, two in three say they do not expect to keep their new employees at that wage for more than a year. One in three of these new minimum wage employees are also hired on only a temporary basis. http://www.gallup.com... And later, Forty-six percent of small-business owners say they believe the minimum wage should be increased while only 34% believe it should remain where it is now. Only 2% believe the minimum wage should be reduced although 14% think it should be eliminated altogether. And more! Eighty-six percent of small-business owners say the minimum wage has no effect on their businesses. Now you may say, \"These are arguments for MW to stay\", but look at the 2nd stat! The majority of small business owners think it should be increased! It is completely logical then, to refute my opponents C2 and C4, as business owners are fine with it. These are gallup polls BTW. Next, the American people want a higher MW. More than two-thirds of Americans say lawmakers should raise the national minimum wage to $10 per hour from its current $7.25, a survey from the Public Religion Research Institute finds. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... So, since we are speaking of the federal government, and the government represents the people, then the government has an obligation to obey the peoples wishes and RAISE THE MW. Also, American people want more money, even if it risks their job. The three most-mentioned financial concerns in the Jan. 7-9, 2011, poll have been at the top of Americans' list for the past two years, with little change in the percentages who name each one. Note the first chart at http://www.gallup.com... (source) Next, an increase of MW was found to have no effect on job loss David Card and Alan B. Krueger, two leading economists, however, believe that small to moderate increases in the minimum wage will not increase unemployment. These two economists observed the impact of minimum wage on employment by researching 410 fast-food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania before and after a minimum wage rise. In April of 1992, New Jersey's minimum wage rose from $4.25 to $5.05, Pennsylvania's minimum wage remaining constant. Under the traditional theory, the increase in New Jersey's minimum wage would predict higher unemployment. The study, on the other hand, suggested that raising the wage floor would in fact open new jobs. Card and Krueger also introduced the idea of wage levels influencing productivity. Higher productivity may offset the increased production costs. The minimum wage increase occurred during a recession in the New Jersey economy. Secondly, New Jersey's economy is greatly influenced by nearby states due to its small size. However, when minimum wage increased, full-time employment increased in New Jersey relative to Pennsylvania full-time employment. And more! Economically conservative lawmakers traditionally argue that raising the minimum wage hurts small businesses because they cannot afford to pay higher wages, and therefore are forced to layoff workers, further augmenting poverty. In a study done by the Levy Institute, the vast majority of small business owners interviewed said a raise in minimum wage would not cause them to layoff workers, or decrease the number of new workers they could hire. The Levy Institute interviewed 560 businesses with under 500 workers each, asking them questions about their hiring practices, particularly with regard to a possible increase in the minimum wage. Of those businesses, only 6.2% said a raise in the minimum wage would negatively affect their hiring practices. When the minimum wage was increased in 1997, economists and lawmakers feared there would be significant job losses, but instead it was the best job market in 30 years. This shows the demand for labor is wage inelastic; meaning changes in wages does not affect the amount of labor demanded. From http://wiki.dickinson.edu... And next, the rising inflation calls a need for a higher MW. From the same source as above The Problem with the current Minimum wage is that it has failed to keep up with inflation and rising cost of living. This means that over time the purchasing power of the minimum wage has decrease. The current minimum wage is not longer enough to keep working families from meeting their most basic needs such as cost of housing and food, health care, education and child care. According to Economist Jared Bernstein from the Economic Policy Institute the cost of basic necessities has increase by almost 50% between 1991 and 2007. As a result low income families are stock in poverty and the income gap between the low and high class is continuously increasing. The federal poverty guideline released in 2007 shows that the minimum wage is insufficient. A minimum wage worker that works full time: 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year will only earn about $12,000 annually. This means that at the current minimum wage, a full time worker earns 40% below the poverty guideline. The established federal poverty guideline for a family of three is approximately $17,000 So it can be obviously seen here that we should raise the MW, and there are numerous things about it. Next, to rebut my opponents contentions: C1: Well what have we here? His source also admits that an alternate explanation could simply be the bad economy. And also, this makes no sense, considering the many polls I have provided. The biggest explanation is of course the bad economy. But it's precisely when the economy is down and businesses are slashing costs that raising the minimum wage is so destructive to job creation. Congress began raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour in July 2007, and there are now 691,000 fewer teens working. (from his source #2) C2: source was from 1996. Thats before adam was born. The current recession had not hit yet, and so this source is hopelessly outdated. C3: His argument makes no logical sense. All of the high schoolers I know know that if you spend the extra 2 years and finish, that instantly opens up a motley amount of options for you. It simply makes no logical sense C4: Wait… So high income families spent $86 a YEAR? Are they all starving themselves or something? There is now way that stat makes ANY real sense. To talk on teenagers for a bit: The thing here is that teenagers technically don't need a job, and whenever they finish high school, they are automatically more eligible for jobs. Oh yes, and notice the subtle not bringing up of the General welfare?", "title": "We should raise the minmum wage", "pid": "8c866652-2019-04-18T18:27:57Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.3550567626953}, {"text": "I am playing the Devil\"s advocate in this debate by taking the Con position. I actually believe that Governments are required to ensure that everyone receives a living wage, which right now, in America, should be at least $20 per hour for all jobs, including tipped jobs, e.g., waitresses, bar tenders, hair dressers, etc. Here is by Devil's advocate argument for why the minimum wage should be eliminated. The minimum wage should be based on the free market forces and no minimum wage should be set by the Federal Government. If the Market is only willing to pay $5 per hour, that is it. America has a Capitalistic Economic system where supply and demand determine prices and wages. Governmental interference will destroy America's economy; and, fewer people will be employed by requiring companies to pay higher wages than the market dictates. If people can't move themselves up the wage ladder by improving their skills, they deserve to be paid whatever the market forces decide. After all, America is not a Communistic economy. I look forward to hearing Pro's argument for why the government should be setting minimum wages.", "title": "Federal Minimum Wage should be $20 per hour for everyone.", "pid": "6d5f9faf-2019-04-18T16:51:08Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.34971618652344}]}
{"idx": 38, "qid": "40", "q_text": "Should the death penalty be allowed?", "qrels": {"99aac624-2019-04-18T17:39:44Z-00007-000": 1, "808a3887-2019-04-18T18:20:50Z-00005-000": 2, "5db6f926-2019-04-18T15:28:40Z-00003-000": 1, "75f8530d-2019-04-18T15:27:15Z-00002-000": 1, "351fa6f9-2019-04-18T18:52:58Z-00000-000": 2, "564603a4-2019-04-18T14:44:26Z-00002-000": 2, "442e6012-2019-04-18T17:43:49Z-00005-000": 0, "41272f07-2019-04-18T18:31:56Z-00001-000": 2, "41271d1b-2019-04-18T19:19:52Z-00003-000": 0, "351fa6f9-2019-04-18T18:52:58Z-00005-000": 2, "2671a1e6-2019-04-18T14:56:54Z-00003-000": 1, "5efff4d3-2019-04-18T13:32:58Z-00001-000": 2, "20bc7726-2019-04-18T19:59:37Z-00003-000": 2, "5662ebe2-2019-04-18T20:04:05Z-00001-000": 2, "5d677fad-2019-04-18T11:39:11Z-00000-000": 1, "ed87672d-2019-04-18T15:14:18Z-00002-000": 2, "ed876293-2019-04-18T15:42:58Z-00005-000": 1, "a490c4dc-2019-04-18T19:19:49Z-00004-000": 0, "a490cfc2-2019-04-18T18:48:08Z-00005-000": 0, "abe4d584-2019-04-18T18:55:53Z-00005-000": 2, "abf0fc05-2019-04-15T20:22:46Z-00021-000": 1, "ae02b9e7-2019-04-18T17:46:06Z-00007-000": 0, "b26badf8-2019-04-18T14:17:30Z-00005-000": 0, "bea71e7b-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00057-000": 1, "bea71e7b-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00011-000": 1, "bea71e7b-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00125-000": 0, "bea71e7b-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00188-000": 1, "c0a5f15c-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00003-000": 1, "cc812c57-2019-04-18T15:27:45Z-00006-000": 0, "e2115df8-2019-04-18T17:46:57Z-00006-000": 2, "e3bc0ab2-2019-04-18T16:07:14Z-00005-000": 1, "e3bc0af0-2019-04-18T16:00:50Z-00003-000": 2, "eaf9851d-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00002-000": 0, "ec00b32a-2019-04-18T17:26:25Z-00004-000": 0, "ed875b30-2019-04-18T16:14:24Z-00004-000": 1, "efef4309-2019-04-18T16:10:20Z-00003-000": 1, "efef4309-2019-04-18T16:10:20Z-00000-000": 0, "ed8c6e01-2019-04-18T18:08:43Z-00004-000": 0, "ed87cc88-2019-04-18T11:41:12Z-00002-000": 2, "ed87cc2b-2019-04-18T12:05:56Z-00007-000": 0, "a4630a13-2019-04-18T17:14:46Z-00006-000": 2, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "bea71e7b-2019-04-17T11:47:42Z-00075-000": 1, "4c68354c-2019-04-18T13:19:39Z-00000-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "I accept", "title": "Death penalty should be allowed.", "pid": "edfd66cb-2019-04-18T11:26:43Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.9715576171875}, {"text": "should the death penalty be allowed?", "title": "death penalty", "pid": "75f8530d-2019-04-18T15:27:15Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.57701110839844}, {"text": "I accept the challenge for the debate. Good luck!", "title": "The death penalty should NOT be allowed", "pid": "6604e4a3-2019-04-18T14:33:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.50254821777344}, {"text": "Hi Sara, I wish to debate this.May the best debator win :D", "title": "The death penalty should NOT be allowed", "pid": "6604e4c2-2019-04-18T14:32:22Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.34356689453125}, {"text": "The death penalty should not be allowed as you know the old saying, two wrongs don't make a right. The purpose of the death penalty is to stop people committing, killing is a crime.", "title": "The death penalty should be allowed", "pid": "c0a5f15c-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.18563842773438}, {"text": "In conclusion, I completely agree that death penalty shouldnt be allowed. I really shouldnt have accepted this debate, hm?", "title": "The Death Penalty", "pid": "abe4d5a3-2019-04-18T18:51:55Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.13900756835938}, {"text": "My position as Con will be to show that the death penalty as it is currently being applied in the USA should not be allowed while Pro will have to argue that it is justified and should continue to be applied as it currently is. Pro has to post his opening argument in round 1 and skip his last round.", "title": "Death Penalty", "pid": "ed87cfae-2019-04-18T11:20:12Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.06146240234375}, {"text": "The death penalty should be allowed because those who kill innocent people should pay for it with their own lives. The death penalty should be allowed as an acceptable punishment for those who kill innocent people. Taxpayers should not have to pay for a killer to spend the rest of their lives not working, watching cable tv, and working out. The killer took an innocent life and should not be given any of the privileges and luxuries that they took away from the victim.", "title": "should death penitently stay", "pid": "bf8e76ff-2019-04-18T11:53:03Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.02810668945312}, {"text": "I'm not sure why Pro challenged me specifically to this debate, especially given that my profile says I am for the death penalty, but since it was directed towards me I felt obligated to accept. I thank my opponent for this debate, and am honored to be debating \"the-great-debater\". Since my opponent A) Challenged me and B) Is Pro I feel he should have burden of proof. I will not argue this round so as to let him present his case first. This should be a short and sweet debate.", "title": "Death Penalty should be allowed", "pid": "ed8c6e01-2019-04-18T18:08:43Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.9939422607422}, {"text": "Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing in favor of not allowing the death penalty in the United States.", "title": "The death penalty should NOT be allowed", "pid": "6604e4c2-2019-04-18T14:32:22Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.90863037109375}, {"text": "Hello and thank you for joining my debate I will be arguing in favor of not allowing the death penalty in the United States.", "title": "The death penalty should NOT be allowed", "pid": "6604e4a3-2019-04-18T14:33:25Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.90863037109375}, {"text": "Thank you for setting up this debate. My opinion on this is not solidified and can be swayed if your debate is strong enough. I believe capital punishment should still be allowed but ONLY under the most dire and repulsive crimes. I do not believe killing 1 person justifies the death penalty, but 10-100 does. It must be a case in which the person is very bent on death and whose purpose is to destabilize and completely destroy any form of order and institute chaos and death in society. These types of people are not under the criteria of criminally insane, but instead the dangerously unfit to be a part of society. Normally, I believe in life sentences for serial killer or rapist cases, but death penalties should always be held as a reserve punishment when times are economically hard as it is costly to keep life sentences. Death sentences should also only be reserved for the individuals who are so incapable of being a functional member of civilization that no sentence would be able to mentally repair their state of mind and it would be necessary to execute them in the name of order. Again, I am not very bound to my argument and may be swayed if your argument is persuasive enough.", "title": "The United States should abolish the Death Penalty.", "pid": "aafab678-2019-04-18T13:08:10Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.86160278320312}, {"text": "Round one is specifically for acceptance. However, I would like to say that in this debate, no evidence will be allowed, just 100% logic.", "title": "Death penalty should be allowed", "pid": "7ad5a00-2019-04-18T17:12:23Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.83030700683594}, {"text": "The death penalty is not \"wrong\". It is just.", "title": "The death penalty should be allowed", "pid": "c0a5f15c-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.78033447265625}, {"text": "What you think is not relevant. You have done nothing to show the death penalty is wrong or evil. And the fact is that those in prison have shorter lifespans than those not in prison, which means even your prison sentence is a death sentence, but you prefer the slow and torturous method and me the quick and easy method. You also want to make the criminal suffer. That is evil. I just want justice. I win.", "title": "The death penalty should be allowed", "pid": "c0a5f15c-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.68487548828125}, {"text": "I don't like the idea of having the death penalty in Australia and I think that it should never be allowed", "title": "Should the death penalty be allowed in Australia", "pid": "ec00b32a-2019-04-18T17:26:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.66563415527344}, {"text": "So my opponent has forfeited the last round, so I would like to continue with my argument right away. There can always be wrong convictions. According to statistics, in Illinois, there are about 20 wrong convictions a year. Would we really want to allow death penalty and allow innocent deaths? There is a Korean movie called \"Miracle in Cell no.7\" It is about a man who has a mental disability and is wrongly convicted of raping and murder. At the end, he gets executed because he wasn\"t able to tell the truth about his innocence. Do we really want innocent deaths? By allowing death penalty, we are allowing all the people who are wrongly convicted of crimes to die an innocent death? Should that be justified? The obvious answer is a no. Because I strongly oppose to the justification of innocent executions, I would like to prevent the allowing of death penalty.", "title": "Death penalty should be allowed", "pid": "7ad5a00-2019-04-18T17:12:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.648681640625}, {"text": "Death sentence should be allowed (in all counties) due to the following factors: A) The Criminal would be sentenced to death/killed. He/She cannot do any more crimes/offenses. B) The number of criminals go down. C)Almost everyone is scared of death which makes less criminals due to their fear of death. D) If he/she is not killed he/she will have around 2% (as of 1999) chance of escaping which will have a chance to do the same crime.", "title": "Death sentences", "pid": "c4e3d825-2019-04-18T13:30:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.58204650878906}, {"text": "The Death Penalty should be legalized as it lowers criminal rate, increases national security, and protects citizens. It lowers criminal rate, and murder rate. Each execution stops 5 murders. (3) Criminal are afraid of committing the crimes punishable by death penalty (rape murder, murder, kidnap murder, genocide, terrorism, etc) so it will lower the overall crime rate as there are many crimes eligible for punishment by death. Murderers can be executed, so it's safer for travel or public. Executions, although not a good thing overall, can protect our country and people from getting killed or hurt. It protects citizens from possible murder, rape, terrorism attack, genocide, etc. Executions are not common and only used for crimes that have been stated to be punishable by execution. Those are my reasons of why death penalty should be legal.", "title": "Resolved: The death penalty should be legalized.", "pid": "9ef66e59-2019-04-18T15:04:49Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.58168029785156}, {"text": "Yes i will argue : The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. and yourself ;there should be no death penalty,", "title": "Debater's Choice", "pid": "e9f1259e-2019-04-18T17:35:39Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.57376098632812}, {"text": "I will show try to show why the Death Penalty should not be allowed in the United States. My opponent will try to show why the Death Penalty should be allowed in the United States.", "title": "Death Penalty", "pid": "ed87542a-2019-04-18T16:41:26Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.54444885253906}, {"text": "I believe that the death penalty should be legal in every state. First, people that are crazy enough to commit murder shouldn't be in jail or on the streets. The criminal serving in jail will be their for life. Do you really want taxpayer's money going towards keeping some scum bag alive. I am completely for the death penalty. Good luck to you.", "title": "Death penalty", "pid": "e3bc12cf-2019-04-18T15:17:08Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.5294647216797}, {"text": "I think the death penalty should stay for the criminals that deserve it because first of all our tax money is paying to keep them in prison even after they did a horrendous crime and besides jail is not torture enough it barely even close enough homeless people come to jail all the time to get food and water and heating and another reason why there should definitely be a death penalty is because someone who is responsible on taking away lives from other people for no reason is just straight up cruel and evil and we should take charge and do something about it because innocent people don't deserve to die its not fair and these people need to learn and understand that what they did was not only wrong but monstrous and inhuman and it will also teach a lesson to others as well.", "title": "the death penalty should be allowed", "pid": "eaf9851d-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.5010528564453}, {"text": "The Death Penalty should be allowed anywhere, where justice is due to those who have committed heinous crimes, mainly Murder in the First Degree, IE with a pre-meditated intention. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... But I don't see why you think Australia should not get the Death penalty, compared to any other country in the world. The BOP is on my opponent, so I will assume the debate will begin in R2. Good luck.", "title": "Should the death penalty be allowed in Australia", "pid": "ec00b32a-2019-04-18T17:26:25Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.49192810058594}, {"text": "The criminal justice system, in general, needs desperately to be rethought, it would be more accurately named the \"Social Revenge System\". The death penalty is currently applied inappropriately, however, it could still have a place.", "title": "Death penalty should be allowed", "pid": "7ad5a00-2019-04-18T17:12:23Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.447265625}, {"text": "The position you basically want me to take is that there should be no death penalty, anywhere, anytime at all no matter the circumstances. I don't like it, but I will take it. Your position, if I have this correctly, is: The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. I expect objective reasoning and a good, well thought-out case. You can either make a few clarifications and start immediately (you'll also have to leave round 5 empty so that both you and I have the same number of rounds in total) or you can simply submit clarifications or acceptance of clarifications and have me start. Precautions: If CON trolls me for not defining the words within the resolution & my interpretation (such as making DNA -> Demonic Nambian Antelopes in a debate pertaining to DNA), then I expect a full 7-point vote from you, the voter.", "title": "Debater's Choice", "pid": "e9f1259e-2019-04-18T17:35:39Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.43515014648438}, {"text": "This is my first debate so I am not as good as others but I must state that prison is a much better way of discipline than killing. You are taken away from your family, have to follow a strict regime and are in with a bunch of strangers. I am OK with that as at least you have a longer life and I think life is the most important thing in the world. Without life, you can't enjoy even the simplest of things. I agree that something must be take away from criminals, but life is too important to take away from anyone.", "title": "The death penalty should be allowed", "pid": "c0a5f15c-2019-04-18T13:45:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.4053955078125}, {"text": "Currently there are 3,425 people on Death Row. An incredible 4% are innocent. This totals to 123 people who will be killed, even though they are innocent. The Death Penalty should not be allowed for 3 reasons. 1- It is Morally Wrong 2- It is expensive 3- It is unconstitutional Rules: There will be 5 rounds. Introduction, Argument 1, Argument 2, Argument 3, Conclusion. Any personal attacks on the other debater will result in an instant disqualification. Any logical fallacies can be pointed out. Rebuttals are allowed, and in fact encouraged. Remember to cite your sources for each argument, and may the best man win!", "title": "Should we have the death Penalty? (Con is against death penalty)", "pid": "cc812c57-2019-04-18T15:27:45Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.40162658691406}, {"text": "I believe the death penalty is not the best way to solve all crimes but in some cases like mass murdering or kidnapping or something else. I do think that killing someone is not the first solution but if they get to live they should at least have some harsher punishments besides just jail because its not that bad. But the main reason i think the death penalty should be allowed is because if someone decided to do something as evil as a mass murdering they shouldn't just go to jail for a life time and get it over with it because its just not fair the American jail is not as hard as should be on certain prisoners for what they have done. I think that if you have the guts to go up and have the nerve to kill someone then you definitely don't deserve to still be living and breathing on this earth its just not right you need to learn from your mistakes and it will also teach others to learn from what you have done and be warned that if you decide to take this path in your life there will be serious consequences like the death penalty or harsher and stricter jails. People need to take the blame for what they have clearly done and its not right to kill and innocent person and still live and eat and live your life when them and their families have to suffer for what you have done. It also gives closure to the victims families who have suffered so deeply because of your cruel actions, and also i don't know if you've noticed but your justice system has more sympathy for our criminals than our victims. Another good reason to have the death penalty is because when a prisoner's parole or escape can give the criminals another opportunity to kill another person again. Also have you noticed with all these prisoners here and known of them getting killed its taking up space and that's not realty safe. And finally something we all have to pay attention almost everyday is our taxes did you know that we are paying to keep our criminals stuck in that jail place when it could be going to something a lot more useful that could actually help and benefit us. Overall i do agree with the death penalty but if there we some law that were to be passed that made the jails a bit more stricter and made them suffer more them i would also agree with that as well . Some people may call that mean or getting eye to eye which is also not the best way to solve things and i agree and here your point but its also not fair haven't you ever lost a loved one and if so just imagine the reason they died is because guy was just feeling angry and decided to kill someone that night and its also not only that is just that someone who had the mentality to do something like that clearly needs to get their facts straight and on the right track.", "title": "the death penalty should be allowed", "pid": "eaf9851d-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.39422607421875}, {"text": "I am going to argue for this topic. I believe that death penalty should be allowed in many countries if not all of them.", "title": "Death Penalty should be allowed", "pid": "ed8c6e01-2019-04-18T18:08:43Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.39065551757812}, {"text": "First debate, very excited! OK here I go: Everyone has the right to live, no ones life should be ended because someone decided that they should. The saying two wrongs don't make a right goes a very long way when it comes to topics like this. Human life is so valuable, that even murderers shouldn't be deprived of their life, even if they have killed someone. The death penalty is something that you can't take back, it is irreversible! Imagine killing someone and later on finding out that they are innocent. Texas man Cameron Todd Willingham, for example, was found innocent after his 2004 execution. Lastly, using the death penalty doesn't deter criminals, evidence says it does the complete opposite! Twenty seven years after abolishing the death penalty, Canada saw a 44 per cent drop in murders across the country. And it wasn't alone.", "title": "Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed", "pid": "776be9b-2019-04-18T15:48:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.385498046875}, {"text": "My opponent didn't actually outline a case against the death penalty.The death penalty isn't just about enacting revenge, as my opponent assumes. 1. The Death Penalty protects others from potentially being infringed upon in the future.2. The death penalty is an actual punishment. Prison is not. Some people will purposely get themselves into prison, just to survive off the government.3. Justice is not strictly about revenge. Due cause does not have to erase the bad things someone did, and it never will. It's about giving the criminal the same treatment they gave their victim to equivilate the crime to the punishment.4. Again, why just Australia? Should the Death Penalty be allowed everywhere else?", "title": "Should the death penalty be allowed in Australia", "pid": "ec00b32a-2019-04-18T17:26:25Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.37921142578125}, {"text": "I feel that the death penalty should be implemented because there arebsome crimes which are just simply horrific and jail just does not suit as punishment.", "title": "Death Penalty", "pid": "a490d782-2019-04-18T18:25:22Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.37808227539062}, {"text": "Should the death penalty be aloud in the United States? the answer is yes", "title": "The Death Penalty", "pid": "abe4e504-2019-04-18T12:20:32Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.37290954589844}, {"text": "I believe that the the death penalty should not be abolished.", "title": "The Death Penalty Should be Abolished", "pid": "e03e7a04-2019-04-18T14:42:05Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.3720703125}, {"text": "The death penalty should not be allowed for various reasons: 1. What makes it moral? Why do we kill people who kill people to show killing people is wrong? It is hypocritical. 2. It violates amendment 8 of the constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, for sometimes it takes a victim longer then expected and wanted to pass. This makes the punishment inhumane and unconstitutional. 3. There is no solid evidence to prove that the death penalty deteriorates crime rates. So what is the point? If anything, it is an easy way out. 4. 1/7 people executed are innocent, why take the chance? 5. The cost of the death penalty is much greater then it would cost to give prisoners/victims life imprisonment. I will await for your rebuttals and then pose a counterargument against such rebuttals.", "title": "Death Penalty", "pid": "ed87c126-2019-04-18T13:45:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.370361328125}, {"text": "In my opinion, I believe that if someone murders another person they should be killed too. Once again the 15th amendment supports this statement. Punishment should fit the crime because it is just (Danzig). The death penalty is not to cause someone pain, it is for justice. There are ways to execute criminals that are not always cruel such as a gas chamber and lethal injections (Bohm). Overall the death penalty has been a part of American culture for years, and I do not think it is fair to reconsider things now. If criminals commit inhuman crimes I believe the death penalty is the correct sentence.", "title": "The Death Penalty", "pid": "abe4d9ff-2019-04-18T17:05:50Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.3363800048828}, {"text": "Hello, and thanks for starting this debate! I will argue that the Death penalty should not be legal 'everywhere'. I assume that we will do arguments in round 2, then rebuttals and closing statements in round 3. Thanks!", "title": "the death penalty should be legalized everywhere", "pid": "7754db25-2019-04-18T15:40:15Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.31861877441406}, {"text": "The United States should have death penalty for capital offenses, which include first-degree murder and treason. Don't hesitate to state your opinions but be respectful.", "title": "Death Penalty Ought to Be Legal for Capital Crimes", "pid": "d3365f6b-2019-04-18T13:41:47Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.3177490234375}, {"text": "Extend arguments.", "title": "the death penalty should be allowed", "pid": "eaf9851d-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.2753448486328}, {"text": "Challenge accepted.", "title": "The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.", "pid": "a4630a13-2019-04-18T17:14:46Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.26315307617188}, {"text": "I saw some people discussing this earlier and thought someone would at least consider trying to change my mind. I think the death penalty, or capital punishment, should not exist. Pro will obviously be arguing to keep the death penalty where it is already in place, or implement it in more regions. Please no semantics. Good luck!", "title": "The Death Penalty", "pid": "abe4e0a8-2019-04-18T15:51:10Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.26248168945312}, {"text": "The death penalty is something that should be allowed and utilized. If there is sufficient evidence to convict someone of a serious crime, they should not be able to appeal and re-appeal their case, costing millions of dollars per case, most of which, if not all, is paid by taxpayers. It is less of a financial burden to humanely kill those guilty of severe crimes, and it ensures they won't do it again. If the justice system can hold firm on ensuring that those who commit severe crimes are punished accordingly, it should serve as a deterrent to committing these crimes, as most people don't want to die.", "title": "The Death Penalty", "pid": "abe4dd44-2019-04-18T16:35:31Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.25283813476562}, {"text": "I am against the death penalty because if the death penalty were to be implemented, you would have to be 100% certain that the victim is guilty of murder. This is rather difficult to obtain. for the paradox of unanimity, see So, if we cannot trust unanimous decisions, or non-unanimous decisions (as that would be less than 100% certainty), the death penalty should not be implemented.", "title": "Death Penalty", "pid": "ed87cc4a-2019-04-18T12:05:48Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.2239227294922}, {"text": "Extend arguments. I hope that Pro returns to the site, and that my harsh critisisms did not deter her from the debate.", "title": "the death penalty should be allowed", "pid": "eaf9851d-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.216064453125}, {"text": "Closing StatementsMy closing statements will be short, as I feel I have covered almost everything, as well as Con forfeiting the last round. I hope to have been able to have shown why the death penalty should not be abolished, as well as provide reasons of why it should be allowed (to take away someone else's human rights is to forfeit your own). Con's entire case relied on one reason, and that reason was the death penalty being immoral. Con used that argument, but barely used any reasoning to show how it is immoral. Con also didn't rebut many of my arguments, as is apparent in the previous rounds. Again, I hope to have shown that the death penalty should not be abolished.", "title": "The Death Penalty", "pid": "abe4e143-2019-04-18T14:47:58Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.20770263671875}, {"text": "I believe that the death penalty should be abolished. Solitary confinement is a much better way to deal with criminals who are a threat to everyone around them.", "title": "The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished", "pid": "ae02c242-2019-04-18T12:12:13Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.18380737304688}, {"text": "I think the death penalty should remain in use. Many criminals when released from prison will be likely to commit a crime again. If you are convicted for murder, rape, genocide, treason, or a pedophile you should get the death penalty. You have already shown that you are not a law abiding citizen and there should be no reason to give you another chance to live again and possibly commit the same act. People who commit crimes such as rape or murder are usually not one time offenders. Also, just because some people believe that the death penalty is morally wrong does not mean everyone believes it is wrong. Why put someone away from life when there is a possibility of parole or someone can escape? Putting someone away from life makes our jails more crowded. With the right changes to the way the death penalty works, it can be helpful and useful to keep people who are sick and cannot be helped off of the streets.", "title": "The Death Penalty", "pid": "abe4dd25-2019-04-18T16:41:16Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.17367553710938}, {"text": "The death penalty should be legal in all states across the United States considering some people commit crimes knowing they will get away with it. If the death penalty was implemented, those murderers might reconsider before committing the act.", "title": "Death penalty legalized in all states", "pid": "b8b216c7-2019-04-18T18:13:16Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.17189025878906}, {"text": "The United Nations in 2008 banned the use of the death penalty, however fifty-eight countries, including the United States and China, still exercise the death penalty. As such, the topic remains highly controversial. I believe that some criminals lost their human faces while they made chain of serious crimes and there's no other punishment for them but death penalty.", "title": "Death penalty should be supported.", "pid": "a03f5d1-2019-04-18T17:26:21Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.17141723632812}, {"text": "I am in favor of the death penalty. I believe that it is a proper form of law, effective punishment, and an appropriate way to serve justice. While I am in favor of the death penalty, I believe that it should also only be brought down on the convicted person under certain circumstances; severe ones, at that. Such as murder. The death penalty brings up an interesting axiom in life: An eye for and eye, and a tooth for a tooth. In this particular case, I'll take an eye...and maybe a tooth as well. I await your first rebuttal.", "title": "Death Penalty", "pid": "3f1d7284-2019-04-18T19:49:20Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.16351318359375}, {"text": "In keeping with his rules: I accept the debate and will be arguing that states should be allowed to pursue the death penalty regardless of the plea of the defendant. (I did correct the typo in \"regardless\", which I hope Pro does not fault; which is not to give him crap about the typo, because I'm sure I'll make my own) Though this is an administrative round, I would also like to note that Pro has conceded in the comments that the death penalty is valid in principle, so that this debate will not hinge on that point.", "title": "States should not be allowed to pursue the death penalty for a criminal that pleas guilty", "pid": "99aac624-2019-04-18T17:39:44Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.1590576171875}, {"text": "If someone commits a murder, then yes, they do deserve to be punished. But think of it this way, death it the easy way out. Would you rather have a life sentence in prison, or die? What about the family of the victim? Many people assume that families of murder victims want the death penalty to be imposed, but it isn't necessarily so. Some are against it on moral ground. Then there is the worst thing about the death penalty: Errors The system can make tragic mistakes. There have been many unfortunate people that have been killed, and later on been proved innocent. We'll never know for sure how many people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit.", "title": "Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed", "pid": "776be9b-2019-04-18T15:48:37Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.14988708496094}, {"text": "My opponent stated \"A more recent study by Kenneth Land of Duke University and others concluded that, from 1994 through 2005, each execution in Texas was associated with \"modest, short-term reductions\" in homicides, a decrease of up to 2.5 murders.\"The issue with this statistic is that it is looking at only one state. Over all, when you compare all states without the death penalty, and those with it, those without the death penalty, on average, have a lower murder rate. There of course can be exceptions to this rule, such as Texas. Next my opponent used an article from daily signal. As you can read about here[10], they are known to have a strong right wing bias as well as having a \"mixed\" reporting record. Meaning, that some of the things they report on are simply not even true. Given that the article doesn't even cite the study they claim that they got the information from, it is very suspect.I thank my opponent for this debate, and wish them luck in future debates. To conclude, I believe that the reasons I mentioned above, how there can be innocent people who are given the death penalty, how the death penalty is more expensive(as my opponent conceded) and that life in prison without parole seems to be a better deterrent to murder than the death penalty, I believe it makes sense not to allow the death penalty. Sources:[10] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...", "title": "Death penalty should be allowed", "pid": "7ad5a1f-2019-04-18T12:20:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.14599609375}, {"text": "I think death penalty should be approved in every single prision that exists in the world. Criminals need to pay for what they did, and also they need to be punished, because the crime they are acused of is something that is very serious.", "title": "Death penalty", "pid": "e3bbfc0b-2019-04-18T16:55:15Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.1307373046875}, {"text": "I think the death penalty should be abolished because even though they are criminals they have rights to and the constitution says they have a right to life liberty and justice if they are killed that abuses there rights because they are stripped of their life right", "title": "should the death penalty exist", "pid": "2686d1b7-2019-04-18T13:11:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.1190185546875}, {"text": "Resolution: The death penalty should never be allowed as a form of punishment. capital punishment  –noun punishment by death for a crime; death penalty.", "title": "Death Penalty", "pid": "a490cfc2-2019-04-18T18:48:08Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.11712646484375}, {"text": "Looking for a serious intellectual debate on this topic here. I had a long and very interesting conversation with a friend about this and would like to see how my arguments stand up here. R1) Introduction of argument R2) Main body of argument R3) Cross examination of opponent's argument R4) Defence of own argument R5) Conclusion of argument I will first define the debate as a whole. I, as the Proposition, take it upon myself to prove that the Death Penalty (that is to say the state-sponsored execution of a convicted criminal) is a morally acceptable punishment to the very worst crimes where the perpetrator is likely to reoffend. I am going to argue this on 3 main points: 1. Establishing whether there can be circumstances in which the death penalty is justifiable and if so what are they? 2. The death penalty as a preventative measure against repeat offenders rather than as a punishment I will lay these out in this first round and from there expand on and defend my position in future rounds. I'd like to thank any challenger in advance for accepting. My burden of proof is only to show that certain crimes should warrant the death penalty, and I will be examining why in later rounds. I'll look at concepts like the human rights of the convict and why human rights aren't inalienable. I want this to be a competently argued debate that focusses on the philosophical side of the issue. Thanks in advance.", "title": "The Death Penalty", "pid": "abe4d584-2019-04-18T18:55:53Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.11363220214844}, {"text": "I accept and will be arguing the death penalty should not be in place. I have actually never debated this.Good luck to pro :)", "title": "Death Penalty", "pid": "ed875f4e-2019-04-18T15:57:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.1073455810547}, {"text": "First I would like to apologies for forfeiting one of the rounds. It was out of my hands. So let me start. Let us first picture a world without death penalty. Well, I see crime rates as high as ever, murders increasing everyday and innocent people not getting their rights back. Chaos roams the streets and people committing crimes to get money and in their heads they know that the worst that can happen to them is prison. For some prison might even be a relief compared to their living standards. So abolishing death penalty only encourages people to break the law and murder more innocent people. More gangs would form and assassinations increase because of the lower punishment received. Right now, some countries that have death penalty are very fragile. The only line between chaos and peace is death penalty. Some might say the cost of killing a criminal is not worth it. Well let me tell you one thing, is the cost of safety not worth it? Would you rather have a peaceful community and pay some extra taxes or would you rather pay less tax and live in a dangerous environment. One of the issues of death penalty is making a mistake in the trails. No system of justice can produce results which are 100% certain all the time. Mistakes will be made in any system which relies upon human testimony for proof. We should be vigilant to uncover and avoid such mistakes. Our system of justice rightfully demands a higher standard for death penalty cases. However, the risk of making a mistake with the extraordinary due process applied in death penalty cases is very small, and there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976. Therefore I believe that all the points provided by my opponent are weak and are not strong enough to outweigh the advantages to death penalty.", "title": "Death Penalty should be allowed", "pid": "ed8c6e01-2019-04-18T18:08:43Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.10272216796875}, {"text": "Should the United States of America go ahead and legalize the death penalty in all 50 states?", "title": "The death penalty.", "pid": "5db671c4-2019-04-18T18:13:13Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.09963989257812}, {"text": "For some, the death penalty could be less worse than jail. The death penalty is only used when absolutely needed, and sometimes it is the only rational/moral option. Even if a criminal was released from the death penalty/jail, it would be very hard for them to make a living. The death penalty can be painless. The death penalty provides disclosure for victims. If the death penalty is not in use, then America will end up spending more money trying to contain criminals from the outside world. Many lives could be saved by each execution of a guilty killer.", "title": "The Death Penalty should be legal in all US states.", "pid": "c1373988-2019-04-18T13:27:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.09771728515625}, {"text": "For some, the death penalty could be less worse than jail. The death penalty is only used when absolutely needed, and sometimes it is the only rational/moral option. Even if a criminal was released from the death penalty/jail, it would be very hard for them to make a living. The death penalty can be painless. The death penalty provides disclosure for victims. If the death penalty is not in use, then America will end up spending more money trying to contain criminals from the outside world. Many lives could be saved by each execution of a guilty killer.", "title": "The death penalty should be legal in all US states.", "pid": "53f92967-2019-04-18T13:26:30Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.09771728515625}, {"text": "My argument for the death penalty is very simple. I do not hold that it deters crime. I do not hold that \"it's what they deserve\" (which is very difficult to prove). Simply my position on this issue stems from the fact capital punishment is dealing with a person who is capable of premeditated, cold-blooded rape or murder. In the event of an escape or parole for this individual we are turning a proven killer lose on the public. This should be prevented at all costs, and as extreme as putting someone to death is it is the only foolproof solution to the problem. (I noticed your rather lackluster debate on the subject and was wondering if you want to give it another shot.)", "title": "The Death Penalty Should Be Continued.", "pid": "a4bfa904-2019-04-18T19:56:37Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.08505249023438}, {"text": "It is believed that keeping harsh punishments like death penalty conduce to fear in the would-be murderer's mind pertaining to their future on being caught. If people know they will only face life-imprisonment, they will take the legal system casually and commit all the crimes they want. This increases the rate of homicides. By instilling death penalty in the legal system, people will not dare to murder that easily. Thus, death penalty is considered as an essential tool to fight premeditated murder. Since life is so precious, the punishment for taking somebody's life is paying the price with your own life. Thus, death penalty is nothing but just punishment for those who have taken another individual or individuals lives. Keeping the death penalty will scare people even more into not committing the crime.", "title": "The death penalty should be banned from a form of punishment.", "pid": "a630c057-2019-04-18T18:53:13Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.0818634033203}, {"text": "I believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional, and that it should be made illegal in the United States. That pretty much sums it up", "title": "The death penalty should be unconstitutional", "pid": "5daccd96-2019-04-18T15:30:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.08059692382812}, {"text": "This is a debate sent to my good friend Kylar, since I saw on his profile that he believes that the death penalty should exist, while I do not.Resolved: The death penalty should exist in the United States.The onus is shared between the two of us, I must prove that we should not have the death penalty whereas my opponent must prove that we should have it. My reasoning for the sharing of the onus is because both sides call for a change in the status quo in the US.Rules:1. No forfeiting2. No semantics/trolling/kritiks/etc3. My opponent must start their constructive case this round and waive the final round saying \"Round waived in accordance to rule 3\" or something similar4. Keep appropriate conduct5. Do not reject definitions/structure or anything otherwise laid out in this debate. If you reject please do so in comments or PM so I can address it.Structure:Round X: What pro does | what con doesR1: Create debate | Provide constructive caseR2: Provide constructive case | RebuttalsR3: Rebuttals | Defense to rebuttalsR4: Defense to rebuttals | WaiveVoter ELO is set to 2500. If needed I can change this.Votes are on a pick winner basis so we can get more in depth RFD's as opposed to just explaining specific points.Definitions:Death penalty: the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime.should: ought to; mustexist: be in practice/be made into practice", "title": "The death penalty should exist", "pid": "65e13e07-2019-04-18T14:44:07Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.07029724121094}, {"text": "In the case of capital murder and life destroying sexual crimes, the death penalty should be allowed, as it is a powerful deterrent and, if the criminal takes it upon themselves to take control of the life of another and ruin it/ take it, the state/federal government should reserve the power to do so as well.", "title": "Use of the Death Penalty as punishment for capital murder and sex crimes.", "pid": "780a0341-2019-04-18T16:17:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.06854248046875}, {"text": "I believe that even though people say that nobody has the right to kill someone else, that there has to be personal justice and peace of mind. There is an extent on how someone can receiving capital punishment though, and the worst the crime, the better chances are that that specific person should be put to death. I just believe a personal peace of mind, and how that could lead to justice in some form to the person that that human has corrupted. This depends on seriousness of the crime that person has committed. If a person lied and was put to jail, this is not that serious. So, he would not deserve the death penalty. The death penalty should only be for serial murderers and people who commit very serious crimes.", "title": "We should abolish the death penalty in the US", "pid": "53d5d09b-2019-04-18T17:01:59Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.06185913085938}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "The Death Penalty should be legal", "pid": "6eefc0cc-2019-04-18T14:12:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.0541534423828}, {"text": "I believe that the death penalty should be abolished in every state of America. 1. The death penalty is morally wrong and it contradicts the entire point of putting someone in prison in the first place. ( To learn from their mistakes and become better people. 2. In States where the Death Penalty is in place, murder rates are actually higher than those where there is no Death Penalty. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 3. In some cases it is cheaper to sentence a person to life imprisonment, than to sentence them with death. (Court Costs) 4. More tax is needed to maintain the Death Penalty. 5. There is a chance that the lethal injection will be administered in the wrong order, or there will be something that goes wrong with during the process. This can cause the prisoner to feel the pain that comes with the lethal injection. 6. In a lot of cases that are sent to the supreme court, it depends more on the attorney that you have been appointed ( Most offenders do not have one so they are appointed one by the system ) than the actual crime you have committed. I look forward to this debate.", "title": "The Death penalty should be abolished in all states of America.", "pid": "bdcee6d4-2019-04-18T17:32:03Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.05224609375}, {"text": "I am looking for someone to give a reasonable explanation(s) and arguments on why he or she feels that the death penalty should remain legalized in certain areas of the United States. Therefore, I will be arguing on why I do not agree with the death penalty. For this 1st round I am asking for acceptance, 2nd-4th round going deeper into the argument, and the 5th round should be the final conclusion. This is only my second debate and compared to my last argument, I know this is going to be even more controversial, so, I'm not quite sure what to expect. First off, let me introduce myself. My name is Destinee Bayona and I'm an 18 year old freshman attending William Paterson University in New Jersey and majoring in Psychology. As a requirement for my Philosophy class I am taking, and for 15% of my overall grade, I must complete 3 debates throughout the semester, with this being my second so far. Each debate must be a maximum of 3,000 characters, for 5 rounds, and must be completed by April 1st. Also, absolutely NO copying and pasting. If you are going to speak on your opinion, let it be YOUR own thoughts. I have a lot to say so I look forward to this debate :)", "title": "The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal.", "pid": "2728719b-2019-04-18T18:24:05Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 216.0306854248047}, {"text": "I am looking for someone to give a reasonable explanation(s) and arguments on why he or she feels that the death penalty should remain legalized in certain areas of the United States. Therefore, I will be arguing on why I do not agree with the death penalty. For this 1st round I am asking for acceptance, 2nd-4th round going deeper into the argument, and the 5th round should be the final conclusion. This is only my second debate and compared to my last argument, I know this is going to be even more controversial, so, I'm not quite sure what to expect. First off, let me introduce myself. My name is Destinee Bayona and I'm an 18 year old freshman attending William Paterson University in New Jersey and majoring in Psychology. As a requirement for my Philosophy class I am taking, and for 15% of my overall grade, I must complete 3 debates throughout the semester, with this being my second so far. Each debate must be a maximum of 3,000 characters, for 5 rounds, and must be completed by April 1st. Also, absolutely NO copying and pasting. If you are going to speak on your opinion, let it be YOUR own thoughts. I have a lot to say so I look forward to this debate :)", "title": "The Death Penalty Should Be Illegal.", "pid": "2728717c-2019-04-18T18:23:20Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.0306854248047}, {"text": "I believe the death penalty should be abolished. I think that killing someone is never the solution, no matter what crime they've committed. People might say that a murder should receive the death penalty because the punishment is equal to the crime, but \"an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind\". There are alternative punishments that I believe still serve justice but promote a more forgiving and merciful attitude in society.", "title": "Death Penalty should be Abolished in all States", "pid": "617d1901-2019-04-18T15:27:49Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.0227813720703}, {"text": "It is important to note they the state does not execute people for the benefit of the family. However, I don't see how the extended process prior to the executions are agonizing since they are serving the rest of their life in prison until execution, and if there was no execution then they would just stay in prison. Christianity is accepting of capital punishment most notably mentioned in Genesis 9:6 [1]. Even if they are mentally ill they still committed a capital crime such as murder or treason and should be punished. Further, people can plead insanity, and also it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded [2]. The death penalty should be allowed because it does save lives, it gives proper retribution, and it serves justice. Sources [1] http://biblehub.com... [2] http://www.oyez.org...", "title": "Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed", "pid": "776be9b-2019-04-18T15:48:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.0222625732422}, {"text": "The death penalty should not be considered an option when issuing sentences to a criminal. No matter what their crime may be (murder, rape, etc..) no one deserves to die, and more importantly no one has the right to take a life away from someone else. By issuing the death penalty, you are contradicting the claim that murder is wrong. But in all actuality, you are murdering the person that committed the crime. Punishing violence with violence does not solve anything. It is extremely hypocritical. Plus, jail time can either serve as the worst punishment of all, forcing the criminal to sit and ponder over what he/she has done, or it can serve as a time of repentance and change the person as a whole. If you are for the death penalty, please inform me on your reasoning and beliefs. I would really like to see the other side of the argument.", "title": "Death Penalty", "pid": "ed876692-2019-04-18T15:19:39Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.01849365234375}, {"text": "People who are threats to the innocent should be stopped but putting them into prison doesn't really solve what they did to the innocent not only that but it cost, 760,000 a year . They shouldn't be allowed to live if they killed someone. They should get what they deserve. It's just like the golden rule . \" treat others the way you want to be treated\". If you kill someone, then you should get punished for your actions.", "title": "Death penalty should be allowed", "pid": "7ad5a1f-2019-04-18T12:20:56Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.01788330078125}, {"text": "Yes the taxpayer money is more important than the life of a murderer, Yes. That is why he should be on the death row, As he does not DESERVE to keep on living in society. Yes but that's just the court case, Not all the decades the murderer spends in jail.", "title": "the death penalty should be completely abolished, No exceptions", "pid": "dacab5da-2019-04-18T11:07:33Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.00924682617188}, {"text": "Thank you, nargiz_gab, for initializing the debate. I accept and will be arguing that the death penalty ought not be supported. I request that for the second round we each advance our arguments in support of our respective positions and that for round three, the final round, we counter argue the each other's argument in the previous round in addition to summarizing our respective positions thereby concluding the debate. I invite nargiz_gab to advance his argument as to why the death penalty ought to be supported.", "title": "Death penalty should be supported.", "pid": "a03f5d1-2019-04-18T17:26:21Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.0087127685547}, {"text": "Yes people don't believe it but you have to have faith but that's besides the point. I My next claim | this is what you would say. \\/ There are more pros to the death penalty than cons. Yes people can get wrongly executed One of the arguments of opponents of death penalty is the inevitability of sending innocent people who are wrongly accused to death row and eventually execution. In relation to free will, some criminals are suffering from mental illness or are having clouded judgment at the time of the crime.Opponents contend that there are instances where people commit pre-meditated crimes and are aware of what they are doing. However, it does not discount the fact that crimes can also be committed out of passion or extreme anger triggered by a situation which makes an offender act on impulse. There are also those who are suffering from mental illnesses and are not taking medication which can lead to them committing offenses they have no control of. It is an added cost to the government and taxpayers\" money, With the argument that life imprisonment with no parole is more expensive, opponents say that in general, the government spends more taxpayers\" money in handling cases of death row inmates. This is due to the length and complexity of trials, the number or defenders to be hired and the overall process. They contend that there are two trials the state will spend for. One is for the verdict and another for the sentencing, not including the number of appeals that will be submitted while keeping the convicted prisoner inside maximum security. Death penalty is a form of revenge, While proponents say that imposing capital punishment is a form of retribution, that is, to punish who has committed a crime, opponents argue that it is revenge. For the latter, to avenge a crime committed to another individual may be understandable but killing someone for murdering another person is also unconstitutional. It is crime in itself that is only masked by the term capital punishment and in truth, only continues the series of violence. It is a platform that is anti-poor and discriminatoryand Those who are death row inmates and sentenced to death are mostly based on racial discrimination as evidenced by a high percentage of inmates being African-American and members of the minority. Moreover, accused individuals who are poor are mostly the ones who get the death penalty for the reason that they lack the finances to seek for great and powerful defense attorneys. They don\"t have the money to pay for good defense. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This is my info -Death penalty costs the government less as opposed to life imprisonment without parole.Proponents say despite expenses incurred by the government from imposing capital punishment, death penalty is still cheaper compared to the costs of life without parole. Although there is no contention that the cost of the former is high, life imprisonment is accumulatively higher given the expenses for food, health care and other costs of sustaining the lives of incarcerated individuals serving life. -It deters would-be criminals to commit felonies and Advocates of death penalty cite examples on how imposing the death sentence or abolishing it have affected crime rate. According to a study conducted in the late 1960\"s, there was a 7% crime rate increase on the years when this law was abolished. On the other hand, fewer crimes were committed with the increase in number of inmates in the death row who were executed each year. Proponents say that these figures clearly indicate the efficacy of capital punishment on deterring crimes. - The absence of death penalty is synonymous to crime rate increase.As reported by time magazine, an estimated 2,000,000 people in the United States have been victims of crimes, from assault to murder. With insufficient laws to address this problem or the lack of teeth in these laws, criminals become careless and bolder to commit heinous crimes because of the leniency in punishments and loop holes in the justice system. For these reason, there is a need for death penalty. -It is constitutional and does not violate the Eight Amendment which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, fines and cruel and unusual punishments, including torture. Advocates of death penalty say that the pain associated with the execution of a death row inmate is not improbable. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the Eight Amendment challenge which stated that the drug used to render the criminal coma-like unconscious before injecting the lethal drug is not capable to do so completely. The Supreme Court was firm on its stand that any method of execution definitely will inflict some pain and states with capital punishment have already adopted more humane methods to carry out executions. -Death penalty is a just punishment for crimes committed against the rights to life, freedom and safety of victims. It is the right of an individual to live peacefully and be free from harm. Unfortunately, crimes like murder, rape and assault are committed by perpetrators who have no regard for life and property of others. Since they violate other people\"s lives, it is but fair that they are brought to justice and suffer the fate they rightfully deserve. People who are for capital punishment also talk about free will wherein an individual is given the right to do things in his or her own volition and he or she is responsible for his or her own fate. All of this shows that it is constitutional, and it would make the victim get peace or have freedom. What would you want the judge to say if you or a loved one got killed, or maybe your whole family except for you that no has to suffer from what happened? Please answer.", "title": "Death penalty should be allowed", "pid": "7ad5a1f-2019-04-18T12:20:56Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.00613403320312}, {"text": "I feel that the death penalty should be abolished.", "title": "death penalty", "pid": "75f8478c-2019-04-18T16:21:31Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.00547790527344}, {"text": "I believe the death penalty shouldn't go anywhere. If a person has committed a capital crime such as murder, Treason, Or crimes against humanity, They don't deserve to live. It costs the government less money to give someone the capital punishment than to give them life in prison. It arguably deters crime, Since most criminals would be less likely to commit a crime if it meant death.", "title": "The Death Penalty Should be Abolished", "pid": "e03e810a-2019-04-18T11:15:46Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.99948120117188}, {"text": "I believe the death penalty is a cruel and inhumane decision and will result in more, not less, murders and murderers including the government. I am not saying we should let these killers roam free but that we should give them a punishment that is reversible if the presumed killer is the wrong person such as a lifetime sentence and community service. Remember, if a person is framed or wrongly accused we have, therefore, killed an innocent life we can not get back. If we are giving such a punishment as a lifetime sentence the wrong accused can walk out and get their life back, pretty much, unharmed. I would like to thank the opponent although I was hoping to see an argument from you. Hopefully I might see on in this final round. Thank you to all those reading this and whom are going to vote and, please, if I have convinced you the death penalty is wrong vote con!!!", "title": "There should be death penalty for murderers.", "pid": "f5157375-2019-04-18T14:53:16Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.99807739257812}, {"text": "I accept! Good luck bro. I agree no personal attacks on other player (Ad Hominem) I will offer no rebuttals so it is a fair debate.", "title": "Should we have the death Penalty? (Con is against death penalty)", "pid": "cc812c57-2019-04-18T15:27:45Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.98458862304688}, {"text": "Although the death penalty has been banned in most states, I believe that there are boundaries to a crime, and if crossed, there should be a more severe punishment then life in prison. Act all sweet and nice and they'll have time off for good behavior. If you live long enough, you'll walk among us again. I don't want that. Do you?", "title": "Should the Death Penalty be Reinstated in the United States", "pid": "c60d5889-2019-04-18T17:40:08Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.97940063476562}, {"text": "The death penalty is a form of punishment in which the person who commited a certain heinous crime is put to death. Currently, Texas is for the death penalty. Huntsville, Texas is the only prison, at this time, that actually puts the inmates to death. The death penalty needs to remain legal in Texas.", "title": "The death penalty should be legal in Texas.", "pid": "f23a0adc-2019-04-18T17:34:39Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.9789276123047}, {"text": "Resolution: The Death Penalty should remain a sentencing option in the United States. First Round will be for Acceptance. If there are any questions, please ask them before joining.", "title": "Death Penalty", "pid": "ed875b8d-2019-04-18T16:09:51Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.97689819335938}, {"text": "I challenge my friend Kryptic to this debate.Resolved: The death penalty should exist in the United States.Kryptic and I both share the onus, which is that I must prove that the death penalty should not exist whereas my opponent must prove it should. Whoever has more convincing/sound arguments wins this debate. We are both advocating for a change in the status quo in at least some areas of the US, so the onus is logically shared.Rules:1. Maintain appropriate conduct2. No trolling/kritiks/semantics/forfeits/etc.3. Start in round one with arguments and waive the final round with something along the lines of \"round waived in compliance with rule 3\"4. Keep debate structureDefinitions:Death penalty: the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. should: ought to; mustexist: continue to be in policy or come into policy Round structure:Round X: What con does | What pro doesR1: Outline debate | Constructive argumentsR2: Constructive arguments | RebuttalsR3: Rebuttals | Defense to rebuttalsR4: Defense to rebuttals | WaiveIf you want me to change anything let me know. Thanks!", "title": "The death penalty should exist.", "pid": "564603a4-2019-04-18T14:44:26Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.96304321289062}, {"text": "I believe the death penalty is acceptable. I believe this based on 3 major reasons. 1. If you take another persons life without an acceptable reason why should you be allowed to continue your own? 2. Even though the death penalty may be expensive it gives a sense of closure for the victims family. 3. Also instead of just ending the inmates life, you force him/her to live the rest of his/her life in a cell. I believe this to be like caging an animal and waiting for it to die. This is inhumane and cruel. Best of luck. Lets have a good debate.", "title": "The Death Penalty should be illegal", "pid": "7857750e-2019-04-18T18:38:21Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.95826721191406}, {"text": "This debate is on whether or not society should have the death penalty. Now I believe the death penalty is accepted under curtain circumstances like serial rapist, serial killers, mass murders and if the suspect is not insane and/or is atleast 19+ years old. The first round is a introduction round. The debate should start in round 2. There are 4 rounds in total, voting period is 1 week, time to argue is 48 hours and argument max is 6,000 characters. Also another thing before we get started is if you say \"life sentencing\" it would be assumed that you mean imprisonment until death by old age. The reason why I state this is because in Canada life imprisonment = 25 years maximum.Definitionsserial rapist: sexually assault 2 or more peopleserial killer: Murder 3 or more people with a time interval between one of the murders. For example Ted Bundy, John Gacy, ect...mass murderer: Murder 3 or more people with no time interval between any of the murders. For example James Holmes.Rules No TrollingNo ProfanityCiting your sources is optional unless the your opponent ask for it.My opponent is able to add any definitions or rules however can't change any of the definitions/rules already listed.", "title": "The death penalty should be accepted under curtain circumstances", "pid": "fcb9cb57-2019-04-18T18:08:33Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.95823669433594}, {"text": "I will accept this challenge, although I am not staunch in my opposition to this punishment. That is, the punishment by killing. Perhaps this discussion shall help to stiffen my argumentation in the matter. I don't know. But I want to thank my debate partner for proposing this discussion. I am looking forward to it.", "title": "The death penalty should be accepted under curtain circumstances", "pid": "fcb9cb57-2019-04-18T18:08:33Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.95443725585938}, {"text": "This is going to be a long debate. There will be 5 rounds. My opponent is TejreticsStructure1. Acceptance2. Arguments3. Arguments4. Rebuttals, Defending Case5, ConclusionNote: You cannot start your arguments in the 1,4, and 5 round. You can't rebut in the 1,5 rounds. You can rebut in the 3rd and 2nd round though. Rules1. No forfeits2. No trolling4. Over 2500 ELO to accept.5. Over age 13 unless you are tejretics or famousdebater.6. Over 3000 ELO to vote. 7. Have fun!Definitions1. Death Penalty: The practice or legal sanction of allowing the imposition of punishment of death for people convicted of certain crimes.Legal: of or relating to the lawSources1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Thank you. Thanks to tejretics.", "title": "The Death Penalty should be legal", "pid": "6eefc0cc-2019-04-18T14:12:24Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.9459991455078}, {"text": ".", "title": "Death Penalty should be abolished", "pid": "4b7352aa-2019-04-18T18:31:31Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.94236755371094}, {"text": "I accept! May the best debater win C:", "title": "The death penalty should be legalized", "pid": "15a94d7c-2019-04-18T15:05:25Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.9413604736328}, {"text": "I agree; Canada should allow the death penalty as a punishment for capital crimes.", "title": "Canada should allow death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes", "pid": "333616f5-2019-04-18T12:12:06Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.9411163330078}, {"text": "I'll accept the challenge on the death penalty. I will now state why I believe that the death penalty shouldn't be brought back. The death penalty could be used to kill people who haven't committed the crime. There has been some cases where they kill the man, then later come to find that he never committed the crime. In my opinion this solution is just far too permanent for something that may not be 100% sure.", "title": "Death Penalty", "pid": "a490c7c4-2019-04-18T19:19:54Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.9307861328125}, {"text": "1. Worse sentence\"Few convicted murderers sentenced to life in prison declare years later that they wish they had been sentenced instead to death and executed. Few if any death row prisoners refuse clemency if it is offered to them.\" [1]. They fear death more than life in prision. 2. Mistakes\"there is no credible evidence to show that any innocent persons have been executed at least since the death penalty was reactivated in 1976\" [2]. There are some doubt in cases like in Willingham's case, but he was not aquitted. The death penalty deters criminals meaning it saves lives. When we fail to execute a murderer we are effectively valuing the murder's life higher than that of the person who might spare though the deterrent effect of their execution. If even one innocent person is saved through the deterrent effect of executing a murder, who has given up their right to life when they take a life, the execution of that murderer is justified.Sources[1] http://goo.gl...[2] http://goo.gl...", "title": "Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed", "pid": "776be9b-2019-04-18T15:48:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.9282989501953}, {"text": "The Death Penalty should remain legal in the U.S.. I will let my opponent start it off.", "title": "Death Penalty", "pid": "a490c460-2019-04-18T19:21:31Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.91397094726562}, {"text": "I think that the Death Penalty should stay. I do not believe that it is right to let a murderer stay in prison living off of tax dollars for the rest of his life. I believe that the penalty should only be used on people they have hard evidence on so they can avoid executing the wrong person. If the death penalty stayed, there would be less crimes in and outside of jail. Criminals would be afraid to kill someone fearing for their lives. Does anyone object?", "title": "The death Penalty should still stand.", "pid": "c3fe10be-2019-04-18T19:16:26Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.91200256347656}, {"text": "I think that the death penalty should only be used in extreme situations.", "title": "Capital Punishment should not be legal.", "pid": "61c0373c-2019-04-18T13:32:15Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.9078369140625}]}
{"idx": 39, "qid": "41", "q_text": "Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?", "qrels": {"cf884b8c-2019-04-18T15:50:31Z-00002-000": 0, "a45d27d2-2019-04-18T14:15:32Z-00002-000": 0, "a4631a54-2019-04-18T11:13:58Z-00001-000": 0, "a9a3ece2-2019-04-18T14:04:59Z-00003-000": 0, "b2c44a0d-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00001-000": 0, "b78f8bbc-2019-04-18T13:17:13Z-00001-000": 1, "ba472fa6-2019-04-18T13:02:25Z-00003-000": 0, "bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00003-000": 1, "c68539c0-2019-04-18T16:21:22Z-00005-000": 0, "cb2c8388-2019-04-18T17:38:28Z-00003-000": 0, "cf884b8c-2019-04-18T15:50:31Z-00000-000": 0, "d7ba4283-2019-04-19T12:47:27Z-00002-000": 0, "d7ba4283-2019-04-19T12:47:27Z-00004-000": 0, "d86d26e8-2019-04-18T18:35:41Z-00002-000": 0, "d8daa153-2019-04-18T15:42:57Z-00001-000": 1, "dfe65544-2019-04-18T18:09:36Z-00004-000": 0, "e208df6-2019-04-19T12:45:31Z-00002-000": 0, "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00042-000": 0, "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00025-000": 1, "a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00000-000": 0, "a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00003-000": 1, "a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00005-000": 0, "167d9ab2-2019-04-18T13:58:57Z-00005-000": 0, "8492878d-2019-04-18T19:20:08Z-00002-000": 0, "72aef798-2019-04-18T18:31:10Z-00005-000": 0, "72aef798-2019-04-18T18:31:10Z-00006-000": 0, "72aef798-2019-04-18T18:31:10Z-00003-000": 0, "61e00511-2019-04-19T12:47:25Z-00017-000": 0, "5d69331e-2019-04-18T19:00:35Z-00001-000": 1, "574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00003-000": 1, "574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00002-000": 0, "574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00003-000": 0, "5279eb1d-2019-04-18T17:25:55Z-00002-000": 1, "4595ce6e-2019-04-15T20:22:24Z-00017-000": 0, "42c4f44a-2019-04-18T17:17:51Z-00002-000": 0, "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00010-000": 0, "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00045-000": 0, "372877fc-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00010-000": 0, "27aba745-2019-04-18T20:02:46Z-00005-000": 0, "1c33544e-2019-04-18T13:45:05Z-00000-000": 0, "18d23014-2019-04-18T16:43:47Z-00002-000": 0, "167d9ab2-2019-04-18T13:58:57Z-00003-000": 0, "f5e8e370-2019-04-18T18:38:33Z-00003-000": 0, "f9e149b9-2019-04-15T20:22:51Z-00005-000": 0, "574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00002-000": 1, "574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00001-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "I think bankruptcy should include college loans. College loans are so hard to finance because companies and colleges take advantage of students. The job market is bad and people are starving to death. This is not fair.", "title": "You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans", "pid": "5279eb1d-2019-04-18T17:25:55Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.1363983154297}, {"text": "Well, this turned into nothing. My basic argument was going to be that because bankruptcy is a risk that the company will not get their investment back, removing that risk reduces the overall risk. Lower risk equates to lower rates. Lower rates equate to more people being able to afford. When colleges can choose between more people, they can choose better people, and thus have better success and better help the future economy. Though, since my opponent never presented an argument to work from, I am not putting any effort into this. Voters can decide if I should get a win, or just keep this tied. Either way.", "title": "You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans", "pid": "5279eb1d-2019-04-18T17:25:55Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.65283203125}, {"text": "I will allow my opponent to start first, and I will let them know that I will focus my arguments on how excluding the loans from bankruptcy allows reduced risk and so reduced rates for students.", "title": "You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans", "pid": "5279eb1d-2019-04-18T17:25:55Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.5779571533203}, {"text": "Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is \"stealing\". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you \"borrow\" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you \"pay back\" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY \"negative\" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!", "title": "Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing", "pid": "574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.9290771484375}, {"text": "Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is \"stealing\". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you \"borrow\" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you \"pay back\" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...#2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY \"negative\" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!", "title": "Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing", "pid": "574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.91221618652344}, {"text": "Looks as though this may be me talking to myself for another four rounds. I will be arguing as per the expanded topic in round one that bankruptcy is not bad. Bankruptcy is good as it allows for the forgiveness of debts to those that have got themselves into unsustainable financial positions. Without this recourse, they and their families would become financial slaves to their creditors for the rest of their lives without any means of escape. Although it may seem unfair for their creditors, they too have this avenue open to them so are given the exact same advantage. In addition debtor control is a primary business function that should be managed effectively to limit the financial impacts of the bankruptcy of debtors to businesses.", "title": "Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian", "pid": "a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.3493194580078}, {"text": "This round intentionally left blank, so as to give fair and equitable character space to both my opponent and I. I would request that judges not penalize my opponent for forfeiting that last round. Cheers", "title": "Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished.", "pid": "bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.0446014404297}, {"text": "It wouldn't be necessary for them to do this if the world economy didn't discriminate against poorer, relatively under-developed countries in the way that it does. We should drop third world loans and instead offer non-repayable support, meanwhile working to make the global economic system fairer for everyone.", "title": "Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay", "pid": "a175ba49-2019-04-19T12:46:37Z-00027-000", "bm25_score": 213.9235382080078}, {"text": "Hello, this will be a debate on whether or not federal student loans should be abolished. As pro, I will affirm that the federal student loan system is more harmful than beneficial to society, and that there are better alternatives to the current system. Con will be defending the status quo. I would like a debater who has had at least 3 debates completed. The debate will be 4 rounds, with an 8,000 character limit. First round may be for acceptance only or for con's first arguments, depending on what con wishes to do. I hope for a great debate!", "title": "Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished.", "pid": "bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.70596313476562}, {"text": "The idea that this is only an illusionary loss of money for the creditor is wrong. When they hold others debts they have an asset that will be recovered in the future and they are also gaining from the interest on those loans. In practice forgiveness then is transferring debt from the peripheral countries balance sheet to the core countries who then may themselves take a knock from the markets as a result of having much higher debt to GDP.", "title": "Debt forgiveness is more practical than bailouts", "pid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 213.66650390625}, {"text": "To clarify, I will be arguing that the government's \"forgiveness\" of consumer debt through bankruptcy is wrong. Arguments will be focused on Ch. 7 bankruptcies. The First Round will be for acceptance only and any additional definitions. Libertarianism - A political philosophy that believes people should be allowed to do and say what they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another person, without interference from the government. Ch. 7 Bankruptcy - The legal process by which all obligations to pay all general unsecured debt is discharged (wiped away). Secured debt is rarely discharged in any bankruptcy. Debt - Any obligation to pay another person/company. Debt can be contractual or court ordered (child support, lawsuits, etc...). General unsecured debt - All debt that is not secured by any collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, credit cards, medical bills, and payday loans. Secured debt - Any debt that is secured by some form of collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, home mortgages and car loans.", "title": "Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian", "pid": "a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.64144897460938}, {"text": "Too bad, I was looking forward to this debate. My opponent concedes that in spite of all his arguments, student loan debt is still extremely necessary.", "title": "Student Loan Debt", "pid": "5d69331e-2019-04-18T19:00:35Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.63633728027344}, {"text": "Personal Bankruptcy is one of the worst choices a person can make. To be fair and honest, I\"ll say there are benefits, much in the same way doing heroin feels great\"for a while\"then things start to go downhill. Benefits: You will be protected from the majority of a wide array of debt collectors. You will, on a chapter 13 plan, be able to pay back mortgage, etc., etc., at a chosen rate. Consequences: Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful. First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won\"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things. It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring. Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit. Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won\"t want to treat you. If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank. Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects. Unfortunately, many folks are forced into bankruptcy, but to choose to declare bankruptcy to worm your way out of paying off debt\"that is not okay. That is how the U.S. got itself into its current state.", "title": "Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing", "pid": "574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.62979125976562}, {"text": "Daniel Gross. \"In Defense of Detroit\". Newsweek. 13 Nov. 2008 - \"is a Chapter 11 filing the best way to reach these goals [of reforming of the autos]? Answering yes presumes that the case would be resolved quickly, that the entities would be able to obtain ample debtor-in-possession financing, that parties with legitimate legal claims on the company's assets and cash flows would give them up willingly. But many of the questions surrounding the Big Three's future can't be resolved in law firm conference rooms or in the chambers of bankruptcy court, and won't center around legal questions.\"", "title": "Bankruptcy is not best way to turnaround autos", "pid": "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00097-000", "bm25_score": 213.55007934570312}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished.", "pid": "bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.53073120117188}, {"text": "Bailouts rely upon the countries that are providing the bail out to come up with the money with which to bail out the nation that is in need of credit. This will impact upon their national budgets and they may even need to raise taxes as a result. With debt forgiveness there is no need for new money to be provided as debt is simply being cancelled. The debtor would no longer need to repay the money. Neither they nor the creditors will need to find new money. The creditor is losing money but for the most part this is illusionary as they can’t really have been sure that they were going to get the money back when the country is in need of bailouts; Greece's debt is rising from 175% of GDP in 2012 to 183% in 2013 despite bailouts, can creditors keep expecting to get all their money back as debt keeps rising?[1] In this case because of the close links between European states the creditors will benefit as much as the debtors; the debtors would once more be able to buy creditors goods and services so benefiting all parties economies. [1] Panaritis, Elena, ‘Debt Forgiveness In Inevitable and Will Save the Euro’, Huffington Post, 6 December 2012", "title": "Debt forgiveness is more practical than bailouts", "pid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00019-000", "bm25_score": 213.52056884765625}, {"text": "Okay, I think you are misinformed. Chapter 13 is not only for businesses, rather, Chapter 11 is only for businesses. Chapter 7: \"A bankruptcy proceeding in which a company stops all operations and goes completely out of business. A trustee is appointed to liquidate (sell) the company's assets, and the money is used to pay off debt.\" Chapter 13: \"U.S. bankruptcy proceeding in which the debtor undertakes a reorganization of his or her finances under the supervision and approval of the courts. As part of the reorganization, the debtor must submit and follow through with a plan to repay outstanding creditors within three to five years.\" Chapter 11: \"a form of bankruptcy that involves a reorganization of a debtor's business affairs and assets. It is generally filed by corporations which require time to restructure their debts.\" http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://credit.about.com... As for your bizarre notion: \"It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks.\" It is not \"free money\". You took money and exchanged it for goods and/or services. Do you honestly think that money just appears? It wasn\"t \"created\" any more than the digital number on your bank machine shows how much money you have in your account. Money isn\"t kept in bank vaults anymore, you\"re right. It\"s a digital notation, but when you click withdraw $60, you still get real money. I\"d appreciate it if you didn\"t insult my intelligence. \"With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car.\" No, under C. 7, your assets are liquidated to repay a debt. That is the definition. However, under C. 7, in personal bankruptcy, you are allowed to keep certain things called \"Exempt Property\". This law is more lenient in some states. There is always a chance you could lose both your car and your house, depending on their value\"and your state. The bottom line is this: By declaring bankruptcy, you are damaging your chances at success. You are contributing to the debt; to the current state of American economics in a deeply negative way. Even if you emerge scott-free, which is very rare, you are screwing someone over to do it. There is no free lunch, as I like to say. Its capitalism, you work for what you have. You are not given it. Bankruptcy will ruin you and your reputation, I\"ve seen it before. It\"s not worth it.", "title": "Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing", "pid": "574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.5110626220703}, {"text": "Debt forgiveness does not preclude stipulations that the debtor nation must restructure their economy so that they regain competitiveness. Creditors can simply refuse to lend to the debtor in the future if they are not clearly cleaning up their act. We should also remember that such moral hazard does not just apply to the borrower but to the lender as well. If lenders know that they will always get their money back as a result of a bailout then what reason do they have to make prudent lending decisions?", "title": "Moral hazard", "pid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 213.50393676757812}, {"text": "Debt forgiveness is more practical than bailouts", "title": "debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis", "pid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.36666870117188}, {"text": "Student loans are a problem is society. They leave people in debt and it is almost impossible to afford college without loans and not be struggling to pay it off. Student loan rates have only been increasing and putting more people into debt. Take this fact for example from ProCon.org: \"Student loan debt often forces college graduates to live with their parents and delay marriage, financial independence, and other adult milestones. According to a 2012 Federal Reserve Study, 30-year-olds who have never taken out a student loan are now more likely to own homes than those who have taken out loans. Auto loans are also trending down at faster rates for those with student debt history than for those without. [35] In 2013, student loan borrowers delayed retirement saving (41%), car purchases (40%), home purchases (29%), and marriage (15%). [38] Less than 50% of women and 30% of men had passed the \"transition to adulthood\" milestones by age 30 (finishing school, moving out of their parents' homes, being financially independent, marrying, and having children); in 1960, 77% of women and 65% of men had completed these milestones by age 30. [39\" Student loans hold people back. And free college is possible. It is very likely in the near future we can have free college. \"The Atlantic.com published an article in Jan 2014 that claimed the federal government would only have to spend \"a mere $62.6 billion dollars\" to make tuition at public colleges free for undergraduates in 2012.\" Sources used: http://college-education.procon.org... http://www.collegerank.net...", "title": "Free college education", "pid": "5efd650c-2019-04-18T13:45:25Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.33291625976562}, {"text": "Shareholders’ interests are poorly protected if at all in Chapter 11-style bankruptcies. Usually, such a process will substantially reduce or even wipe out altogether the shareholders’ interest in the company (in which case they typically pass to the creditors). This is a court-backed removal of their property rights. It is not fair that the interests of the creditors or other parties should be put ahead of the interests of the shareholders in this way, especially because the shareholders like the creditors perform an important role in providing the risk capital which is necessary for businesses to function and grow.", "title": "Reorganisation can help to protect the interests of employees and other stakeholders. Forcing a com...", "pid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 213.3040771484375}, {"text": "Golly - have another three rounds to go of this... My previous arguments remain unchallenged...", "title": "Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian", "pid": "a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.2709503173828}, {"text": "Well, I guess that's that. Extend all arguments.", "title": "Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished.", "pid": "bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.25625610351562}, {"text": "As above....", "title": "Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian", "pid": "a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.23463439941406}, {"text": "Debt of law school limits opportunities", "title": "Law school", "pid": "50689d14-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00070-000", "bm25_score": 213.06935119628906}, {"text": "Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style provisions often argue that they do not provide sufficient protection to creditors, who provide important risk capital to businesses. However, this ignores the reality that creditors are often well able to protect their own interests and so do not need much if any additional protection through the bankruptcy regime. They are often sophisticated financial institutions or trade creditors, who have deep pockets and an ability to diversify their portfolio of loans easily and so reduce or hedge their risk. By contrast, other stakeholders are less sophisticated and cannot control their risk as easily through diversification. For example, a company winding up may harm an employee who earns £10,000 annually much more than a bank which has lent the business £100,000.", "title": "Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr...", "pid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 213.0581512451172}, {"text": "University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish.  [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. “Still Paying Off that Student Loan”. National Public Radio. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6915549  ", "title": "The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder", "pid": "1db3eaf8-2019-04-15T20:24:50Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 213.0562286376953}, {"text": "University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish.  [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. “Still Paying Off that Student Loan”. National Public Radio. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6915549  ", "title": "The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder", "pid": "c7831446-2019-04-15T20:22:14Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 213.0562286376953}, {"text": "Both debtor and creditor are to blame for debt", "title": "debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis", "pid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 212.9910125732422}, {"text": "In conclusion, vote for me as my arguments stand unopposed. and just to ensure that I have at least one reference...... (1) (1).. https://nicetomeetyouimmike.files.wordpress.com...", "title": "Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian", "pid": "a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.98789978027344}, {"text": "Chapter 11 provisions encourage risk taking by entrepreneurs, ensuring that the penalties for failure are not so terrible as to deter people from ever wanting to start up their own business. Outside America (e.g. in Europe) the legal consequences of business failure and bankruptcy are often so bad (e.g. liquidation rather than reorganisation is the norm, barring those involved from being company directors, taking all their personal assets including their home, making it hard to ever borrow money again for any purpose) that many men and women who have bright ideas are afraid to pursue them. Not coincidentally, the USA has a much more dynamic economy than other developed countries without Chapter 11-style provisions, creating many more new businesses and therefore more jobs.", "title": "Chapter 11 provisions encourage risk taking by entrepreneurs, ensuring that the penalties for failur...", "pid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 212.9755401611328}, {"text": "Creditors deserve protection in bankruptcy. It is untrue that creditors are necessarily better able to protect themselves than other parties. Many of them may not be sophisticated, because for example they are small trade partners (e.g. unpaid suppliers, or customers who have prepaid for goods which never arrive) with little choice to be creditors, or family or friends lending money, or else because sophistication would be unduly expensive in terms of research and monitoring costs. In addition, they may not easily be able to control their risks through diversifying their portfolio. Even if they can, the law should not discriminate against creditors just because they protect themselves better than other parties.", "title": "Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr...", "pid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 212.9243927001953}, {"text": "University should be free for all. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for the 2007-2008 year, the average student loan debt of graduating college seniors was about $23,000. This means that when a person graduates from college, instead of working to make money for their future, they are working to make money to pay back their past. True, an education allows for a better future, but so many students are stuck paying back loans for years after their graduation that they can’t do things that, such as travel, that students in other countries, where education is free can do. It is unfair that if one does not come from a wealthy family, they are stuck paying back loans for x number of years. While their friends who had their education paid have the opportunity to go doing things such as traveling, those who owe money are forced to find a job right away that they may not necessarily love, because they have to pay back their loans.", "title": "No debt", "pid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00025-000", "bm25_score": 212.86843872070312}, {"text": "I regret that my opponent was unavailable last round. Unfortunately, this is my last round, so I will not be able to respond to any of his arguments against my second round. Therefore, I would like to refer anyone reading this debate to my second round for detailed arguments. I doubt you want to read all that again. Finally, I will briefly reiterate my points. America is in a recession. This recession is being caused by issues with finance management, which leads to home foreclosures and reduced consumer spending. I have presented logical arguments saying that a personal finance class would help people apply sound fiscal principles to their own lives and that it will not interfere with current curriculums. I have also shown that similar approaches have had positive effects in the past, most notably in relieving the worst of The Great Depression. This class will not only be beneficial on a national scale, but will also improve the individual lives of those who might otherwise have experienced detrimental financial difficulties. It is a necessary and effective measure, and I thus encourage a Pro vote. Thank you to Higgins for taking me up on this; not many people want to talk about finance when the debate over, say, personal freedoms in wartime is so much more emotional and exciting. Thank you to anyone who reads this debate. I appreciate feedback of any sort. And with that, farewell (for now).", "title": "One Personal Finance Credit Should Be Required In High School", "pid": "98f89922-2019-04-18T19:47:39Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.86636352539062}, {"text": "Cameron Strachter wrote in the Wall Street Journal: \"Rather than keeping options open, the crushing debt of law school often slams doors shut, pushing law students to find the highest-paying job they can and forever deferring dreams of anything else.\"[2]", "title": "Debt of law school limits opportunities", "pid": "50689d14-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00150-000", "bm25_score": 212.8362579345703}, {"text": "I accept.....", "title": "Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian", "pid": "a2310a08-2019-04-18T15:11:53Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.82508850097656}, {"text": "If the dropping of the debts was announced then the countries would immediately take out new loans that they couldn’t repay, knowing that the debt would be dropped. They may also start defaulting on loan repayments until the debts were dropped.", "title": "Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay", "pid": "a175ba49-2019-04-19T12:46:37Z-00028-000", "bm25_score": 212.80543518066406}, {"text": "Debt forgiveness spreads the burden of debt", "title": "debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis", "pid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 212.79762268066406}, {"text": "While powerful countries that support the IMF and the World Bank are certainly much wealthier than the world’s poorest countries, the amount of debt that we are talking about is still extremely large. Even though lenders try to spread their risk, natural disasters often affect more than one country (e.g. Caribbean hurricanes, the Asian tsunami) and so debt-relief could be demanded for a number of states simultaneously, making it unaffordable. Regional lenders (e.g. the African Development Bank) rightly specialise in a particular part of the world where they can bring expertise to bear; they could be wiped out if many of their loans were cancelled after a regional disaster. In addition, existing debt-relief schemes have been negotiated over very long period. This means countries, banks and multilateral institutions have had years to prepare their balance sheets for the losses write-offs involve. Sudden debt-relief following a natural disaster would be much more destabilising.", "title": "Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to...", "pid": "927cbc62-2019-04-19T12:47:44Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 212.7841033935547}, {"text": "Chapter 11 bankruptcy may not deter car consumers", "title": "Bailout of US automakers", "pid": "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00039-000", "bm25_score": 212.72488403320312}, {"text": "It's obvious that by opponent has never declared bankruptcy and doesn't know what he/she is talking about.I am speaking from experience.Chapter 13 is for business. The debate is about PERSONAL bankruptcy (chapter 7) \"Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful.\"OK I'll admit my credit score went rock bottom after the first year after bankruptcy, but I didn't need any credit, so I didn't care. No stress at all. Friends and family didn't even know.,,,and so what if they did. It didn't hurt them. \"First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won\"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things.\"I already had a new car (for free) so I didn't need a car loan. I put down $100 on a \"pre-paid\" credit card and kept that in good standing, which pretty much repaired my credit score in less than a year.In only 2 years after my bankruptcy, I got a Fannie May mortgage and got a house with only $10,000 down.After 7 years my bankruptcy was too old for anyone to care about and I refinanced my house from 8%to 3.5%. That's better than some people without a bankruptcy. \"It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring.\" If you have a career and and a good work reputation, you'll get plenty of work. Companies care more about whether you can do the job or not. \"Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit.\"Who needs a landlord when you can own your own home!?\"Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won\"t want to treat you.\"LOL...my insurance was just fine and every emergency room, by law, can't turn you away from treatment.\"If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank.\"With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car.\"Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects.\"I didn't cheat anybody. I \"borrowed\" money that didn't even exist. The bank made the money out of thin air and lent it to me. I'm not the bad guy. Getting $50,000 for free is far from a failure.Summary: I spent $50,000 on trips, a new car, clothes, restaurants and electronic equipment. I had the time of my life and the worst thing that happened was that I had to use a pre-paid credit card for a year. I kept everything and got a mortgage 2 years later. It didn't hurt my job, my insurance or my friendships. I would do it again in a heartbeat and so should everybody else. It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks.", "title": "Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing", "pid": "574204c1-2019-04-18T16:10:11Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.723388671875}, {"text": "yes, the provision of loans should be finished because these loans are a major reason for countries to stay underdeveloped. the countries should be encouraged to help themselves to rise and get a place in the world market that will help them become truly independent. Once a country gets into debts they are hardly ever able to pay them back that creates a lot of problems to the people living in that country as they are the one who have to give taxes. then not all the politicians are good enough to utilize the money for the betterment of the country but they put the money into their pockets and demand for more funds. so i say that yes, the provision of loans to the LEDCs should be abolished.", "title": "provision of loans to LEDCs should be finished", "pid": "a13d7a80-2019-04-18T17:06:38Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.71498107910156}, {"text": "The Pro has forfeited two rounds in order. He has not responded with a counter argument, so I will declare myself victor.", "title": "Lowered 2yr. tuition helps in successful completion and maintains the 4yr. college debt.", "pid": "c2daa9b1-2019-04-18T14:37:46Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.69158935546875}, {"text": "I will separate my arguments into 5 sections so as to make them more structured. Federal Student Loans Have Caused an Education Bubble Over the past few decades, tuition has skyrocketed inside the United States. Between 1978 and 2012, the tuition in the US has increased 1210%, or 12-fold. (1) This is also 4 times faster than the increase in the consumer price index. This is obviously a huge problem, so the first steps we must take to come up with a solution is to look for the cause or causes. Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, stated that \"The basic problem is simple: Give everyone $100 to pay for higher education and colleges will raise their prices by $100, negating the value of the aid. And inflation-adjusted aid--most of it federal--has certainly gone up, ballooning from $4,602 per undergraduate in 1990-91 to $12,455 in 2010-11. As it did in the housing market, free or reduced priced has artificially inflated the price of college education. Thus begins a classic upward price spiral caused by government intervention: Subsidies raise prices, leading to higher subsidies, which raise prices even more. Yet this higher education bubble, like the housing bubble, will eventually pop. Meanwhile, large numbers of students will graduate with more debt than they would have in an unsubsidized market. \"(1) Patrick Hedger, a policy analyst from FreedomWorks, found that “Students are taking out cheap loans as liberally as colleges spend their tuition. With money readily available at low rates to anyone who asks, students never think twice and colleges have no incentive to keep prices low. The end result is tens of thousands of dollars worth of each student’s tuition being spent by universities on superfluous things designed simply to draw more and more students and their government-backed blank checks. \"(2) Federal Student Loans Have Cause a Rise in Tuition As a result of the Education Bubble, tuition has been artificially inflated through government intervention. Chris Edwards, from the Cato Institute, explains that “It is a matter of supply and demand. More and more Americans have sought a college education which has pushed prices higher. Ordinarily, such upward pressure would be restrained by consumer willingness to pay, but as government subsidies have helped absorb tuition increase, the public’s budget constraint has been lifted. ”(3) Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University noted that federal subsidies “are seen by colleges and universities as money that is there for the taking … tuition is set high enough to capture those funds and whatever else we think can be extracted from parents. (4) Federal Student Loans have Harmed Students Not only do student loans cause a rise in tuition, they also harm students various ways. A. Cause Unemployment In 2012, about 1.5 million, or 56%, of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest since in of least 11 years. (5) How could this have happened? Patrick Hedger explains \"“Federal student loans, which are soon to be the only education loans available, severely up start the market and are directly responsible for the surge of under-and unemployed youths with bachelor’s degrees. ” B. Students are Negatively Impacted by Debt The American Association of State Colleges and Universities found that “Students often see higher education as the primary path to upward mobility, but when they accumulate excessive debt, this pathway quickly becomes riddled with pitfalls. Students graduate with debt may put off life milestones such as buying a car, owning a home, getting married, or entering certain low paying professions like teaching or social work. ” (6) Also from the AASCU, “Particularly worrisome is that the number of college graduates with $40,000 in student loan debt has increase 10-fold in the past decade. Those numbers pose long-term threats to recent college graduates lifelong decisions, but the financial future of borrowers who do not earn a degree is even bleaker. ” C. Student Loans Harms Students' Credit Score Student loans also put many students at risk of ruining their credit score if they fail to pay off the extremely high debt on time. “Because your student loans are little to be your first significant loan into the world of credit, it’s imperative that you handle these loans wisely. ” “Missing even one payment can trash your Credit Score. And a bad Credit Score can lead to higher costs for loans, higher insurance premiums, and trouble when attempting to get a job or an apartment. ”(7) Defaulting on a student loan goes on your credit report and can seriously hinder your ability to get a loan later in your life. Student Loan defaulters are restricted in their access to bankruptcy protection. The IRS can seize defaulters’ income tax refunds, and students who default on an education are prohibited from participating in the student loan program thereafter. (8) Sadly, many students end up defaulting on their loans, ruining their credit scores. Last year one in 10 recent borrowers defaulted on their federal student loans within the first two years, the highest default rate since 1995, according to annual figures made public Monday by the Department of Education. (9) Alternatives My opponent will likely state that federal student loans are necessary for our education system. I will contend there are better alternatives. Tax Credits I support the expansion of the tax credit system for low-income students. Currently, there are various tax credits already available to students. (10) The American Opportunity Tax Credit those eligible qualify for the maximum annual credit of $2,500 per student. The Lifetime Learning may allow students and parents to claim up to $2,000 for qualified education expenses paid for all students enrolled in eligible educational institutions. Deductions are also available to student, The tuition and fees deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $4,000. The benefits of the tax credit system is it decreases the cost burden on low-income workers without putting poor students into huge amounts of debt. Another benefit is it doesn't cost other taxpayers anything, it simply decreases taxes for the individuals it's intended to help. Work and Study Working while going to college is a viable alternative to students who need money to pay for tuition. Not only does the money you earn pay for the tuition, but there are also other benefits. One benefit of working while in college is that it can help build your resume, regardless if the job is in your field, according to a Scholarships. com article on balancing work and college. (11) There are also Vocational Programs, Grants, Direct Aid, Scholarships, and investment plans. As I've run out of time and characters, I will go into alternatives deeper next round. Sources 1. . http://mercatus.org... 2. . http://dailycaller.com... 3. . http://www.downsizinggovernment.org... 4. . http://www.cato.org... 5. . http://www.theatlantic.com... 6. . http://www.aascu.org... 7. . http://articles.latimes.com... 8. Chang, Cello. “The Impact of College Debt and costs”. Dis. California State Polytechnic University. Pomona. 2000. Print. P.12 9. . http://www.irs.gov... 10. . http://www.benefits.gov... 11. . http://www.schools.com...", "title": "Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished.", "pid": "bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.63479614257812}, {"text": "There is no doubt that poverty is a serious issue in the world today and that a solution is needed. Debt relief, however, has so far proven to be fairly inefficient in terms of getting countries back on the road to development. In fact, most countries whose debt has been forgiven have not managed to escape the cycle of poverty. Debt relief alone will not be a solution in desperate situations where corruption, totalitarian governments and criminal gangs rule. It is better when natural disasters occur to provide short-term humanitarian assistance in the form of emergency supplies, specialist teams and money for rebuilding. Unlike debt relief, such aid can be focused on areas in real need and monitored to ensure it reaches those suffering in the disaster zone.", "title": "Debt relief is much needed for the world’s poorest nations and the only way to ensure that they get ...", "pid": "927cbc62-2019-04-19T12:47:44Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 212.6165771484375}, {"text": "I should have NEVER allowed a 13 year old to debate me. Of course I get a forfeit!", "title": "Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing", "pid": "574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.59559631347656}, {"text": "Not everyone incurs significant debts from law school.", "title": "Law school", "pid": "50689d14-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00071-000", "bm25_score": 212.58578491210938}, {"text": "\"Saving Detroit\". Economist. 13 Nov. 2008 - \"The carmakers retort that being in Chapter 11 will poison their business. Buying a new car is a long-term gamble on there being dealers, spare parts and a thriving second-hand market for your vehicle. Drivers overwhelmingly tell surveys that they would not take the risk when Mercedes and Toyota make perfectly good alternatives. But $50 billion is a lot to stake on a hunch. A wiser bet is that whatever consumers say today, the stigma of being in Chapter 11 would fade, obscured by price cuts, advertising and most of all news that the car companies were tackling their remaining problems. Remember that, in many ways, Chapter 11 is more stable and predictable than depending upon the government.\"", "title": "Chapter 11 bankruptcy may not deter car consumers", "pid": "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00100-000", "bm25_score": 212.58506774902344}, {"text": "Hello, I am What50 representing The Brotherhood. I contend the proposition that American College students should receive free education. I wanna thank Pro for making this debate, and hopefully we can have an excellent though provoking debate. Definitions: Debt: The state of owning money Student Loan: A student loan is a type of loan designed to help students pay for post-secondary education and the associated fees, such as tuition, books and supplies, and living expenses Dropout: Abandoning a course of study American College's should not give out free education because 1.) The cost is way too much to make this into a reality 2.) The free education can be wasted if a student feels like dropping out.3.) By providing free education Colleges may drop in value of education quality", "title": "Resolved: That American College Students Should Receive Free Education", "pid": "8944c7f4-2019-04-18T12:00:04Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.58261108398438}, {"text": "So you're saying that it's worth being in debt just so that you can have an extra conversational topic? People have conversations about natural disasters, homelessness and terrorist attacks that they see on the news, but that doesn't mean we want these things to continue.", "title": "debt unites students", "pid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00039-000", "bm25_score": 212.5681610107422}, {"text": "Bailouts are unpopular", "title": "debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis", "pid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 212.55262756347656}, {"text": "Moral hazard", "title": "debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis", "pid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.54945373535156}, {"text": "People have claimed that Americans wouldn't buy from a company that declared bankruptcy. The fact is people are already not buying the cars or there wouldn't be a problem. And how exactly is getting a bailout any different than Chapter 11? Both suggest incompetence.", "title": "Bailout deters car buyers as much as bankruptcy would.", "pid": "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00098-000", "bm25_score": 212.52978515625}, {"text": "Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by its previously incurred debts. For example, bad management, high interest rates or high research and development costs may mean that a company which otherwise produces positive cash flow ends up saddled with debt obligations which it cannot meet. It seems to be a waste to force the company to stop trading just because of the debt, especially if this does not make it much more likely that the debt will be repaid in any case. A Chapter-11 style approach would allow the company to keep on trading by releasing it from some of its historically incurred obligations.", "title": "Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by...", "pid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.52334594726562}, {"text": "Those who get into debt are morally responsible for repayment", "title": "debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis", "pid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.50343322753906}, {"text": "National service could be offset against student loans", "title": "National service should be re-introduced", "pid": "a6a69e56-2019-04-19T12:45:58Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 212.49830627441406}, {"text": "The UN is not a loan giver and thus should not have much of a say in debt relief. Loan givers such as the IMF and the World Bank have long-term economic and political interests that could easily be wrecked by UN decisions. For example, the World Bank needs to produce a return on its loans in order to generate income which can then be lent cheaply to poor countries in desperate need of investment capital. If the UN scrapped some of the World Bank’s loans, other developing countries would suffer from the loss of cheap credit for development.\\ Even if it were to oversee these interests, a complete UN reform would be needed, transforming it into a bank-like institution – something that might not be desirable. The UN does not have a good track record in managing money and does not have the necessary international legitimacy needed to support such a plan. While the IMF and the World Bank may not be popular institutions, they certainly are well trusted in terms of their ability to pay up or forgive loans.", "title": "As IMF debt relief has been perceived to be fairly controversial, particularly given the economic an...", "pid": "927cbc62-2019-04-19T12:47:44Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 212.48057556152344}, {"text": "David Lat. \"In Defense of Going to Law School.\" Above the Law. July 13th, 2010: \"4. Not everyone graduates with debt (or with as much debt as some people think). I was lucky enough to graduate law school debt-free; my parents paid for my college and law school. And I’m not alone. According to the Law School Survey of Student Engagement (figure 7), over 10 percent of law students will graduate with zero debt, and another 5 percent or so will graduate with less than $20,000 in student loans. So somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of law school graduates leave school with little to no debt — and a valuable professional degree to show for their efforts. There are several reasons why perhaps a fifth of law school graduates have little or no debt. Some have parents, grandparents or spouses who are willing to help out with educational costs. Some have savings from pre-law-school careers, in lucrative fields such as finance or consulting. And some attend reasonably priced state schools and/or receive very generous scholarship money. The dean of one top 25 law school told me earlier this year that about two-thirds of his school’s students receive some form of scholarship aid from the school. [...] So the 'sticker price' of law school, in terms of the cost you see on the law school website or in brochures, can be misleading. Many students aren’t paying full freight — and many of the students who are paying full freight can afford to.\"", "title": "Not everyone incurs significant debts from law school.", "pid": "50689d14-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00149-000", "bm25_score": 212.4765625}, {"text": "While banks may be partially responsible for the crisis we need to remember that it is not all nefarious capitalists who are the losers here. Most of the money that is in any economy is the people's money not the institutions. Everyone has large investments in through their pension funds or their own savings that are then loaned out by the institution into which they have been deposited; hitting banks is then not hitting the capitalist bankers at all but the small lenders who they rely on as they will surely just pass the cost on.", "title": "Debt forgiveness spreads the burden of debt", "pid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 212.4453582763672}, {"text": "\"NECESSARY - AND BAD.\" Milwauke Journal Sentinel Editorial. August 2nd, 2011: \"The deal does allow the nation to dodge a calamitous default - which alone makes it worth supporting. Given the stakes for the economy, we think the decision of some lawmakers to withhold support to be a serious error in judgment.\"", "title": "Debt deal avoids a disastrous default.", "pid": "372877fc-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 212.41908264160156}, {"text": "Like the weather across Britain, financial burden on students is a unifying conversation topic. Most students will be able to automatically have a connection with another student by moaning about tuition fees. Just like the weather, it is something that Britain loves to moan about. Just as we would not want to lose the weather as a conversational tool, nor would students really like to lose the value of moaning about their financial situation. There is also a point to be made that if most, if not all students are in the same boat, I.e. applying for loans to be there in the first place it would decrease discrimination on a financial level. No more \"My Dad is richer than your Dad\" bullying.", "title": "debt unites students", "pid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00040-000", "bm25_score": 212.41094970703125}, {"text": "Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to poor countries, crippling their ability to rebuild after a disaster, but they are relatively small to the western governments, banks and multilateral institutions that hold the loans. Furthermore, lending institutions typically spread their risk, so writing off debt to a particular government struggling to cope with a tragedy will not hit the lenders very hard. Recent progress on debt-relief for the poorest countries has shown that lenders do have the flexibility to cope with writing off some debts without getting into trouble themselves.", "title": "Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to...", "pid": "927cbc62-2019-04-19T12:47:44Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 212.3961944580078}, {"text": "If an American college student is able to graduate with less than $10,000 in student loan debt, they are considered lucky (the average is $37,000). However, students from other countries that have tuition free college have that luxury; most of their loans come from living expenses and books. Without the weight of student loan debt, more college graduates might buy houses rather than renting apartments. They might buy cars, spend more on healthy food, travel more: In essence, they could contribute more to the economy & by negating the large bill of a college education, we could see an increase in the amount of students able to attend college. This then creates a more well-educated workforce and a population that has better critical thinking.", "title": "Tuition-Free College", "pid": "bc93daf7-2019-04-18T11:22:56Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.3805389404297}, {"text": "Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and “find themselves” while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.", "title": "The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder", "pid": "1db3eaf8-2019-04-15T20:24:50Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 212.36993408203125}, {"text": "Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and “find themselves” while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.", "title": "The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder", "pid": "c7831446-2019-04-15T20:22:14Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 212.36993408203125}, {"text": "Loan default rates and bankruptcy rates are at an all time high in the United States. Americans are maxing out credit cards, borrowing money that they can't pay back, and taking out student loans with abnormally high interest rates. Basic financial management skills of even college educated people have become laughable. I believe that a financial management course should be part of the required curriculum at all colleges and universities. This course would allow college students to gain valuable financial knowledge that could be used for the rest of their lives. Basic financial management knowledge would help to lower bankruptcy and loan default rates. It would also help young, impressionable adults learn the dangers of credit card debt and high interest \"student loans\" that anyone can get. By not having a financial management course as required curriculum at all colleges and universities we are leaving the doors wide open for the continued abuse of our countries' financial system.", "title": "A Financial Management Course Should Be Required Curriculum At All Colleges And Universities", "pid": "27aba745-2019-04-18T20:02:46Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.36599731445312}, {"text": "There are many problems in modern America, but I feel a substantial one is the lack of personal fiscal responsibility. To put it simply, many people leave high school and enter the \"real world\" with no idea how to manage, save, and spend money. To support this claim, I point to the recent downturn in the American economy. A substantial portion of the problem has been attributed to home foreclosures. And why are homes being foreclosed upon? For one of four reasons. 1) The bank loaned money to a person or persons it shouldn't have, someone with bad credit or an unsound financial base. 2) Similar to, but not the same as, the first: people took out loans that they could not afford, or agreed to loan or mortgage terms that can charitably be called risky. 3) Those paying a loan or mortgage practiced irresponsible fiscal management and became unable to make their payments. 4) Those paying a loan or mortgage encountered unforeseen financial difficulties. While almost nothing can be done about the fourth cause, the first three could be substantially reduced if only the participants in the venture had a more solid understanding of just how far one can stretch the boundaries of fiscal responsibility. A personal finance class is thus the beginning of a credible solution. People would learn how to budget, to make payments, and avoid risky investments. Furthermore, 70% of the United States' economy is generated and driven by retail sales (statistic from NPR, National Morning News, 3/14/08). When consumers have more buying power (i.e. more money to spend), it provides a solid foundation for the majority of the economy. Therefore, a personal finance class absolutely should be required in high school. Not only would it improve the quality of life for the people who would have to take it (less Ramen, maybe?), but I have also shown that it would help boost the lagging American economy. This would be incalculably beneficial to the American people as a whole.", "title": "One Personal Finance Credit Should Be Required In High School", "pid": "98f89922-2019-04-18T19:47:39Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.35598754882812}, {"text": "Taking the issue of aid out of a government-government sphere of dialogue makes a settlement over debt relief such as that proposed by Jubilee 2000 more difficult. The channel through which to solve debt issues is through debt cancellation, not aid redirection. Even if debts are not cancelled, some nations can in fact pay back their debts centrally: in 2006 Nigeria used oil revenues to repay most of its outstanding, long-term foreign debts.\\ However, reducing government aid would have immediate damaging effects on those countries that currently are paying off their loans. Debtor countries (in the absence of debt relief) would be left with the immediate choice of defaulting on their loans as Mexico did in 1982 and Thailand did in 1997, resulting in a massive loss of international confidence, or ‘borrowing to repay’ their loans, increasing dependency and poverty.", "title": "Much direct aid is simply recycled as debt servicing. A significant proportion (over 60%) of aid fl...", "pid": "209282bc-2019-04-19T12:47:44Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 212.33885192871094}, {"text": "No debt", "title": "University Fees Should Be Scrapped", "pid": "e6ffa8fb-2019-04-19T12:45:14Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 212.33335876464844}, {"text": "Well then, I accept. I only ask that there is no disrespect, trolling, or semantics in this debate. Good luck!", "title": "Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing", "pid": "574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.31512451171875}, {"text": "Debt relief is much needed for the world’s poorest nations and the only way to ensure that they get back on the road to economic development. Without debt relief, the cycle of poverty, disease and corruption would continue and possibly spread to other parts of the world. Debt relief is particularly needed in countries affected by natural disasters, where much of the aid is focused on solving immediate concerns as opposed to getting the economy back on track. Not only do they desperately need more money to cope with the disaster, but the economic impact of the tragedy reduces their ability to service their loans anyway. What is the point of the developed world promising hundreds of millions of dollars in post-Tsunami aid, if they then take away much more money each year in debt charges?", "title": "Debt relief is much needed for the world’s poorest nations and the only way to ensure that they get ...", "pid": "927cbc62-2019-04-19T12:47:44Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.3032989501953}, {"text": "Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay", "title": "All third world debt should be dropped", "pid": "a175ba49-2019-04-19T12:46:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.28184509277344}, {"text": "Before I begin, a brief observation:Pro is making the claim, therefore he has the burden of proof. His burden is to prove that federal student loans should be abolished. As con, my burden is to negate his argument. That could mean that I argue that there is something wrong with the federal student loan system, and that such a problem needs to be addressed, but not addressed in the way PRO proposes OR it could mean that I defend the status quo. It could mean that I argue that the harms PRO seeks to address are not problems, or his solution is not sufficient to address them. All would negate the resolution. Now, I'll talk about PRO's case, and make some counter arguments in response.PRO's Case:PRO's first argument states that federal student loans have caused an education bubble. He reasons that tuition has \"skyrocketed\" because federal student loans, which he calls a subsidy, cause prices to rise. Indeed, there may be some correlation there, but the fact that students have access to federal student loans is not by itself enough to indicate that those loans specifically caused an increase in tuition prices because there could be any number of other factors. For example, colleges may have had to raise tuition prices because their operating costs increased and federal student loans offset that higher operating cost. It could be that public universities receive less public funding, and therefore universities must offset that shortfall by raising tuition. It could be that universities just do more for students now, and waste resources on things like unnecessarily extravagant dormitories and facilities. It could be that university endowments just aren't as big as they once were and students have to foot the bill in consequence.Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...So, if tuition prices are something PRO wants to fix, he's ignoring the bigger picture. But, let's talk about the harm of abolishing student loans. Federal student loan interest rates range from about 3.86% - 5%, and their rates are fixed. Source: http://studentaid.ed.gov...Private student loans are usually considerably higher than that. Discover's fixed rate undergraduate student loan rates begin at 6.74% and can rise to 10.99%. Source: https://www.discover.com...Suntrust fixed rate student loans range from 4.751% APR to 10.415% APR. Source: http://www.suntrusteducation.com...Federal student loans more affordable for all students now because the interest rates are lower. If federal student loans were abolished, it is reasonable to infer as well that private student loan rates would increase because of both increased demand for them, and because private institutions would have the luxury to set their borrowing rates much higher. That would increase the overall cost of education much more for all students who must borrow to afford college, and amplify the long term harms that PRO is trying to remediate by abolishing student loans. PRO repeats himself with a second contention that \"federal student loans have caused a rise in tuition.\" PRO contends that tuition prices have been artificially inflated because of government intervention. Yet, the evidence he offers for that, from the Cato institute, suggests that the reason for increased prices is because of supply and demand imbalances, such that because \"more Americans have sought education\" tuition prices are \"higher.\" So, the cause of tuition increases has more to do with increased demand for higher education than the fact that the federal government makes college comparably more affordable than private lending institutions. PRO's other warrant offers another alternative cause: university greed. Pro cites Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University, who said that \"colleges and universities\" set tuition \"high enough to capture... funds\" wherever they \"can be extracted from parents.\" So, while it is the case that money to pay for college is easier to come by where federal student loans are an option, that does not mean that abolishing federal student loans is either going to reduce tuition rates or have any impact to lower the cost of higher education at all so long as colleges retain the incentive to charge higher prices and students have access to private loans. So, PRO's solution is not only insufficient to address the problem he's trying to solve, but it very likely could make the problem worse by increasing the overall cost of education -both tuition prices and interest paid on private student loans.PRO's final argument is that \"federal student loans\" have harmed students.\" PRO argues that because in 2012, 56% of bachelors degree holders under the age of 25 were jobless or underemployed and that student loans are directly responsible for unemployment among those with bachelors degrees. He offers no causal link between student loans student loans and unemployment, however. He fails to consider that the number of people who are under the age of 25 who are unemployed or under employed would be higher if those people did not have a bachelors degree, and ignores the possibility that the extant US economic situation is more directly to blame for aggregate high unemployment rates among all Americans and especially among people entering the labor force for the first time. He likewise offers no explanation for how abolishing federal student loans will lower unemployment or underemployment. PRO contends that students are negatively impacted by debt, and therefore student loans should be abolished. But, what PRO fails to consider, which I have addressed earlier, is that in the absence of federal student loans, students who need to borrow to afford college must seek other means. The only other option for the vast majority of those students would be private lenders, whose interest rates are already higher than federal student loan rates and whose interest rates would skyrocket if federal student loans were abolished. The impact of this would be to raise the cost of borrowing money, which would profoundly increase the cost of higher education, which would exacerbate the problem pro is seeking to address rather than remediating it. PRO argues that federal student loans harm student's credit scores, which is just false. Students build credit while they are in college, and their scores are only harmed if they default. If students default on payments, that is because they did not pay back money they borrowed, not because they were leant money in the first place. Pro fails to account for this. Irrelevant AlternativesPRO's alternatives are irrelevant to this debate because the resolution is only about whether or not student loans should be abolished. That there are other alternatives PRO thinks are better than student loans do not help his case because his alternatives (tax credits and work study programs) can coexist along with federal student loans and we know this because, based on the evidence he cited, similar programs already do.I'll look forward to the next round.", "title": "Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished.", "pid": "bafdb0f3-2019-04-18T16:28:51Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.2694854736328}, {"text": "Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many busin...", "title": "Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions", "pid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.24606323242188}, {"text": "Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many businesses as other processes would be. Bankruptcy effectively reflects a failure on the part of the business and therefore often on the part of the management. They are therefore less willing to spend time in advance planning for it and making the most suitable arrangements for it. This is just as many people who die unexpectedly young in accidents have not ordered their estates in effective ways. It is therefore appropriate that the law takes a more proactive approach to bankruptcy and acts to counterbalance the lack of thought which many companies have put into how they would deal with it.", "title": "Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many busin...", "pid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 212.23968505859375}, {"text": "Bailouts don’t solve the problem", "title": "debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis", "pid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.2377166748047}, {"text": "Young people might feel cornered into signing up for financial reasons when they otherwise wouldn't. There should be no financial incentive for risking one's life.", "title": "National service could be offset against student loans", "pid": "a6a69e56-2019-04-19T12:45:58Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 212.2259979248047}, {"text": "Debt forgiveness spreads the burden of the debt much better than bailouts do; with bailouts it is entirely states and their taxpayers who come up with the necessary money, with forgiveness private speculators and investors such as banks are hit just like the governments. Nowhere in the Eurozone are the banks popular so it makes political sense that they should bear some of the burden; people and companies that have risked their money should not deserve to always be protected by bailouts. Moreover we must remember that several of the causes of the financial crisis were originally created by the banks – the lenders not the debtors. Most obvious is subprime mortgages which was caused by risky loans.[1] This risk was not just prevalent in mortgages but throughout the financial sector which were using mathematical models to attempt to price risk.[2] Of course government regulation or lack of it can also be considered to be partially responsible for the financial crisis but the point is that the blame, and thus the pain, should be shared. Those who have been a part of the cause of the crisis do not deserve to have their misdeeds rewarded by bailouts. [1] Wallison, Peter J., ‘The True Story of the Financial Crisis’, The American Spectator, May 2011 [2] Salmon, Felix, ‘Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street’, Wired, 23 February 2009", "title": "Debt forgiveness spreads the burden of debt", "pid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 212.21632385253906}, {"text": "The loans are accruing interest quicker than they can be paid off", "title": "All third world debt should be dropped", "pid": "a175ba49-2019-04-19T12:46:37Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 212.2155303955078}, {"text": "If debt is forgiven is that not just encouraging the borrower to keep on borrowing rather than changing his ways? If debt is forgiven then a borrower may expect that if they get into such dire straits again they will simply have their debts forgiven again. This then would mean the creditor paying over and over again for the debtor's profligacy. The periphery states have to get their books in order rather than expecting the core states to always pick up the tab for them.", "title": "Moral hazard", "pid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 212.2138214111328}, {"text": "When a drug addict is given more of the drug he craves is it only the addict and not also the dealer who is responsible? Yes the debtor has promised to pay but at some point the lender has to accept that the creditor can't pay or that it is in neither of their interest that they do so. While a state theoretically has almost unlimited access to money to pay their loans through taxation and national assets in practice lenders are aware of this which is why governments such as Greece have been able to borrow up to 175% of GDP. Clearly when a country has borrowed so much even 100% taxation is not going to be enough to pay off the loan. Clearly the people would not accept such punitive taxation, and attempts to increase taxation in Greece have not worked.[1] They may also not be willing to accept selling off land, which often has an emotional importance far beyond the monetary worth of that asset. Since a state and a whole people can't be forced to pay there needs to be a compromise. [1] Panaritis, Elena, ‘Debt Forgiveness In Inevitable and Will Save the Euro’, Huffington Post, 6 December 2012", "title": "Those who get into debt are morally responsible for repayment", "pid": "9e81cfe-2019-04-15T20:24:17Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 212.20115661621094}, {"text": "At some point the US needs to come to terms with its debts and a gradual collapse of confidence in the US’s ability to pay its debts will not help the American economy or anyone else’s. With a declining tax base – both as a result of unemployment and an increasing burden of economic inactivity through retirement, the government will increasingly have to demonstrate that it is ‘good for the money’ rather than just assuming that something will turn up. Despite hundreds of billions poured into the economy since the start of Obama’s time in office, the economy remains stagnant. As a result it’s time for the government to demonstrate that it can use austerity as well as largesse to solve the problem.", "title": "A recession is not the point at whcih debts should be paid back. The state should focus on job creation strategies", "pid": "21579906-2019-04-15T20:22:50Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 212.19329833984375}, {"text": "\"I should have NEVER allowed a 13 year old to debate me. Of course I get a forfeit!\" -The words of my opponent. In most eyes, these can be hurtful words, and in most eyes, these are rude words, not accepted in debate. So, I ask voters, just because I forfeited one round, not to award conduct points to my opponent because of his third round/comment. Before I begin, I would also like to apologize for my forfeit. I shouldn't have started this debate, because (1) my opponent obviously does not like me, and (2) finals are upcoming, and I was busy studying, so, naturally, time got away from me and it automatically forfeited. So, my opponent won't have any opportunity to present refutations to my arguments. I will not present refutations to his, therefore making it even. Also, before I begin, I would like to point out that my opponent utterly detests me only because of my young age (13), however he does not even state his age, and the one he states is indeed a lie (99). So now, with that aside, I would like to present my main arguments. My opponent has stated that there are only three negative consequences to bankruptcy, however I disagree, and I will prove this throughout my arguments. Argument 1: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it ruins your credit for a minimum . Personal bankruptcy releases you from many debt obligations such as credit cards, however this is shown on the credit reports and drastically lowers your FICO credit score. Not to mention, when bankruptcy is filed, your credit cards are taken away. So, filing bankruptcy means that you're now on a strictly cash spending 'diet', and who uses cash anymore? The majority of people today in the modern world use credit cards. Therefore, personal bankruptcy harms your credit and your spending. Argument 2: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it stigmatizes you as being irresponsible, unreliable, and immoral. When bankruptcy is declared, you have had debts on a number of things, such as a car, a house, a washing machine, dryer, etc. and essentially, you don't pay for it. This is like stealing. You know you can't afford to buy it, yet you purchase it on credit and you don't pay for it, so who then pays for it? The people who pay for it are everyday people like you and me, or the store owner, who has to pay for the person's debt. So when we go to buy it, it's that much more because of the person who declared bankruptcy. Therefore, personal bankruptcy is immoral because it makes other people suffer. Argument 3: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because you will become part of a public record. In many court documents, if personal bankruptcy is filed, and this can even extend to the newspaper, all because you stupidly filed personal bankruptcy because it was \"worth it\" as pro is suggesting. Therefore, you will not be able to keep your finances private if you file personal bankruptcy; your finances will go public, and most people like to keep them private. Voters, before this round is over, let me remind you, that if you file personal bankruptcy, you need a plan to pay it back when your bankruptcy is over. But how will you pay it back if you have bad credit and no credit cards? Can you pay thousands of dollars in cash? Probably not, because you're bankrupt. In conclusion, I believe that personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it ruins your credit, it stigmatizes you as being irresponsible, immoral, and unreliable while other people suffer for your mistake, and lastly because your finances will go public. Thank you for reading, and please vote for the Con side of this debate. Good luck pro!", "title": "Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing", "pid": "574204a2-2019-04-18T16:11:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.15322875976562}, {"text": "Daniel Gross. \"In Defense of Detroit\". Newsweek. 13 Nov. 2008 - More significantly, Chapter 11 proceedings for GM would be far more complicated than that of a retailer, or of Lehman Brothers. Recent experience shows that for auto companies, Chapter 11 is like the Hotel California. You can check in any time you like, but you can never be able to leave. Auto parts supplier Delphifiled for Chapter 11 in October 2005, and still languishes there. Getting out of Chapter 11 can be tough when (a) the bankrupt companies are capital-intensive manufacturers; and (b) creditors are reluctant to give up on their claims. Among those with the biggest claims on the automakers, and GM in particular, are the United Auto Workers.\"", "title": "US autos may never get out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy", "pid": "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00095-000", "bm25_score": 212.15036010742188}, {"text": "First, as none of my definitions were argued, they stand as they are for the rest of the round. Second, because my analysis of the resolution was also left untouched, the burdens applied in said analysis also apply for the duration of the round. Finally, my value and criterion analysis were not disputed. Because of this, we will use this ethical analysis for the rest of the round. Neg: C1: I feel the best way to address these arguments in by separating each paragraph and answering them accordingly. P1: First, my opponent makes \"the corporations\" out to be some kind of boogyman who is conspiring to get the poor defenseless consumers. The truth is, in EVERY SINGLE situation where my opponent claims consumers have no control, it is almost solely up to the consumer. Laid off: Although this will sound harsh, when a company is \"forced\" to lay off workers, they start at the bottom, the workers who, well, worked worse. By being the best worker, you're chances of being laid off are reduced to almost zero. Rent Increase: This is between the landlord and the person renting. There is no reason why one wouldn't have some kind of warning required in the contract. Furthermore, one can, if the rent is too high move to a cheaper place. Changed Loan: This is also simple consumer failure. Just like when one gets a credit card, one should ALWAYS read the contract. When a contract allows the lender to arbitrarily change the loan on a whim, one should realize that this is probably not someone who they want to get a loan from. Medical: In such instances, one can, unless their credit score is already shot, usually consult with a bank to change their loan repayment plan to something more do-able. Banks aren't out to bankrupt consumers, they don't make profit that way. However, As the neg, as long as I can prove that banning the use of these scores is a bad idea, none of these arguments even matter. P2 Student Loan: First of all, one could choose a cheaper education. Second, one can get a number of subsidized student loans from various government organizations which do not accrue interest until the student is done with their education. Third, one can, as I am, pay the accruing interest on loans quarterly while they are in school. This way, the loans do not become exponentially larger and are payable once schooling is finished. Finally, Pres. Obama has created a program that will remove student loans after 10 years as long as one is working for the government or for a not-for-profit organization such as a school. P3 Flipside: I actually don't know what my opponent is trying to say here. Corporations usually do not have credit scores, and if they do, these scores are not likely used in hiring or the such… If my opponent is referring the people who run these companies, he is wrong. These people are very likely to do what they say they will do and when. If that's not the definition of trust I'm not sure what is. Furthermore, when one is working with one of these people, it is much more likely that they will make their payments on time if they have lots of extra money lying around, which in turn makes they more trustworthy business partners… Therefore, because it is important to be able to trust the people you work for, credit scores are deeply important to the function of business and should not be curtailed. C2: \"If one can accept there is a significant portion of cases in which a person's credit score is not within their own control, then it is false to liken it to a criminal record.\" 1.) I don't accept that. See Contention 1. 2.) Criminal record is also not in one's own hands. Even if we do accept that credit scores are not always in our control, neither are criminal records. If one is caught in the wrong place at the wrong time one can get penalties for crimes they did not commit. To put it simply, The aff is saying: \"because people can sometimes be in the wrong place at the wrong time, nobody should be able to use a criminal record to judge people\". A credit score is a judgment of how likely someone will, at any given time, pay back a loan on time. The aff is arguing that the use of such a score should be banned because some people are a victim of unfortunate circumstances. This may be a reason to change such a system, but not to ban it outright. \"The system of credit bureaus and businesses that use them conspire to form a \"guilty until proven innocent\" system that undermines peoples' ability to pay their bills and locks them into a nearly-impossible-to-escape trap\" 1.) NO, they don't. they aren't the boogyman. (it'd also be kinda cool to see some evidence that all these bad things even happen…) 2.) If you look to my arguments on contention 1 you can see that such things are due to a lack of effort on the part of the consumer, not the evilness of the lender. Furthermore, if people cannot pay their bills, they go bankrupt. Bankruptcy DOES NOT HELP BANKS. When people go bankrupt the bank usually ends up never getting paid back in full. C3: \"Given the secretive conspiratorial blacklisting nature of credit bureaus and susceptibility to fraud and abuse\" 1.) None of the arguments actually touch on the fact that the banning of the use of these could create harm. Because of this, these arguments are irrelevant and fall. 2.) Evidence. You make baseless accusations against companies without evidence. I can't assume they're evil, and because I'm of the \"innocent until proven guilty\" nature, because you provide no evidence, all of your arguments against this contention fall. 3.) The claim that making it harder for someone with a low credit score is bad because is exacerbates their problem is flawed logic. If someone has proven that they are untrustworthy enough times to make it that hard for them to get a job, it is likely they would also not be able to hold up their side of the employment contract as well. Furthermore, there are always companies willing to hire people with bad reputation, they just pay less. Through these jobs the person could eventually better their score and thus prove trustworthy enough for a superior job. 4.) Landlady: Without signing a new contract, if your contract has static terms, it cannot be changed. This is, again, a consumer not expending the effort to actually read the documents they are signing. Furthermore, apply all the other arguments from Contention 1 here as well. 5.) More Harms: By banning the use of credit scores, banks would either stop giving out loans altogether or go out of business. Without loans or banks our world would crumble into chaos. Because unthinkable harm would come of banning the use of credit scores, if you look back to utilitarianism you can see that such a ban would, be immoral. AFF CASE: 1.) Affirmative has failed to uphold burden. Even if the affirmative wins every single argument, they still lose. If you look to my Resolutional Analysis in my first post, you can see that the pro must provide an ethical reason why credit scores are wrong. The pro has provided arguments as to why it could be \"unfair\" but has failed to explain why fairness is important, or why unfairness is bad. Because of this, the pro has failed to uphold their burdens and cannot win. 2.) Ban V change the entire aff case is based on the harms created by people being metaphorically in the wrong place at the wrong time(or not knowing the rules). Just as this is no reason to ban the use of other \"scores\" this is not a reason to ban the use of credit scores. It is much more reasonable to argue that these could be a reason to change how it measures, but not ban it. all the corruption and fraud in the world do not provide a reason to ban the use of credit scores. At best, they show that there might be a reason to change measurements. In conclusion because of the reasons in my opening post. And because my opponent has failed to uphold their burdens as the aff (or provide any evidence of", "title": "The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed", "pid": "8492878d-2019-04-18T19:20:08Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.1360321044922}, {"text": "Lawyers too in debt to advocate for the little guy", "title": "Law school", "pid": "50689d14-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00046-000", "bm25_score": 212.12551879882812}, {"text": "Where would you draw the line? The proposition seems to assume that only developing countries suffer from natural disasters, and so require debt relief. In fact, natural disasters can strike a wide range of countries and it is not clear if your scheme would not also apply to middle-income or even rich states. In recent years the United States has been struck by several devastating hurricanes, and many people believe an enormous Californian earthquake is overdue. Given the huge foreign debts of the US government, why shouldn’t it apply for debt relief too in such situations? And what about Japan, for example after the Kobe earthquake? After all, given the much greater physical infrastructure of such countries compared to developing ones, the cost of damage done by a similar natural disaster will be very much higher.", "title": "This scheme is designed to help developing countries recover after terrible tragedies, not to channe...", "pid": "927cbc62-2019-04-19T12:47:44Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 212.12025451660156}, {"text": "I have accepted your challenge. I will be arguing against the claims made by the Pro side. I will be using contextual evidence, as well as my deep understanding on the economy. I will be using sources that support my claim and refute the claim of the Pro side. I will also be maintaining a good atmosphere as to make sure that this debate does not become one of slanderous nature but rather a discussion. I will make sure that this debate does not become one of sympathy, but rather that of factual information. I will await your opening statement.", "title": "Lowered 2yr. tuition helps in successful completion and maintains the 4yr. college debt.", "pid": "c2daa9b1-2019-04-18T14:37:46Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.10574340820312}, {"text": "The professor is only eating off the salary paid to him by the college. The U.S. Department of Education is actually eating off your Indebtedness. The next question you need to ask is \"do I really owe a debt\"? Is there even a debt to begin with? The college loan in brought into existence by your signature on a promissory note, which springs the money into fruition, which pays the school right away. Then the U.S. department of Education then demands that you pay them, with interest from money that they never in fact gave you to begin with. What's your next step? Challenge the validity of the debt. See if there is actually a bilateral contractual obligation that requires you to pay the debt. See, I laugh at all these Bernie Sanders supporters that demand that we have free college. If they understood how our entire phony fiat currency system works, then they might learn that college is already free in a sense. Not to mention all the grant money, pell grant and everything else that the government already subsidizes. We don't need Bernie's socialist plans to further enslave us all. I would put references, but that was all just off the top of my head. If I get an intelligent response to this, then I might be forced to do a tiny bit of research.", "title": "Yummy debtors for lunch.", "pid": "42aeb76-2019-04-18T13:45:52Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.09251403808594}, {"text": "A Harvard study indicates that a lack of universal health care is a leading cause in 50% of bankruptcies filed annually in the United States.", "title": "The lack of universal health care is a leading cause of bankruptcy", "pid": "89e52114-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00249-000", "bm25_score": 212.08526611328125}, {"text": "Chapter 11 provisions encourage risk taking by entrepreneurs, ensuring that the penalties for failur...", "title": "Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions", "pid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.06130981445312}, {"text": "Students were easily one of the best off during the recession, which has now after all ended. They don't pay tax and are given a steady reliable income. Graduates have been hit in the same way as everyone else looking for a job, but graduates are by definition no longer students. taking a bit longer to pay back their loans does not affect studetnts until after university, and then only marginally.", "title": "The recession is torturing students enough.", "pid": "7cc54135-2019-04-19T12:44:52Z-00025-000", "bm25_score": 212.05484008789062}, {"text": "Debt burdens are common in the developing world, but natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis...", "title": "Debt Relief following natural disasters", "pid": "927cbc62-2019-04-19T12:47:44Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.03958129882812}, {"text": "\"Five Reasons Not to Support a Bailout of Greece\", The Heritage Foundation, May 2010 \"It was bad enough when the federal government bailed out AIG, and then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and then many of the mega banks, and then GM and Chrysler. At least these firms had the modest merit of being U.S. companies employing U.S. workers. Even if U.S. government finances were in pristine shape, U.S. taxpayer dollars should not be used to bail out a perennially dysfunctional state. But as spending-driven trillion dollar budget deficits and a presidential debt commission starkly evidence, the U.S. is seriously risking its own Greek-style sovereign debt crisis. Fortunately, the U.S. does not need an IMF bailout; it needs only a President willing to acknowledge that he has led the country on a Grecian spending binge it cannot afford.\"", "title": "U.S. is risking its own sovereign debt crisis", "pid": "57a3df7d-2019-04-17T11:47:26Z-00084-000", "bm25_score": 212.0223388671875}, {"text": "\"Saving Detroit\". Economist. 13 Nov. 2008 - \"The United States created Chapter 11 precisely to help companies that need protection from their creditors while they restructure their liabilities and winnow out the good business from the bad. If the North American businesses of GM and Ford filed for Chapter 11, their activities elsewhere would be largely unaffected. Even in North America, their businesses could continue to make vehicles as they shed costs and renegotiated contracts.\"", "title": "Chapter 11 bankruptcy will help autos restructure and regroup.", "pid": "3f68778d-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00099-000", "bm25_score": 212.01202392578125}, {"text": "Thomas Keeley. \"In Defense of AIG Bonuses\". DC Republican. March 18, 2009 - \"it’s important to remember that bankruptcy is one of the legal protections a business has to get themselves out of the potentially crippling contracts without having to go through a sea of red tape and individual legal proceedings. [...] Just as is the case with any company, AIG had the option to file bankruptcy, go into protection and remove these contracts. However, the United States felt that AIG was too big to fail, and decided that instead of letting them go bankrupt, they would give them the money they needed to continue doing what they thought was needed to become solid again.\"", "title": "AIG did not file for bankruptcy; bonus contracts still valid", "pid": "34a77a0a-2019-04-17T11:47:33Z-00063-000", "bm25_score": 212.01048278808594}, {"text": "I'm not somebody who is a complete opponent of keynesian economics. I believe both models have their place depending on the exact flavor of the current economic atmosphere of the time. I think that if you get control of the insanity of student loan debt, you make the usage of Supply Side Economics more viable. I am a Moderate minded person. I believe both models can work effectively if not handcuffed by other irresonsible practices. * Schools purposefully took advantage of the Federal Student Loan programs. They did not look at a student's credit history. They did not look at a student's income. They did not look at a student's ability to repay the debt. They did not look at anything. They just started giving out free loans and money to anyone and everyone. So guess what schools started doing. They started recruiting students in mass, signing them up for federal loans that these students couldn't even afford, but students with dreams of success signed the dotted line figuring they'd get a good job and pay it back. Later, many did not find good jobs, and these heavy loans that took advantage of this overly generous giving of loans of any amount(withinreason) to anyone killed the economy. Obama actually did a good thing on this one in my opinion by implementing student loan forgiveness. Once the balance becomes stable, I believe Supply Side economics can do fine. The problem was that everyone had such heavy debt that they couldn't get loans for houses, spend extra on clothes, food, trips, etc. This effected the entire infrastructure of the economy. The schools got greedy and the government was too slow to act. https://studentaid.ed.gov... Here are some testimonials in a video simply explaining what the student loan crisis did to people. http://youtu.be... They had went to school, tried to get an education and now are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and they can never pay it back. Can they buy a house? No. Can they take trips? No. Can they buy stuff? No. So guess what. That money is not going back into the economy. * So if people were not loading up on unsermountable student loan debt, Supply Side would have been fine. It works as long as the people are not handcuffed by other legislation and/or policies. * In my opinion, if all of these people were free from this crazy debt, Supply Side works fine. But any \"trickling down\" that happens is pointless if those recieving it cando nothing with it. Take for example, someone with $50,000 instudent loandebt. They are fighting to make it, they do their taxes, they get a tax return of $5,000. Guess what. It's taken and applied to the federal loan. What part of the sector made money? Some school made money that might go back into education, but the economy sees nothing. All that happened is the government trying to make up loan losses, and the civilian has $0 to spend.", "title": "Wealth doesn't \"trickle down\" from the rich to the poor", "pid": "b78f8bbc-2019-04-18T13:17:13Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.00872802734375}, {"text": "Chapter 11-style provisions represent an unwelcome interference in private ordering. All of the parties involved in a company, including employees, shareholders and creditors, voluntarily opt into their involvement with the company. They have the opportunity to weigh up the risks and possible benefits, decide whether they want to be involved and take such steps as they can or desire to control risks. For the courts to intervene in an unpredictable way after the event is an unjustifiable intrusion into the private ordering which the parties have agreed between themselves. This is an intrusion upon important personal liberties and also helps to undermine the certainty and personal autonomy which underpins an environment favourable to business.", "title": "Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many busin...", "pid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 212.0064697265625}, {"text": "Reorganisation can help to protect the interests of employees and other stakeholders. Forcing a com...", "title": "Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions", "pid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 211.9755096435547}, {"text": "Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr...", "title": "Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions", "pid": "426b8860-2019-04-19T12:46:12Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 211.96038818359375}]}
{"idx": 40, "qid": "42", "q_text": "Should fighting be allowed in hockey?", "qrels": {"90230c-2019-04-18T18:43:08Z-00001-000": 0, "1568e11-2019-04-18T18:25:47Z-00002-000": 0, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "4c68354c-2019-04-18T13:19:39Z-00000-000": 0, "1cbf91f8-2019-04-18T17:32:45Z-00004-000": 0, "ff9d7dd1-2019-04-18T17:27:12Z-00002-000": 0, "c40de107-2019-04-18T12:23:18Z-00002-000": 0, "aff70ee6-2019-04-18T19:22:48Z-00009-000": 0, "c0722593-2019-04-18T19:00:13Z-00005-000": 0, "1568e11-2019-04-18T18:25:47Z-00003-000": 0, "c7bfe202-2019-04-18T11:52:02Z-00003-000": 0, "cf884b8c-2019-04-18T15:50:31Z-00001-000": 0, "cf884bab-2019-04-18T15:50:33Z-00008-000": 0, "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00000-000": 0, "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00005-000": 0, "d97e38ee-2019-04-18T18:01:31Z-00001-000": 0, "ec638273-2019-04-18T16:13:22Z-00005-000": 0, "ec9a62c5-2019-04-18T13:00:17Z-00003-000": 0, "ef8f2969-2019-04-18T17:29:45Z-00002-000": 0, "fde975a1-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00003-000": 0, "c98c7791-2019-04-18T15:57:27Z-00003-000": 0, "1df2fccf-2019-04-18T18:34:35Z-00000-000": 0, "2184df23-2019-04-18T19:38:43Z-00000-000": 0, "27512099-2019-04-18T18:41:40Z-00003-000": 1, "d3fcb9ba-2019-04-18T11:58:12Z-00001-000": 0, "94e6a5e1-2019-04-18T19:05:27Z-00003-000": 0, "90232b-2019-04-18T17:52:46Z-00000-000": 0, "90230c-2019-04-18T18:43:08Z-00005-000": 0, "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00005-000": 0, "72b8732b-2019-04-18T17:03:38Z-00004-000": 0, "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00000-000": 1, "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00003-000": 1, "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00004-000": 2, "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00005-000": 1, "7028e07f-2019-04-18T18:26:10Z-00001-000": 0, "65c86798-2019-04-18T12:26:35Z-00002-000": 0, "61e00511-2019-04-19T12:47:25Z-00014-000": 0, "46fa6be8-2019-04-18T14:27:07Z-00004-000": 0, "3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00000-000": 0, "3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00003-000": 0, "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00017-000": 0, "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00002-000": 0, "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00024-000": 0, "322867c2-2019-04-18T19:22:55Z-00009-000": 0, "27512099-2019-04-18T18:41:40Z-00002-000": 2, "18f233de-2019-04-18T13:00:35Z-00003-000": 0, "92fc546a-2019-04-15T20:22:34Z-00003-000": 0, "2093606e-2019-04-18T17:30:38Z-00009-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Fighting in hockey has always existed as a defining feature of the sport, and it has been accommodated in the rules for the NHL since the league's establishment in 1917. The practice of fighting in NHL games should be protected because it is not simply an exercise of unchecked aggression, but rather a tool to be used to hold players accountable for their actions. With 12 players on the rink at once and only 3 officials to regulate them, players often get away illegal/dangerous checks. In the absence of consistent regulation, fighting in hockey allows for the players to police one another. The knowledge that a dirty play or a cheap shot will likely result in retaliation offers an effective deterrent against players engaging in these potentially harmful activities. While fighting admittedly introduces a risk for injury, the severity of this injury pales in comparison to the potential injuries one might sustain from an illegal check.", "title": "Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey", "pid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 223.0479736328125}, {"text": "Fighting in hockey, and in sports in general, should not be permissible for any reason. While fighting does have a historic place in the way hockey is played and is often a notable reason why people watch hockey in the first place, it should not be allowed moving forward. Player safety should be at the forefront of sports, and by allowing fighting in hockey, the sport is openly showing its disregard for such safety. Hockey leagues do not need players to police each other and hold each other accountable, that's what referees and league punishments are for. Basketball is a relatively physical sport as well, however the NBA generally does a good job of enforcing appropriate fines and penalties to discourage excessive violence on the court. These monetary fines, game suspensions, and other punishments all hold players accountable without relying on the players to do it themselves. Hockey is one of the very few sports where it is seen as acceptable to have designated players that serve no role other than to protect the team's talented star players from getting hurt in a fight - a sign that the sport needs to change its standards to reduce violence among its players. Cheap shots will always occur in sports, however it is better to address those dirty plays with real-life punishments that affect the player's ability to participate and make financial gains, rather than by putting them in a glass box for a few minutes.", "title": "Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey", "pid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 222.63429260253906}, {"text": "While fines may be an effective way for the NBA to hold its players accountable, that is largely because there is no other historical avenue for conflict resolution in the NBA. As mentioned previously, fighting in hockey has been an integral aspect of the sport since the formation of the National Hockey League. Furthermore, it is not as if these fights are completely unregulated. In the 1980's there was an average of 1 fight per NHL (100%). As a response to this, the League implemented new rules governing fighting. These rules still allowed fights to take place, they just assigned a 2-5 minute penalty to the players involved. This penalty causes players to be judicious about when they choose to fight. This is similar to the penalty system in many sports: soccer players shown to be more judicious about the use of aggressive plays after they have already received a yellow card, NBA athletes are more cautious about play after they have received 3 fouls, etc. Additionally, if the concern about fighting is motivated by a concern for the players, then the opinions of these players should be considered. A survey of NHL players conducted in 2012 asked them whether or not they believed fighting should remain a practice in the NHL, 98% of them responded that it should be. This demonstrates that the players involved, who are cognizant of the risks associated with the activity, still see a value in it and would like it to remain.", "title": "Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey", "pid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 222.24795532226562}, {"text": "Since my opponent has forfeited round 2, I have nothing to refute and I'll just give points on why fighting should be banned in the NHL. Most fighters in the NHL, are put on the ice and told to fight. Their skills in the actual game of hockey are extremely limited, and all they're good at is fighting. In the old days of fighting in the NHL, fighters would actually make an impact and their fights would change the momentum of the game, now this is not the case. Also, in the past, fighters could actually play the game. Now, fighters take up roster spots that could be taken by goal scorers. All retired enforcers, or most at least, regret that they were fighters.3 retired enforcers died in the last 3-4 months due to fight related reasons.Hockey is the only professional sport that allows fighting.I don't expect my opponent to actually post something for round 3, so these are all of my arguments...", "title": "Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned", "pid": "27512099-2019-04-18T18:41:40Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 222.15664672851562}, {"text": "Fighting in Ice Hockey is very common, but there have been some people who wanted it to stop. Why? Because it's dangerous. Now I won't deny Fighting is dangerous and could potentially hurt you, but It is has been part of the game since the beginning. So there's no reason why Fighting should be banned when in reality it won't do anything and the fans will just end up fighting which will cause a whole lot of controversy.", "title": "Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned", "pid": "27512099-2019-04-18T18:41:40Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 221.9705810546875}, {"text": "While the evidence concerning head trauma is troubling, it exists within the context of an already violent sport. An article published in WIRED magazine commented in April; \"as of this writing, no fewer than 158 National Hockey League players \" slightly more than one of every five in the league \" are injured.\" These are substantial numbers and they would not be significantly diminished by the abolition of fighting. The players on the ice know the risk they assume when they go out and play the sport, and in the absence of any complaints or activism on the part of the players to abolish fighting, I don't see how it could make the game substantially safer. I do not see any ethical considerations that distinguish fighting from any other dangerous component of hockey. Unless it can be demonstrated to be uniquely harmful in a way distinct from the dangers of stray shots, eye-gouging hihi sticks, or knee-shattering collisions, then I maintain that it is nonsensical to ban fighting in hockey.", "title": "Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey", "pid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 221.91744995117188}, {"text": "I guess this means I have won science you have forfeited. fighting in hockey should not be banned. that is my final answer. take it or leave it. (you better have taken it. or you better take it! :P )", "title": "fighting should be banned from the NHL", "pid": "3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 221.8878173828125}, {"text": "Players and fans may prefer to retain fighting as a permissible component of the sport, however recent findings show that this is not best for the players' health. Fighting in hockey often results in the removal of either one or both players' helmets and gloves, resulting in an exchange of blows to the head. Players wear so much protective equipment that fights become more about punches to the head rather than a general pain to the body. This emphasis on head shots can result in an increased amount of concussions. Neurosurgeon Charles H. Tator suggests that 10% of concussions in hockey are the result of fighting rather than actual game play. This is an easily preventable source of concussions and player harm that has no place in the sport. The long term effects of concussions have become increasingly relevant as more former athletes, particularly professional football players, have been experiencing mental health issues as their careers and lives progress. The effects of concussions are just now becoming better understood by researchers, but it is becoming evident that athletes' brains are being severely affected by these traumatic injuries. Fighting also raises a concern about the recent painkiller epidemic in which athletes are being addicted to their prescribed medications, negatively affecting them even beyond the duration of their injury.", "title": "Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey", "pid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 221.5922393798828}, {"text": "While fighting might not be too different from the natural physicality of hockey, the way it is presented and glorified within the sport does propose an ethical dilemma. A body check into the boards is violent but it is not staged the same way as a fight is. When the helmets and gloves come off for a fight, fans of all ages see a part of the game that no longer belongs in today's society. Big hits will always happen in sports, whether it be in hockey, football, lacrosse, etc., but that should be the extent of glorified physicality. Hockey and its designated enforcers leave a negative impression on youth fans and players who look to emulate professional athletes. Rather than working to become a talented hockey player, some kids would rather become the guy who goes for \"big hits\" and is known for their physical play rather than developing useful skills within the sport. This influence of violence does bring up ethical concerns, as it changes the way youth players see and play the game. Physical violence is not an appropriate response to conflict, even within a physical sport. The concept of sportsmanship and playing the game the \"right way\" is put in danger by giving fighting a home in the sport of hockey.", "title": "Should Fighting be Allowed in Hockey", "pid": "7282d1c1-2019-04-18T11:33:12Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 221.4879608154297}, {"text": "do you think that fighting should be banned from the nhl? my answer: NOPE :-) what do you think ? if yes, WHY! HOW COULD YOU! whaaaa! ok whatever. just argue your point and good luck!", "title": "fighting should be banned from the NHL", "pid": "3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 221.2764129638672}, {"text": "My opponent has forfeited. I win by default.", "title": "Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned", "pid": "27512099-2019-04-18T18:41:40Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 221.17520141601562}, {"text": "Let me start by criticizing my opponents opening comments. I will build my argument as to why fighting in hockey should be banned in round 2. \"Now I won't deny Fighting is dangerous and could potentially hurt you, but It is has been part of the game since the beginning. So there's no reason why Fighting should be banned when in reality it won't do anything and the fans will just end up fighting which will cause a whole lot of controversy. \"There are a couple of things wrong with what my opponent has said, and I will explain. First he agreed that fighting is dangerous, then he said 'but it has been in the game since the beginning. ' In the beginning of the NHL, players, including the goaltender didn't have to wear helmets/masks, so saying that it should stay the same to follow tradition, isn't a good enough point. My opponent then continues on to say that there is no reason for fighting to be banned because \"it won't do anything\". If fighting is banned, which would make the punishment more than a 5 minute penalty like it is now, fighting would probably disappear because players wouldn't put their careers at risk. And yes banning fighting would prevent the injuries of many players, and if fighting was banned already, it would have most likely prevented the deaths of Wade Balek, Rick Rypien and Derek Boogaard, who have all died because of reasons related to their career as a fighter in the NHL. My opponent said that fans \"will just end up fighting\" if fighting in the NHL is banned. I disagree, because anger between fan bases occurs very often because of a fight between two players, which starts huge and bitter rivalries. Good Luck.", "title": "Fighting in Hockey Needs to Be Banned", "pid": "27512099-2019-04-18T18:41:40Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 220.76168823242188}, {"text": "In discussing why the NHL had introduced a rule this season requiring players to keep their helmets on during fights, Healy explained the roots of the rule change trace back to the 2009 death of Don Sanderson, who suffered a head injury in a fight in senior hockey and never recovered. Healy: \"Don Sanderson\" hit his head on the ice, no helmet and he died. And if that happens in this game, the National Hockey League, fighting will be gone from the game.\" Simpson: \"I guess you ask, Glenn, why does that (the death of a player) need to happen for that (the elimination of fighting) to happen?\" It\"s a great question. Whatever your position on fighting, it\"s safe to assume that we can all agree that fighting to the death\"even an accidental death\"is an undesirable outcome. Right? We\"re good with that? Death in hockey is bad.", "title": "fighting should be banned from the NHL", "pid": "3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 220.09735107421875}, {"text": "noit shiuod not that is what majes most of the money for the nhl and i perwonaly think that it is very true (your point) but you know that some teen ager died from a slapshot to the neck so why not stip hockey alltogether? NEVER! besides i play hockey and its fun.", "title": "fighting should be banned from the NHL", "pid": "3d98c367-2019-04-18T17:02:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.56893920898438}, {"text": "Even though the rules prevent it, people getting hit in the head with those sticks even with the helmet could cause some bad whiplash", "title": "is hockey too violent", "pid": "fde975a1-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.98223876953125}, {"text": "Depends on what you consider too violent.", "title": "is hockey too violent", "pid": "fde975a1-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.44992065429688}, {"text": "hockey is not too violent", "title": "is hockey too violent", "pid": "fde975a1-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.15106201171875}, {"text": "From high school to college to the NHL, hockey always allows \"Body checking.\" This is an action that involves a player colliding with an opposing player to stop his motion of going forward. This can lead to numerous injuries from players hitting one another or colliding with the surface of the ice that is just as hard as concrete. Body Contact does not mean \"no contact.\" There will be legal body contact within the rules in Hockey. For example, lightly brushing by an opponent. These legal body contact shall not be penalized.", "title": "Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking", "pid": "be11cc98-2019-04-18T12:31:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.03273010253906}, {"text": "The players should be allowed to fight because some teams bribe the referee to call stupid plays and make the other team win. To me thats not fair. So, yes the players should be allowed to fight on the field.", "title": "American Football Fighters", "pid": "5462614-2019-04-18T18:02:38Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.0266876220703}, {"text": "Hockey is kinda Violent", "title": "is hockey too violent", "pid": "fde975a1-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.98623657226562}, {"text": "I will save my rebuttals for the last round Argument #1: Many forms of Hockey Hockey is a family of sports, meaning there are several forms of the game, making hockey a much-better suited game to everyone. Have disabilities in your legs but love hockey? Then play sledge hockey! Don't want to move around much but still play a version of hockey? Then play air hockey! Don't have a rink? Play field hockey! Too cold/hot to play hockey outdoors? Get a net in your basement,some hockey sticks and a ball, invite a friend over and GAME ON!!! There are many more types of Hockey then soccer, allowing everyone to pick their preferred version while soccer is just two nets and a ball. Argument #2: HOCKEY FIGHTS!!! Some people come to see hockey games and enjoy the sport, others want to see blood on the ice and some want both! The penalty is small (To be exact 5 minutes) and the punishment will be increased if serious injuries happen. Saying that these fights are dangerous is untrue most of the time and serious injuries are rare. Ice fights are viewed by many as a tradition, getting to the point that Ice fights are included and detailed in hockey themed games like the EA NHL series where the game allows the player to throw and block certain shots, eventually causing there to be a winner and a loser of a fight WITHOUT a simulation. The popularity of fights have even ushered in videos just about hockey fights, like this! I could give more, but I got to do some chores Thanks and I await your response!", "title": "Soccer is a better sport than Hockey", "pid": "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.884521484375}, {"text": "Even with the rule oh having the hockey stick below the waist, by human reaction its very easy to swing the stick high, making injury chance high", "title": "is hockey too violent", "pid": "fde975a1-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.7601318359375}, {"text": "Here are a couple of points about the shootout that makes it notorious: 1. The shootout is not actually hockey. It is just a series of breakaways. Hockey is a team game, and what the shootout is doing is just hindering one of the main aspects of the game. 2. On March 23, 2017, Sergei Bobrovsky stopped 45 shots and managed a 1-1 tie at the end of overtime. A couple of minutes later, he's a loser because he couldn't stop someone on a breakaway. If you think I'm lying, here's a site for you: https://www.nhl.com... That is completely unfair to goaltenders who lose in the shootout, and the team feels cheated. 3. The shootout in hockey is the equivalent to a home run derby in baseball, a free throw shootout in basketball, and a quarterback throwing a ball through a hole in football. It just doesn't make any sense to be a tiebreaker. In the third round, I will refute any and all of your arguments. Resources: https://www.thoughtco.com... http://thehockeywriters.com...", "title": "The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.", "pid": "1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.63714599609375}, {"text": "This is my first debate, but ill try my best. I agree to an extent but no i do not think that it should be taking out completely. Checking makes the game fun if done correctly. Hockey is a contact sport and should be treated as such. However we could take steps to make it safer. Such as better equipment. but to me, taking checking away would be like taking tackling away from football. It wouldn't feel the same.", "title": "Hockey should change the rules to disallow body checking", "pid": "be11cc98-2019-04-18T12:31:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.6300506591797}, {"text": "Dog fighting shouldn't be illegal. If baseball,basketball,soccer,etc. are allowed, why not dog fighting? Wrestling,boxing and straight up fighting are allowed and dog fighting is not? Dog fighting is the same thing as wrestling and all those other sports but just it's dogs that are fighting, not humans.", "title": "dog fighting 11", "pid": "90ee2c92-2019-04-18T13:46:20Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.3354949951172}, {"text": "In your first paragraph you stated that shootouts are not hockey, yet merely a series of breakaways. However, breakaways are a part of hockey as they are events that are seen happening in the game. The reason these shootouts are done is because hockey is a physically imposing game and if after 60 minutes of play and an overtime period a winner isn't yet deemed the league doesn't want to physically tax players more or risk injury; thus the shootout. The shootout is a quick way to determine a winner and is described by many hockey fans as the most exciting event in hockey. Even though a goalie could have a terrific game but have it negated by a shootout, that is still a fair ending because the shootout displays both the skills of the shooter and the goalie. In the specific game you mentioned, Braden Holtby, also had a good game, blocking 29 out of 30 shots. {1} He just continued his excellence further in the shootout and was rewarded in the win. It is not unfair to losing goalkeepers as shootouts are not based upon luck or chance: stopping breakaways as a goalie takes tremendous skill. The shootout in hockey, additionally, is not comparable to most of the things you mentioned because unlike the other examples a shootout mimics an exact situation that can be seen in hockey. In the Home Run Derby the ball is being pitched slowly and right down the middle which never happens in baseball. Additionally, a football players never has to throw through a physical hole in a game like one would do in practice. The only comparable situation you mentioned is a free throw shootout which would not be a bad way to break a tie. However, due to basketballs high scoring nature a quick tiebreaker isn't as necessary because there is never a long stretch in which no team scores. Not to mention that people are not getting body checked constantly in basketball. Returning to a perspective of a fan, as I am and assume you are, the shootout is exciting. The anticipation and the pressure that lies on one 5-second span makes a shootout an exhilarating event. ESPN ran a player poll on the shootout, 70 percent of the players stated they liked the shootout. The players are the ones who actually have to participate so their opinions should be held with high regard. One of your main points was the negativity players feel and the unfairness and how teams feel cheated. However if only 20 percent dislike it [10 percent said they were indifferent], then it seems as if the majority of NHL players do not feel the way you have described about shootouts. Sure a team will feel dejected after a loss but the general consensus is that players are in favor of shootouts. The players agree it adds a rush of excitement to the game for the fans. {2} To continue to use how the players feel as backing would be a logical fallacy because the majority of players says otherwise. In conclusion, the shootout is good for the NHL for these reasons: 1) It provides a quick and fair ending to a physically imposing game. 2) It is a showcase of skill and reaction for goalkeepers. 3) It is a thrilling conclusion for ties and makes it more exciting for the fans. 4) The general consensus among players is that they are in favor of it. Sources: {1} https://www.nhl.com... {2} http://www.espn.com...", "title": "The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.", "pid": "1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.2970733642578}, {"text": "Will it promote a \"beat the crap out of everyone\" lifestyle? A fighter can only excel in the sport with proper discipline and respect for themselves and others. May I ask for a reliable source for the 52.2% statistic you brought up? Just because someone knows how to fight, doesn't mean they walk around fighting everyone. Nature vs nurture. Your life and the way you treat others is completely dependent upon your upbringing and your lifestyle. Lately we have seen several football players involved in violent crimes including domestic violence, child abuse, and even murder. But we don't associate this violent behavior in correlation with the sport of football. So if we don't blame football for those violent crimes, why would we blame boxing? Maybe we should take football out of schools as well. Maybe we should take basketball as well since Kobe Bryant was accused of rape. What I'm saying is, the violent behavior of some, doesn't mean we should take the opportunities given in boxing away from today's youth. Child abuse, domestic violence, and even molestation are not brought upon because of boxing. That stuff all happens outside the ring, by people who have never fought a day in their life. It is brought on by the way you are raised, and your own mental state. You cannot blame a controlled sport for the act of people all around the world. With all this being said I thank you for having this debate with me over the past few days. I do believe boxing should be allowed for today's youth as an extra curricular activity in today's schools. It teaches discipline and control, and it allows students to create a closer bond that they could not get anywhere else.", "title": "Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport", "pid": "c752a687-2019-04-18T14:10:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.2657470703125}, {"text": "Hokey is a game where you get smashed into walls and your supposed to be ok with that, to keep playing even though you know there was a guy that just floored you is just asking for a fight", "title": "is hockey too violent", "pid": "fde975a1-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.2444305419922}, {"text": "I need more blood because MMA is not enough, football is a joke, and baseball obviously isn't a sport. Sports are not violent enough. People need entertainment, and the current sports do not provide the proper kind of entertainment this country needs. Uncle Sam is a bloodthirsty warrior! He needs swords and morning stars slicing and crushing skulls. I want to see a bear fight a convict! I need to see this, this country needs it. It's going to be the only thing that will get us out of this recession. Opponent, since we cannot debate this in the Colosseum like real men, to the death, then debate.org will have to do. Instead of me crushing your skull with a war hammer, I will have to destroy any proposition that you bring against me.", "title": "Fights to the death in an arena should be legal", "pid": "4ddcd82e-2019-04-18T18:56:07Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.23806762695312}, {"text": "I hope for an interesting and thought-provoking debate. *** Gladiator battles should be legal if both sides willingly want to fight. This is because there is a net benefit from allowing gladiator battles, there are already dangerous sports allowed, and both sides agree to the consequences. 1. There is a net benefit from allowing gladiator battles If gladiatorial battle is legalized, then a whole infrastructure system will pop up to meet the needs of the gladiatorial system. Arenas would be built or stadiums retrofitted to suit the needs of combat; weapons and arms makers would spring up in order to supply the demand of those who fight; gladiator schools would arise to train the fighters in the methods needed to engage in combat. Merchandizing would more likely than not be provided. All this would add jobs to an economy that is in desperate need of a kick-start [1]. This could only be beneficial. In addition, it would clear up prisons. As I have stated in the introductory round, prisoners would be eligible for being a gladiator. They--only if they wanted to--enter the circuit and become gladiators, freeing up room in our prisons. Putting prisoners in they gladiator system and not in overcrowded [2], dangerous [3], and expensive [4] prisons would is a step up form the current system. 2. There are dangerous sports allowed My opponent will no doubt like to bring up the injuries that the gladiators will inevitably suffer as unethical, and therefore grounds to negate the resolution. However, there are sports where there are also serious life-long injuries out in the world which are perfectly legal. One example is American football. There has been many incidents of football players who have had serious brain damage. The NFL player's association is suing the NFL over concussions sustained during the collective careers of the plaintiffs [5]. In addition, there have been multiple suicides--including the one committed by Junior Seau that is, at the time of writing, is making headlines--that probably have been caused by repeated concussions [6]. In addition, there are all the other injuries that football players sustain in the course of their career. Football isn't the only dangerous sport. Hockey is another sport with dangerous conditions, including actual fighting [7]. Concussions have been a major problem for the NHL [8], with a string of suicides of players, many who have had chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Of particular infamy is the case of Derek Boogaard, a twenty-eight year old forward who's brain was studied and was discovered to have CTE. [9] The other skaters that were lost were Wade Belak [10] and Rick Rypien [11]. Again, there are other injuries like ACL sprains, broken bones, and concussions. Moreover, there are much more sports where there are conditions where the athletes are endangering lives willingly: mixed-martial arts, boxing, rugby, and wrestling are all sports that have very high risks for injury, especially brain injury. I'm not saying that gladiators would be safer than football players, but I am outlining the fact that there are dangerous sports today. While gladiator games are very, very dangerous, there are other games that also hazardous. According to Wikipedia, a few gladiators made it to one hundred fifty matches [12]. Wikipedia also mentions that gladiators fought two to three combats annually [12]; so, if one does the math (150 / 2.5) that means that a really special gladiator with an average schedule could have a sixty year career. Even though those gladiators probably fought a few more battles other than ~2.5 a year, that's still a pretty long time to be alive in a sport that puts one's life on the line. 3. Both sides agree with the consequences My opponent will bring such things as \"it's unethical! \" or \"killing and/or injuringing someone is a crime! \" etc. However, While most cases of injury and killing ARE indeed unethical, in this case, it is not. Because they are WILLING gladiators, there are a whole different set of rules with this. The police don't arrest people who failed at suicide for attempted murder. They have the right to their own body. However, the suicide analogy is going to be wrecked by opponent if I do not add that because gladiators sign over the right to their bodies--they are WILLING, remember. They are not hurt against their will, they as gladiators, accept that their line of work is potentially deadly and life-threatening. *** I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments. *** Bibliography: [1] . http://www.nytimes.com... [2] . http://www.correctionalnews.com... [3] . http://www.news4jax.com... , . http://www.hrw.org... [4] . http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov... [5] . http://video.msnbc.msn.com... [6] . http://www.kwch.com... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] . http://bleacherreport.com... [9] . http://www.nytimes.com... [10] . http://www.cbc.ca... [11] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] . http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Gladiator Battles should be Legal", "pid": "51e5d59b-2019-04-18T18:18:46Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.22816467285156}, {"text": "I accept", "title": "The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.", "pid": "1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.0066680908203}, {"text": "The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.", "title": "The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.", "pid": "1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.997314453125}, {"text": "Dog fighting is a type of blood sport generally defined as opposing two game dogs against one another in a ring or a pit, for the entertainment of the spectators or the gratification of the dogfighters. Please note that just because I think dog fighting should be legal, doesn't mean I think it is good.", "title": "Dog Fighting Should Be Legal", "pid": "528d0e3f-2019-04-18T13:10:45Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.98045349121094}, {"text": "Boxing will not only affect kids in school, but also for the rest of their lives. It will promote a,\"beat the crap out of everyone\"lifestyle. It will make kids first reaction to get angry and fight, so what happens when they marry and get a little angry? Child abuse, wife abuse, and even molestation can occur. It was proven in studies that people who box are 52.2% More likely to abuse their wives and children than people who dont box. It is a bad idea to have boxing in schools.", "title": "Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport", "pid": "c752a687-2019-04-18T14:10:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.9560546875}, {"text": "Thank you for the debate. 1. \"Dogs fight in the wild.\"- They fight in the wild to survive. Domesticated animals do not need to fight for \"fun\". Dog fights are held until one 'submits', which is usually death. 2. MMA has no relation to why dog fighting should be allowed. 3. \"(Rules) insure 'ensure' the saftey of the dogs...\" No, they don't. 4. \"If they don't want to fight they don't have to.\" Dogs don't reatain the mental capacity to choose whether or not to fight.", "title": "Dog fighting should be aloud", "pid": "b2030785-2019-04-18T19:02:29Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.88226318359375}, {"text": "Anyways, since you provided no arguments and no structure, I will just do a few arguments this round. On to debating! (ARGUMENTS) (1) Imagine that you were playing hockey, and you were skating up with the puck, when you get hit. Hard. You black out and wake up in the hospital, your career in Hockey over. The point I am making is that hockey is way too physical, which leads to many injuries. You are allowed to aggressively shove, slash and hit people in hockey with little to no penalty. You can get into a fight where you are only broken up after the fight occurs. Injuries come. A lot. I will post a few videos in this argument, so if you are squirmish, maybe don’t watch them. This first video shows a hit from Boston Bruins forward Zdeno Chara on Max Pacioretty of the Montreal Canadiens. Pacioretty goes down, In a lot of pain, with a concussion. This second one shows one of the all-time best hockey players get a concussion, which turned out to affect crosby for over half of a year {1} Last, but most likely the worst, was this: Imagine you are Steve Moore. He was your average hockey player. Then, one game, against Vancouver, his whole career ended. Todd Bertuzzi comes up to him and wants a fight. Steve Moore says no. A few minutes later, Bertuzzi comes up to Moore, grabs his jersey, viciously punches Moore in the face then shoves onto the cold, hard ice. As a result, Moore was knocked out cold for around 11 minutes. He got three fractured vertebrae and a very major concussion. His passion, career, and love for hockey was done. Over. This is all a result of the violent nature of hockey. Now this is just concussions/injuries from hits/on ice not fight stuff, but what about from fights? . http://www.nhl.com... In this video you will see he gets into a Soccer is not nearly as brutal as Hockey, while yes, I will not deny that there are injuries in Soccer, the severity of injuries and the amount of injuries are much higher in Hockey. Thanks DDD (REFERENCES) {1} . http://www.nhl.com...", "title": "Hockey is better than soccer", "pid": "cf884bca-2019-04-18T15:29:03Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.87948608398438}, {"text": "Start arguing in the 1st round, BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2.", "title": "You should vote for PRO in the topic, \"The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.\"", "pid": "5beb6949-2019-04-18T12:12:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.8267364501953}, {"text": "Contention 1: Public opinion I agree with my opponent that people usually tend to enjoy violence. Despite this, he ignores that 70% of soccer fans are happy with the way the sport is played, 15% disagree with the referee system and 5% disagree with other issues (1.000 people of different nationalities were questioned for this poll), this proves that very few fans support the resolution and therefore the negative is the one that has public opinion on it's side. I will repeat that if people want to see violence they can go to a wrestling match and if they want to see soccer they can go to a soccer match. Contention 2: Violence My opponent agrees with my point. He also states that children would in fact be encouraged to have fights in the playground I also agree. Finally he says that this is better than knifes and guns (???); this is irrelevant because soccer as we know it today does not promote gun usage etc, neither will gun usage nor knifes be limited because violence will be promoted, although the opposite is possible. Contention 3: Red Cards. My opponent says that we should let the sport evolve. His point is completely irrelevant to my contention that in a nutshell states that it would be hypocritical to ban players (red cards) who are violent and on the other hand give the win to the most violent team. Despite this, I will answer to his supposed counter argument. - I agree we should let the sport evolve, but we should let it evolve positively and promoting violence, going against public opinion and creating grudges between players is NOT positive. Contention 4: Grudges My opponent gives an example in failed attempt to counter my contention. I think we all remember what huge trouble the word cup incident caused to Manchester United, Ronaldo came close to leaving the club! All this turbulance occurred without there being an actual fight, we can imagine what would have happened to United and any other club in a similar position, if there was a fight. Contention 5: Penalties are thrilling My opponent starts by saying that penalties, effect fans with high blood pressure. In addition to this being a weak counter argument, I believe that a fight wouldn't really change the situation. He continues by saying that players like Joey Barton would be on the England squad. This is definitely not a good thing, one of the latest comments on the YouTube link my opponent provides is that Joey Barton is a bad example, I agree to this. Remember that the England national team is a SOCCER team and should have players who play SOCCER not people who fight, this is yet another problem of the affirmative, soccer would lose meaning, since clubs would hire fighters rather than football players. \"Soccer has a proud heritage of violence – football and hooliganism go together like salt and pepper – it's an integral part of the game and people that don't want to see violence can always watch cricket instead.\" - False, violence is NOT part of the game itself, because violent players and teams whose fans are violent are punished by the rules. As for hooliganism, it is definitely a bad thing and serious measures to stop it have been made. Those responsible for the game (FIFA) and tournaments, as well as the game itself object to violence. Therefore violence is not part of the game, to the contrary it something the game objects to.", "title": "International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties.", "pid": "a08e5384-2019-04-18T19:37:59Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.8153839111328}, {"text": "My position is that, as long as it is consentual and the persons involved are not impaired (by drugs, alcohol, or some form of mental handicap) when making the decision, all forms of human on human fighting should be legal.", "title": "Legalize Fighting", "pid": "db68a818-2019-04-18T18:44:52Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.796142578125}, {"text": "Again I apologize for failing to submit my second round argument. Here is my original, unaltered text I failed to submit: First point you made was that 1. Skating Expends more energy than running. Second 2. Body Checking. 3. Fights/slashing/checking. 4. More time spent actually participating in and playing the sport. It may seem as though skating uses more energy than running, but there are several aspects to inspect. Skating doesn't necessarily expend/use more energy than running. When you skate you are sliding in slippery ice with little friction allowing them race around the way they do. They may have to change directions frequently, but I comes down to how hard that individual is pushing himself not the skating. Second you mentioned was body checking. Body checking is indeed rough, but taking hits and tackling in football is also rough. In hockey, players cannot out as much behind their hits. Since they are on skates they cannot get the leverage that football players get. NFL players can dig their cleats in the turf and get their center of mass much lower, giving them leverage against the player they are attempting hit/tackle. Also, the average weight of a NHl player in 2013 was around 204 lbs. [1]. The average weight of an Nfl team was in between 240-250 lbs, making the player average about 245.[2] We all know, thanks to physics that more mass equals more power. Mass x Acceleration = Force. The more weight plus more leverage equals harder more rattling hits in the Nfl than in the NHL. 3. You claim that fights, slashing and penalties make the NHL harder than the NFL. While fighting is definitely something hard to do it isn't an integrated part of the game. It certainly happens, but not every single game, and not every single player. Players aren't required to fight, and aren't expected to, it is merely a side effect you may encounter in your NhL career. Illegal checks aren't something NFL doesn't have. The NHL has illegal checking, and the NFL has blindside hits on defenseless players. They each warrant penalties and can cause serious injury. Lastly, I will not deny that NHL players overall have more time playing and participating, although they do get frequent breaks with the different line changes as NFL players get breaks in between plays. I will use your point that they are indeed playing for a longer time to benefit my argument. In 2012 the NFL had 261 diagnosed concussions. On 2013 they had 228 diagnosed concussions. [3]. The NHL had in 2012, 78 concussions and in 2013, 53. [4]. The NFL players suffer many more concussions than NHL players even with a significant difference in the amount of time playing. The NFL players even have high tech specialized helmets that are much more safe than NHL helmets, but still suffer these crippling injuries. ACL and MCL injuries are also much more ore leant in the NFL. [1. http://m.theglobeandmail.com...] [2. http://sports.espn.go.com...]. [3. http://m.espn.go.com... 4. [http://www.cnn.com...] Here is my third round text. Your first point is hand eye co-ordination. This probably belongs in the physical aspect but nonetheless it is a point. I concede, hand eye coordination for NHL players is more difficult than NFL players, but not by a large difference as the NFL has its co-ordination difficulties as well. Your second point was criticism/pressure. NFL players are under an immensely more amount of pressure than NHL players. According to Espn the NFL is the most popular sport in the USA for the 30th year in a row. [1]. The NFL clearly has more fans than the NHL (which is a shame because the NHL is a great sport). More fans, more pressure, more media, more social media, less privacy. The NFL players are exploited by the media. They're every move is being watched by everyone. Take the Ray Rice case and Peterson case. They have caused so much publicity and critisicm towards the NFL and its players. Social media has contributed greatly to this fact as anything and everything travels at great speed to the corners of the Internet. Other players such as Tim Tebow and Johhny Manziel have been dissected by the media and country. Also, every NFL team is guaranteed only 16 games to be played versus the NHL which is more than triple that. Every NFL game gets more exposure and tuned into more because people have less chances to watch their hometown heroes play. Every play counts, unlike the NHL which has a lot more room for error. Consider the Super bowl. This past super bowl with the Seahawks versus the Broncos. It was watched by 111 million viewers, the most watched televised even in the history of television. [2]. Quite unlike the Stanley cup of 2014 which averaged 2.8 million a game. [3]. Your third point is that it not only takes physical but mental strength when you are \"checked, slashed, etc.\" this also applies to the NFL as they endure hard hits and penalties. They also endure taunting by opposing players which can be discouraging, but that varies player to player. Taunting is a lot more prevelant in the NFL than NHL. Lastly you said they must be mentally strong against losing and poor performance. This again can apply to many sports, but I believe even more so in football. With only 16 garnanteed games, there is no room for error. If you start out 0-4, your season won't look too well. Obviously it's possible to come back, but you will endure a lot of doubt from media/fans and doubt your own abilities. The NHL has 82 games per team. More than four times the amount in the NFL, you can start out 0-8 in the NHL and go on to win the Stanley cup. Start 0-8 in the NFL and your season is over. The NFL has a lot less room for error which can fry your nerves. Citation. 1. http://m.espn.go.com... 2. http://m.hollywoodreporter.com... 3. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...", "title": "NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football", "pid": "6c5cb143-2019-04-18T15:25:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.72840881347656}, {"text": "Since I've covered most of my points already I'll refute my opponents claims that mine are invalid then touch on some additional points: To begin my opponent claims I am incorrect that a shootout breakaway mimics a real life situation. He states that they have all day and go side to side. However, players usually start fairly quickly and only briefly slow for a move. If you care to take the time here is a shootout highlight video to view, entitled \"Top 10 NHL Shootout Goals Ever Seen\" {3} This video proves two of my points I stated in my previous argument. One, players do not just go side to side in all of these they go forward at a fairly quick pace. This is because the NHL rules state \"Once the player taking the shot has touched the puck, it must be kept in motion towards the opponent\"s goal line and once it is shot the play shall be considered complete.\" {4). Since you cannot stop forward momentum you cannot simply sift lazily from side to side, and this video shows this does not occur in the NHL like my opponent stated it does. Additionally, this video proves that the shootout creates excitement because the fans (provided its a home game) go crazy because these kinds of 1-on-1 battles create tension like my opponent said but with tension comes tremendous adrenaline and excitement; especially for the winner. So thank you, pensfan, for proving my point. Also, to briefly touch on the claim that the poll I provided does not matter, it does. While they may be retired nothing about the shootout has changed since then it was merely ten years ago. So why does their opinion not hold any water? Additionally, he stated: [and I'm paraphrasing] that because they are retired the opinions must have changed. Well, unlike my opponent I provided statistical proof that the opinion I am defending is a majority in the NHL. My opponent provided no proof that the opinion is different now, and unfortunately for him will have no chance to do so seeing as this is the last round. So to conclude and briefly add to my ultimate claim, the shootout should not be removed because it does create excitement regardless of the nature of said excitement, prevents risk of further exhaustion or injury [which is a topic my opponent never touched on], and is a fair way to break a tie in a timely fashion. Additionally, like penalty shootouts in soccer and the strange overtime rules in football, they may not be liked by everyone but they are traditional parts of the game and the NHL shootout has no major errors that make it worthy of removal. Vote CON. Additional Sources; {3} Video of Shootout; link listed above {4} http://www.usahockeyrulebook.com...", "title": "The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.", "pid": "1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.69241333007812}, {"text": "Debate impossible to accept. If you accept without my permission: You lose the debate, and automatically forfeit the whole debate to me. Wishing to accept, apply in comments. I am not letting someone will forfeit accept this debate. This will be a team debate.Team DebatePro1. yomama122. Con1. Fire_wings2. Hayd or EverlastingMomentResolution: Ban Violent Sports (Boxing)Rules1. No forfeiting, automatic loss2. No trolling3. No kritiks, semantics4. BoP is on Pro5. Definitons are arguable.6. Over 2500 ELO to voteStructure1. Rules/ Arguments2. Arguments/ Rebuttals3. Rebuttals/ Defense4. Defense/ WaivePro will make the definitons.Comment wanting to be my partner, or wanting to be my opponent.I want 5 judges, who are good at voting to vote on this debate. If you want to judge, tell me, and the people who want to judge, I will choose 5 people out of them to pick who should judge the debate.1. Famousdebater2. ColeTrain3. JOHNCENA17384.5.Thanks.", "title": "Team Debate: Ban Violent Sports", "pid": "5b92d463-2019-04-18T13:46:48Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.6378631591797}, {"text": "As a first step, professional boxing at least should be banned, as it is already in countries like Sweden, Cuba and North Korea. Even if adults wish to fight each other for sport, violence should not be encouraged by financial reward. The amateur sport is at least much better regulated, with credible governing bodies and tough rules on wearing helmets, the length of fights, the role of the referee, etc. Knock-outs are very rare and serious injuries much less common than in the professional game (although there are still deaths each year in amateur boxing).", "title": "As a first step, professional boxing at least should be banned.", "pid": "abf7ee52-2019-04-19T12:44:08Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 215.63223266601562}, {"text": "\"However, breakaways are a part of hockey as they are events that are seen happening in the game.\" Breakaways do happen in the game, but breakaways in a real game require the player to sprint. However, in the shootout, players usually are slower and it does not mimic an actual breakaway situation in regulation or overtime. One source I used said that \"However, when was the last time you saw someone weave into the zone on a breakaway, and take their sweet time going side to side as if they have all day? Never.\" \"The shootout is a quick way to determine a winner and is described by many hockey fans as the most exciting event in hockey.\" The shootout isn't described by many fans to be excitement, they describe it to be fear. For example, when the fans are watching their opponents shooting, they don't hope that their goaltender makes an acrobatic save; they hope that the opponents mess up or miss the net. \"The shootout in hockey, additionally, is not comparable to most of the things you mentioned because unlike the other examples a shootout mimics an exact situation that can be seen in hockey.\" Again, the shootout breakaway does not mimic an actual breakaway situation, it has a crucial difference. \"Returning to a perspective of a fan, as I am and assume you are, the shootout is exciting.\" Also, I am a fan too, but a shootout for me is the worst nightmare that I could have, it is fear. \"ESPN ran a player poll on the shootout, 70 percent of the players stated they liked the shootout.\" At first, I thought that I was stuck for good, but I was glad I checked your sources because I found out that the article you have is more than 11 years old. Most of these players have retired from hockey, and the opinions of the shootout could have changed. Therefore, your source is outdated and the NHL teams/players could have changed their opinion about the shootout. \"To continue to use how the players feel as backing would be a logical fallacy because the majority of players says otherwise.\" Again, the players' and goaltenders' opinions could have changed, and that they may dislike the shootout now. Your first reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that \"It provides a quick and fair ending to a physically imposing game.\" The shootout is not fair, as it is an event that does not replicate a real event in a game, as I have stated already. Your second reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that \"It is a showcase of skill and reaction for goalkeepers.\" The showcase of skill is also present in breakaways, which has the same skill requirements but is not exactly the same as the shootout. Breakaways are actually quite common during a game. Your third reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that \"It is a thrilling conclusion for ties and makes it more exciting for the fans.\" Wrong. Read what I already said about the \"false excitement\" that the shootout gives. Your last reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that \"The general consensus among players is that they are in favor of it.\" The source that you used to find this out, however, is outdated. Therefore, there is nothing good about the shootout, and it should not exist. Vote PRO. Sources: http://bleacherreport.com... http://thehockeywriters.com... https://www.thoughtco.com...", "title": "The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.", "pid": "1f504932-2019-04-18T12:16:43Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.59823608398438}, {"text": "My opponent is making some interesting points here, but who's to say that all prisons will react to boxing as Cereso Mexico Prison did. 0 or lesser violence you say? Boxing is one of the most violent sports in the world and isn't the only one that may help release anger. There are numerous other activities that could be introduced in Prison that could release as much anger as boxing does but does not cause as much injuries. Football, Basketball and other types of sports can release anger and help prison members make friends because they would be working in teams. Trouble that could be caused with boxing in Prison could be that the inmates may feel favouritism towards there opponents and see this as an opportunity to make enemies. Who knows what kind of mental condition any one of these prisoners may have, they might even want to seek revenge if they were to lose. If we introduce Boxing to prisoners and make it clear to them that it will help with anger and be a great solution to any situation then some may interpret this as a way that it is right to use violence and that is the only answer to all your problems and may take this thought with them even when they leave prison.", "title": "Boxing should be allowed in Prisons", "pid": "2e186eb1-2019-04-18T17:26:00Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.580810546875}, {"text": "I agree that football players should be able to fight because some teams call the wrong plays.", "title": "American Football Fighters", "pid": "5462614-2019-04-18T18:02:38Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.5226287841797}, {"text": "With many thanks to my esteemed opponent for his considered response, I should like to rebut his rebuttals as follows: 1 - Public opinion Au contraire, my friend. People love violence. People used to pack the Coliseum and other amphitheatres during the Roman Empire to watch gladiators kick each other's heads in. Has public opinion really changed that much in a mere 2,000 years? Or is it just that political correctness has meant that extreme violence is perceived to be in some way undesirable in today's society? After all, when it all kicks off outside a nightclub at closing time and a couple of blokes who have failed to pull in the dash-for-gash start knocking seven shades of **** out of each other to relieve their frustration, do you tut disapprovingly and walk on by, muttering things like \"I say, what disgraceful spectacle\" and \"utterly shocking behaviour, how perfectly ghastly\" or do you stop and egg them on by shouting \"aggro, aggro!\" and maybe sticking your own boot in every now and again? 2 – It is true that soccer players are role models for school kids and that fighting on the pitch might encourage boys to imitate them in the playground. This is a good thing, however. Much better than bringing knives or guns to school, surely? 3 - Red Cards. Soccer as a sport should be allowed to evolve. In 1823, a pupil at Rugby school picked up the ball during a soccer match and ran off with it and the opposing team chased after him, caught him and kicked his head in and this is how the sport of rugby football started. http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com... Similarly, when future international soccer matches end in a stalemate, wouldn't it be fun to see the game decided by means of a massive great punch up? 4 – Grudges You'd think that a huge scrap between players from the same club opposing each other in an international match would breed resentment between them, wouldn't you? I thought that Rooney would have kept his promise to split his Manchester United teammate Ronaldo in two when they returned to the club after the summer, but he didn't. He should have, but he didn't. 5 – Penalties are thrilling True, they are thrilling, but also nerve-wracking because of the uncertainty, which can be dangerous for fans with high blood pressure. Settling the matter by means of unmitigated violence would also mean that professional footballers such as Newcastle United's Joey Barton might get a place in the England squad. http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://uk.youtube.com... Soccer has a proud heritage of violence – football and hooliganism go together like salt and pepper – it's an integral part of the game and people that don't want to see violence can always watch cricket instead.", "title": "International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties.", "pid": "a08e5384-2019-04-18T19:37:59Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.51486206054688}, {"text": "Yes, pensfan3000", "title": "You should vote for PRO in the topic, \"The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.\"", "pid": "5beb6949-2019-04-18T12:12:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.51174926757812}, {"text": "I would first like to clarify the rules. Rule 1: There is 4 rounds, the first being the round that you can ONLY accept and define the rules of this debate . Rule 2: The last round is only for Rebuttals, and neither opponent can say ANY points in round 5. I hope everything is clear. Good Luck Darth. :)", "title": "Soccer is a better sport than Hockey", "pid": "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 215.50303649902344}, {"text": "However, my opponent is clearly an adept debater and is using his formidable powers of persuasion to appeal to your sense of propriety. Don't be fooled, though, he is trying to convince you that post-match violence is actually undesirable in some way, when, in reality it would be fair and fun. Let's be clear, fighting is a far better way to settle a game than penalties and I will rebut his rebuttals to demonstrate this as follows: 1 – Public Opinion My opponent referred to a survey (though did not name it or provide a link), which suggested that public opinion might be against extra-time tussles. It may be true that my idea is ahead of its time but I believe that if FIFA introduced a pilot scheme to test the fans' reaction to my proposal, the response would be favourable. Why? Because you get to watch a soccer match and, should it end in a stalemate, you get the bonus of a big dust-up between the players afterwards. I also dispute that people that enjoy violence should go to watch wrestling – that's all scripted and choreographed – it's not real fighting. If you want to watch real, hardcore violence, you are better off hanging around outside the pubs in southeast London at closing time on a Friday night (come wearing body armour by the way). 2 – Violence It is true that soccer players do not directly promote the use of weapons, perhaps in the same way as gangster rappers or the NRA do, but some players such as former Wimbledon hardman, Vinnie Jones, have promoted guns through glamorising them in films such as Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. . http://www.imdb.com... Nevertheless, I still contend that boys will want to emulate their footballing heroes in the playground by engaging in conventional fights rather than relying on a weapon to do their violent bidding for them. 3 – Red Cards I disagree that to red card a player for violent conduct during normal and extra time but to allow it in the period immediately following would be in any way contradictory. Take a boxing match. During the round, the opponents are expected to knock seven bells out of each other, but at the end of the round they must stop fighting and return to their respective corners – any boxer that punched his opponent's lights out after the bell had gone would not be awarded points, he would receive a warning. 4 – Grudges My opponent used Christiano Ronaldo as an example of a player who took a hissy fit like a petulant little girl after his confrontation with Rooney, even though it was him that started it and it was Rooney that got sent off as a result. Fortunately, however, most players are not total, unmitigated scum like Ronaldo and will accept that the post-match fight is just part of the game and shake hands afterwards. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Ronaldo, by the way, he has a website dedicated to him: . http://www.freewebs.com... 5 – Penalties are thrilling. I wouldn't suggest starting Barton, rather keep him on the bench and bring him on as a sub if it looks like the game is going to end in a draw. Remember, the fights will only take place on those rare occasions where the match is all-square, even after extra time is played, so the manager will still be inclined to pick players rather than fighters for the starting line-up. My opponent mentioned that soccer violence is currently frowned upon and is punished both on the pitch and in the crowd. True, but what I am saying is that football is a physical game and it arouses a great deal of passion amongst both the players and supporters and violence is in the spirit, heritage, culture and tradition of the sport. I say it's time the rules were revised to accommodate that in a controlled environment.", "title": "International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties.", "pid": "a08e5384-2019-04-18T19:37:59Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.47560119628906}, {"text": "All of the claims you've brought at this point are coming out directly from you. I you got no source to back up what you said, then its regarded as false, simple. If you're so sure that America needs sports that haves people fights to the death, then bring a source. If you got no source, you're basically wasting our time.", "title": "Fights to the death in an arena should be legal", "pid": "4ddcd82e-2019-04-18T18:56:07Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.46759033203125}, {"text": "How do we define violent sports? The word 'violent' is very subjective in and of itself, so how can we define what is violent and what isn't? Suppose we say American football and ice hockey is 'violent'. We must remind ourselves that in both of these sports, all players wear a significant amount of safety gear, which is getting better by the day, and there are many rules in place to prevent severe violence or injury. It is probably better for children playing these sports to break them earlier in their lives- bones will be much quicker to heal in their youth. Because of the safety equipment's prices, many families who play these sports are typically at least in the middle class, and can afford the medical expenses associated with this. If proper procedure is taken medically, such as casts and slings, there is no long-term damage to the bone. Also, at younger ages, kids are slower and have worse hand-eye coordination. As such, it is very unlikely to see severe injuries in younger sports leagues. The danger comes more at the ages my opponent has provided, 12 to 14, where there has been significant athletic and muscle development and kids are faster and stronger than they were. Ultimately, the ages should stand as they are currently.", "title": "At which age should young adults be to play violent sports", "pid": "a779bd19-2019-04-18T15:32:40Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.43930053710938}, {"text": "I appreciate Pro's arguments and the citations he brings forward to support them, though I find more than a few troubling spots here. So, to start, I think I need to take a step back from the line by line and address a couple of overarching issues that I see with your responses and arguments. To start, I need to get into this issue of morality and thoroughly address it. I appreciate that my opponent questions my perspective on morality, as it is often subjective. However, my view is that there are objectively sound moral values. I think we can all agree on at least two fronts as to what is moral: we should value life, and we should value the quality of that life. If Pro has a problem with either of those being standards by which we judge a moral harm or a moral benefit, then he may express them in his next post. Social acceptability doesn't affect this. The relative value of life that some people attributed to slaves in the past doesn't change the moral importance of that life in any time frame based off of these two principles. They chose to ignore the importance of life and its quality, but that doesn't make it less objective. Secondly, this this argument of hypocrisy, which seems to be a common thread in Pro's arguments. I'll make a stand here and now: I don't condone much of what Pro has stated as being similar in his arguments. Sports aimed at injury that lack appropriate protective measures for those involved should also be banned, since they are also blood sport. Hence, boxing is a blood sport. Football is not. I could refer to all the specific instances my opponent brings up, but the main distinction as I see it between what is and is not blood sport isn't the level of violence involved, it's any sport that is meant to cause bloodshed. That's all that's required, and I can take a stance against all of it in this debate and not show the hypocrisy you're discussing. The other portion of your hypocrisy argument is that other options are worse for these dogs. I have multiple contentions against this argument. One, stray or feral is still better than in a ring fighting with other dogs without consent. At least in these situations, the dogs in question have a measure of autonomy to their lives. Being thrown into a ring to fight other dogs is no such thing. Two, putting a dog down is still better than being thrown into a ring. At least in these cases, they don't suffer through grievous injuries and multiple fights (I'll get to the links on that on the line by line). I would argue that this continuous loss of quality of life, with almost certain early death included, is worse. Three, I can be against all of these things at once. I can be against the system that utilizes puppy mills to make purebred dogs for sale, which is a large part of the reason why so many people don't adopt. I can be against euthanizing so many dogs and advocate for more money to the Humane Society and other related organizations. I can also be against the way people treat feral dogs, which leads them to being aggressive. We need not pretend that these are absolutes. I want to dig further into this feral vs. domestic argument, though. Realize that Pro is arguing that it's fine to breed and train dogs for violent behaviors, but leaving some of them to acquire those natures in the wild is harmful. The only situation in which a dog is certain to become violent and aggressive is when they're trained to do so. Thirdly, we have this argument regarding legalization being a better alternative. I've already stated on the first point that legalized blood sport isn't moral. Blood sport is blood sport, whether it's regulated or not, and it should be spurned. There are two main problems with the transition from illegal to legal. The first major problem is that it invites more people into dog fighting? Why? It increases the number of people who will bet on it by availability, and improves access, making it easier to get into and more widespread. Beyond that, even if there is some benefit to dogs involved in this fighting, society as a whole needs to take a stand against blood sport like this. I'd make a slippery slope argument here, but on a basic level, this is just plunging us into a moral abyss, saying that we're OK with activities we recognize as harmful to the rights of animals. No amount of regulations will make this completely safe and still allow the practice in any similar form to what it is now. So we would be accepting legalized animal abuse. We don't allow people to beat in their own homes, but suddenly, we will allow them to throw their animals into a ring to attack each other for a live crowd? I'll get into the harms of this more on my final point. But let's get into the arguments proper. 1. I can protest overcrowded prisons, the extent of homelessness, and the way veterans are treated and still protest dog fighting. It's neither arbitrary nor hypocritical \" I'm saying these are all harmful, this is just the topic we're discussing now. I don't see this sort of protest as a waste of resources either. These examples are all related to human beings, and while they should be addressed, animal rights should not be shelved to do so. Their lives matter too. I would also like to know exactly who Pro thinks will be running dog fighting if it were legalized. Are you suggesting that criminals suddenly going to drop their enterprises because it's legal? Or are you instead suggesting that there are legal enterprises that have been waiting for this moment and would be happy to take it up themselves? Both seem relatively unlikely, especially when criminals can suddenly run legit with larger audiences and more bets. I doubt they'll be outcompeted, and therefore criminal enterprises will only grow. On death - First, death isn't the only outcome we should care about. Injury is practically guaranteed, and is often permanent. Many dogs could develop terrible infections, lose the use of a limb or be mentally damaged. Second, dogs do often die of blood loss, shock, dehydration, exhaustion, or infection hours or even days after the fight.[1] Numbers are difficult to find, but some have been pursued.[2] Approx. 250,000 dogs in fighting pits nationwide. We can't possibly know how many have died from these fights, as they haven't been documented, but every single one of them gets injured, and many die. It doesn't matter if its hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands. Those lives matter. Third, though Pro didn't respond to them, I did make several arguments about their abuse outside of the ring (which can also lead to death), their being killed when they can no longer fight, and the loss of bait animals, which are taken from loving homes and always killed. 2. Pro refers to instances where dogs are treated well outside the ring. I'd like to point out that he doesn't cite this argument, and it's not at all realistic. As I pointed out in my initial argument, sending these animals into the ring makes them a commodity. It's no different than the cruelty that results from horse racing, where horses that don't make the grade are slaughtered for meat or enter a downward spiral of neglect.[3] 3. I've already responded to these arguments. What we currently accept isn't a reason to accept this. 4. This response was given in the comments, but yes, it is more wrong. Nature is messy, but that doesn't mean we have to actively participate in doing this. And since, in this case, it's not being used for food to feed a wild animal and instead just to showcase the dogs' violent tendencies, it's incredibly senseless. What's more, when you say in your own post how important it is that dogs have a good home, and yet ignore the fact that these animals often do have a good home, you're contradicting the importance of that home life. 5. Similarly in the comments, I'd say that any of the consent issues you're discussing here are very different from the ones seen in dog fighting. None of these thrust dogs into dangerous situations. None of them force injury upon them. None of them commoditize that animal based on its fighting capacity. Consent is an issue in all of these cases, but there's a different level of harm, and each of these cases simply involve the issues of cohabitation rather than issues of money. 6. You left this one out. Desensitized children engage in more animal cruelty and violence against humans. Those with a history of animal cruelty often engage in spousal abuse and child abuse.[4] This is not small, and legalizing furthers this problem, desensitizing the entire nation to these harms by condoning them. 1. http://www.humanesociety.org... 2. http://www.orangecountyfl.net... 3. http://www.animalaid.org.uk... 4. http://www.humanesociety.org...", "title": "Dog fighting (See initial argument)", "pid": "705c612-2019-04-18T16:50:44Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.35247802734375}, {"text": "Thank you for the debate. According to animal laws, there should be a humane treatment of animals, and that is why dog fighting should not be allowed. As a sophisticated society, we Americans do not force other creatures to harm themselves for profit entertainment. We kill them from nessecity, not barbaristic fun. http://www.americanhumane.org...", "title": "Dog fighting should be aloud", "pid": "b2030785-2019-04-18T19:02:29Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.32330322265625}, {"text": "Prove what? Death matches would be awesome. I would like something to debate with, opponent, so actually come up with a claim because I have already made mine.", "title": "Fights to the death in an arena should be legal", "pid": "4ddcd82e-2019-04-18T18:56:07Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.28863525390625}, {"text": "Hockey is also better then tennis becuase hockey players are tougher then tennis players. you dont see tennis players taking out there teeth on the bench then countinue playing the game. Here is a video of Dupuis pulling out one of his teeth during a game. http://www.youtube.com... the game he was interviewed and said that he would try to put his tooth back in when he got home.... himself. The new rules that they make for hockey are for safty reasons. They dont change any rules for tennis becuase they only have to be worried about getting hit with the ball. Were in hockey your being slamed into the boards and the ice and have to worry about getting hit with a hard fast flying peice of rubber. Hockey is a tough contact sport. Some players just cant learn to control themselves (look at the nasty flyers for example). they hit players with an illegal check (when the player makes the hit and they can only see the number of the person there hitting against the boards) those are cheap shots by dirty players. its nearly impossible for a hockey team to go a whole season without an injury, its pretty much expected for players to get injured when theres as much contact as there is. in tennis there is no contact, the players cant hit eachother. There is more action in hockey then tennis. in tennis theres 2 people hitting a ball back and forth. in hockey there are a total of 12 players on the ice at a time ( 3 offense, 2 defense, 1 goaly for each team) and there always moving.", "title": "Tennis is better than hockey", "pid": "e57a60bb-2019-04-18T17:03:57Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.25408935546875}, {"text": "I am Pro, and I will be arguing that Ice hockey is better than Hockey.Leggo:Since the first round is for definitions, I’d like to provide some.DefinitionsIce Hockey - A fast contact sport played on an ice rink between two teams of six skaters, who attempt to drive a small rubber disk (the puck) into the opposing goal with hooked or angled sticks. It developed in Canada in the 19th century [1. tinyurl.com/6p959ln]Hockey - A sport played on a hard surface in which two opposing teams of roller skaters, using curved sticks, try to drive a ball into the opponents' goal (i.e. roller hockey) [2. tinyurl.com/7q7act7]Better - Greater in excellence or higher in quality [tinyurl.com/7232uaq] Contention 1: Ice hockey is more exciting. Ice hockey employs many of the beautiful, thrilling, and scintillating moves possible only on low-friction surfaces, such as ice. The smooth surface of the ice allows for more versatile skating, which is essential for exciting game-play and athletic challenges. The sport uses the ice as a dynamic factor in its physical competition exhibitions on which amazing tricks are performed, skate paths are undulated, and the thirst for victory hangs in the balance like the sweet breath of angels. Ice hockey uses checking, which involves hitting another player’s body with yours. It is really exciting, because of the primal athletic aggression it unleashes; the fans love it as well. Ice hockey uses a puck, a flat cylinder of rubber, as the disk with which scoring requires. The puck is perfectly suited to the sport, because of its stable nature on the ice and the thrilling sound of the slapshot. The rolling ball as used in hockey is a banal, incongruous object to be used in the sport, as it makes passing, scoring, and general play awkward and disappointing. It’s as if someone brought golf into the sport, which instantly makes it less exciting. The puck is also more easily manipulated by the player in ice hockey, allowing for more exciting scoring opportunities and more creative shots. The challenge of deflecting these shots is much more difficult for the goalie in ice hockey than the goalie in hockey, because the puck has a slimmer profile, is moving faster with less air resistance, and is more difficult to block, enhancing the shooting experience.Therefore, ice hockey is more exciting because of the dynamic qualities of ice skating, the perfect object of play: the puck, and the creative play and goals (see the video for exciting and creative goals).Contention 2: Ice hockey is more popular than hockey. Ice hockey has more spectators in the NHL than in every single country’s roller hockey league combined. Ice hockey also has higher participation, more rinks, and a better societal image than roller hockey. Roller hockey is accompanied by a social stigma of nerdiness and awkwardness. The participants of roller hockey are even looked down upon by their familial sport neighbors, ice hockey. Ice hockey is known, watched, played, respected, and valued more than roller hockey.Contention 3: Ice Hockey is actually safer than hockey. Fewer common injuries occur in ice hockey than in roller hockey, largely due to the surface the game is played over. It is basic physics: friction is the resistance that one surface or object encounters when moving over another. The higher the friction on a hard surface, the more intense the impact when one falls. That’s why more concussions, broken bones, and fractures occur in roller hockey than in ice hockey. When a skater falls in ice hockey, much of the force of his impact is displaced into movement in a particular direction. Even ice skaters voluntarily fall and slide along the ice’s surface during performances to increase the aesthetic experience and variety in their routines. Now, if someone were to voluntarily fall and slide along a roller rink, he must be a masochist.Therefore, with a basic understanding of friction and force, we are led to the common sense conclusion that ice hockey is safer than hockey.It is for all of the previously stated reasons that the resolution is affirmed.Thanks for reading and debating :Dhttp://www.youtube.com...", "title": "Ice hockey is better than Hockey", "pid": "1568e11-2019-04-18T18:25:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.2486572265625}, {"text": "sorry I forgot to outline the rounds and i meant boxing in general (gym and after school). I feel it is wrong to allow them to play rugby which you sprint at other people and slam into them but ban boxing. you can get hurt much more in rugby with broken bones and being trodden on by studded boots and people see that as fine but with boxing if you control the power of your punch and where proper protection it should be reasonably safe. I understand that there is a degree of risk in every sport.", "title": "children should be allowed to box in school.", "pid": "f1c64e5b-2019-04-18T14:02:33Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.24798583984375}, {"text": "The debate will start at Feburary 25th. Remeber, that does not mean that you start to construct your arguments at the 25th, it just means that we start the debate, so you can construct your arguments and proofread them all times.Because someone accepted this, I will make it clear. Debate impossible to accept. If you accept without my permission: You lose the debate, and automatically forfeit the whole debate to me. Wishing to accept, apply in comments. I am not letting someone will forfeit accept this debate. This will be a team debate.Team DebatePro1. yomama122. LostintheEcho1498 Con1. Fire_wings2. Hayd Resolution: Ban Violent Sports (Boxing)Rules1. No forfeiting, automatic loss2. No trolling3. No kritiks4. BoP is on Pro5. Definitons are arguable.6. Over 2500 ELO to voteStructure1. Rules/ Arguments2. Arguments/ Rebuttals3. Rebuttals/ Defense4. Defense/ WaivePro will make the definitons.Comment wanting to be my partner, or wanting to be my opponent.I want 5 judges, who are good at voting to vote on this debate. If you want to judge, tell me, and the people who want to judge, I will choose 5 people out of them to pick who should judge the debate.1. Famousdebater2. ColeTrain3. JOHNCENA17384. dynamicduodebaters5. Probably donald.keller or whiteflame.Thanks. My opponent will be yomama12", "title": "Team Debate: Ban Violent Sports", "pid": "5b92d482-2019-04-18T13:45:58Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.24024963378906}, {"text": "Thank you for taking a part in this and for having much respect. I assume you play soccer because you seem to write more and be most passionate about it, but that is just an assumption. In soccer, the goalie may have to leave his small box to play the ball. But the hockey goaltender must do the same to play the puck. And as the goal may be 4x the size if an Nil size, the ball is 10x bigger than a puck. The puck can be tipped, there can be multiple passes before a shot, the goalie can be screened and the goalie can be hit by another player, which may be illegal but is rarely called by referees. In football, what I meant by they aren't on the field all the time is that if your a quarterback, your not going to be on the field when the defense is on the field. Baseball, the pitcher does need to choose the perfect pitch, but they have about a minute to do so. The hockey goalie must do the equivalent but in a split second Dance, dance is mostly a team sport where no body contributes the most. And if it is a single dancer, when they make a mistake, they cant be pulled and humiliated, they get to keep going on Wrestling, just so we are clear, we are talking about cage fighters and not that fake wwe stuff right, that being said, fists and kicks don't hurt as bad as a puck to the groin. Plus, id like to see a wrestler skate with that much pads on. On the armless ping pongers, I give them many applauds since I know I couldn't do it, but its still not that different id they're playing everyone like that. The goaltender may not be as important as you say, but it is the most difficult there is since all goalies must use the Same size net from mini mights to beer league, all goalies must skate which does not apply to any other sport. Finally all goalies must have some of the greatest hand eye coordination there is. Because unlike baseball players. If they miss the puck, its a goal. So I ask you this, if the hockey goaltender isn't the most difficult position in sport, then who is.", "title": "The ice hockey goaltendee is the most difficult position in all of sport", "pid": "231c59cf-2019-04-18T16:12:26Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.21849060058594}, {"text": "Debate impossible to accept. If you accept without my permission: You lose the debate, and automatically forfeit the whole debate to me. Wishing to accept, apply in comments. I am not letting someone will forfeit accept this debate. This will be a team debate. Dude, you could have forfeited round 1! Because if you accept without my permission, you lose.", "title": "Team Debate: Ban Violent Sports", "pid": "5b92d463-2019-04-18T13:46:48Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.21310424804688}, {"text": "Boxing makes violence look cool.", "title": "Boxing Should Be Banned", "pid": "abf7ee52-2019-04-19T12:44:08Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.21266174316406}, {"text": "Theoretically, sure. But I'm asking you if you can find any real-world examples of this. The nose argument is fallacious because in both football and ice hockey players wear helmets with metal face guards.", "title": "At which age should young adults be to play violent sports", "pid": "a779bd19-2019-04-18T15:32:40Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.2014617919922}, {"text": "A few things to clarify:I will be arguing that dogfighting should be legal Dogfighting is a type of bloodsport in which (generally) you oppose two game dogs against each other in a ring or a pit for the entertainment of the spectators or the gratification of the dogfighters. Although I am not entirely FOR dogfighting, I believe it should be legal.", "title": "Dogfighting should be legal", "pid": "bacefc52-2019-04-18T11:07:59Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.1690216064453}, {"text": "Just because hockey is played in the olympic games doesnt mean that football isnt popular. It isnt played the Olympic games because its an American sport and once again we have been arguing AMERICAN popularity. Also the Stanley Cup is televised just as much as the Superbowl but people just dont watch it as much. Have you considered this, that most of the people who play in the NHL are mostly from outside our country? Because of this, it shows that in the US not many people play hockey over football which is why the popularity is down in the US. Internationally hockey is way more popular than football but once again we are talking about the US. I myself am a hockey fan and enjoy the game because of its toughness and athletism it takes to play the game but to say that it is more popular than football isnt a fair judgement. As for the rule changes that the NFL has been coming too, the league is just trying to limit the amount of head injuries that are causing men to suffer alot of brain damage because of how physical the game of football is. Your right that it is a privelige to play in the NFL but why risk causing life threathing injuries over vicious hits that are completely illegal. To say that it is becoming a \"touch football league\" it is completely un-jusitfied because these head injuries shouldnt be nessessary and jeopardizing the lives of people. There are plenty of hard LEGAL hits in the NFL that show how physical of a game it is and always will be. Also, most of the rule changes in the NFL are just to protect the quarterback which i might say is something a little childish to the quarterbacks and favoring them a little bit but still doesnt take away from still being the most physical sport.", "title": "Hockey is a better sport than football.", "pid": "311797b5-2019-04-18T18:26:30Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.15960693359375}, {"text": "Time for the rebuttals :) Starting at the top Longer games Longer games can be enjoyable if there is a lot of action. There is not much action in soccer compared to hockey. In hockey you are watching a game that is constantly in motion. No matter what position you play you are always moving. A soccer game can get boring after an hour of watching men/woman running back and forth with a ball, kicking it out of bounds and having to throw it back in. Break times/ toughness Hockey players are on the ice 35-45 seconds at a time because while they are on the ice they are constantly moving. If you were to watch a game of hockey, you would notice that while a player is on the ice they are never standing still. They are always skating from one end of the ice to the other. Soccer players might play longer shifts, but that is because they are not constantly in motion. To add to the fact of how tough hockey players are. When you see a soccer player get injured (or pretty much any sports player) you see them lay on the ground until they are taken off by stretcher or helped off. In hockey, the players get up and skate off on there on. The only time you will not see that happen is if they are knocked out. Here is an example. Last season, Paul Martin, who plays for the Pittsburgh Penguins, broke the upper part of his leg. He skated to the bench and sat down to wait for his next shift. He did not realize his leg was broken until he stood up for his next shift and felt the bone move. Another example would be Clint Malarchuk. During a game he had his jugular vein cut by a skate. He refused to get on the stretcher. He skated off the ice on his own. ( he lived) the link to the video is below. If you don't like the sight of blood DON'T WATCH. Easiness to learn Soccer might be easy to learn, but that takes the talent level out of it. Everybody knows how to run and kick a ball. It is very simple. But not everyone knows how to skate or or how to stickhandle. The fact that not a lot of people can do this makes it even more fascinating to watch. You are watching people do things that not everyone can do. Injuries Hockey might have a lot of injuries, but that is just part of the sport. That is how you know that hockey is much tougher then soccer. Occasionally you get players like Todd Bertuzzi who are way to violent ( i guess that's how i could put it without using colorful language :) ) those players are punished with suspensions from the games ( sometimes the rest of the season, and on one occasion a guy was kicked out of the NHL) and heavy fines. Take Shawn Thornton for example. He was suspended for 15 games ( should of been longer) for coming up behind Brooks Orpik, knocking him to the ice and punching him. (knocking him out). He also forfeited $84,615.45 in salary. Faking an injury is worst then the real thing. When you fake an injury you are wasting every ones time, and not to mention making a full of yourself. Goalies It takes more talent and accuracy for a hockey player to score a goal then it does a soccer player. Goalies are very flexible and also take dives. Just watch a game and you will see. They often go into the butterfly position which is like a split, and occasionally go down into a full split. Goalies have a lot of skills ( and guts) to be able to stop a puck moving at 95-118 mph. Plus being able to keep an eye on the small puck and knowing were it is every second of the game. A lot of hockey players use black tape so it is harder for the goalie or any other players to see the puck on the stick. Soccer goalies do not move that much either. And the ball is much easier to spot then a puck. http://espn.go.com...", "title": "Hockey is better than soccer", "pid": "cf884bab-2019-04-18T15:50:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.0996551513672}, {"text": "Dmetal has forfeited his round it seems.", "title": "Fights to the death in an arena should be legal", "pid": "4ddcd82e-2019-04-18T18:56:07Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.0914764404297}, {"text": "Welcome, I negate the resolution that fighting of all sorts should be legalized as long as there are no mental impairments. 1. That's essentially legalizing murder. How you ask? For instance folks may not know when to stop. The fighting could include guns (as you said \"all forms of human on human fighting should be legal\") 2. People are stupid, as in other aspects of life, without government protection, some people would falter. 3. You may not know what your getting yourself into: A fight happens, one man is losing so he pulls out a concealed gun, boom dead. I await my opponents response.", "title": "Legalize Fighting", "pid": "db68a818-2019-04-18T18:44:52Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.0856170654297}, {"text": "I believe that if someone is going to fight and someone knows about it then that person should not tell a teacher or a authority figure. Because all they will do is get involved. It is not there position to handle it. The people that are going to fight should He able to. Because either way , it will be handled. Whether it is in school or outside of school. People will always be looking for you Ecspecially in this generation. It is better to duke it out then be worried about getting shot by their friends or something. It is way better to handle it in school and get suspended then out of school where way worse can happen to you.", "title": "Fighting", "pid": "90232b-2019-04-18T17:52:46Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.07644653320312}, {"text": "YAY! THE FUUUUN PART. Ok. Here: I would like to point out that you did not refute all of my points. “Hockey is a faster sport.” (the whole point) Pensfan states facts about how it is literally faster moving. Alright, I agree, hockey is faster, however, that does not make it better. In fact, it makes it worse! Faster players mean harder collisions. Imagine two players, going “over 30 mph” (Pensfan’s figures.) That is a 60 mile collision. Enough to knock them both onto the hard ice, and that could possibly give them serious injuries. Concussion? Possible. Broken bones? Possible. Blood? Almost guaranteed. Where as in soccer, again I will use your figures, the collision would be two “20 mph” people colliding. Maybe make them stumble? Fall? But no broken bones, no concussion, and maybe a tiny bit of blood. That’s all. Also, a stumble on to grass is cushioned, but a fall onto hard, hard ice, is already enough you give you a concussion. Faster pucks mean obviously harder hits if the puck hits you. I admit, a soccer ball can hit you hard and MIGHT cause an injury. If a puck hits you though, again your figure, at “105 mph”, that is SURE to give you an injury. Take a peek at this video: OOF! The guy even has a visor on. That shows that in hockey, they need protection from all the flying pucks. But that protection doesn’t even work properly! Lastly, if the play is moving around so fast, it is hard to track that extremely fast puck. Imagine trying to follow the puck from here: http://upload.wikimedia.org... Hard Eh? Toughness from round 2: “A recent ESPN study concluded that ice hockey is the most demanding team sport in the world.” COMPLETELY FALSE! Here is evidence that ESPN did the study and said that “he toughest sport in the world is . . .Boxing.” Source? Here: http://sports.espn.go.com... My opponent is LYING! So judges, this should be enough evidence as it is. BUT, I shall continue. Toughness is not always good. Remember we are debating the best sport in general, not just the professional version of it. It Hockey, I agree, you need to be tougher, but is that a good thing? If you have to be durable, then that kinda shuts down the door for the people who are not tough enough doesn’t it? So if the professionals are tough, that doesn’t mean everyone is strong to absorb a check does it? Uh….you are Pro, right? You have the point about hard Hockey is. For those who are 4, learning to play, easier is way better. If it is harder it narrows the window for playing hockey a lot for only the people who are the strongest and the best. Pretty narrow, eh? Toughness from round 3: Soccer players usually play 45 minutes in a row while hockey players go off and on in shifts of 60 seconds. Soccer fields are bigger and and are not on ice, making the running bit much more difficult. “A large field, a fast moving ball, and rare substitutions mean soccer players can expect to log some heavy mileage over 90-plus minutes. Midfielders tend to run the most, sometimes reaching nearly 9.5 miles” Tackles and spiked shoes are quite painful, so soccer players are durable as well. To doubt the toughness of soccer players is intellectually dishonest. “Embellishment” Diving, really? http://bleacherreport.com... That is 15 different dives in hockey. Ever heard of Claude Lemieux? A little outdated, but still hilarious. Players dive in both soccer and hockey. Deal with it. People cheat all the time, hockey, soccer, debates, board games, cheating is no reason to say one sport is better than another. Accuracy: May I point out that Hockey players use a stick that has been designed to be as accurate as possible, while soccer players only use their feet? If hockey players spent their time kicking a puck then we could compare the two, but the whole purpose of the hockey stick IS TO BE ACCURATE! It is almost rigged. Time: Alright, fine perhaps most soccer games are longer than hockey games, but in the NHL playoffs if the game is 0-0 then the game will continue for as long as it needs to until a goal is scored, meaning that the LONGEST HOCKEY GAME IS LONGER THAN THE LONGEST SOCCER GAME. Also, imagine you are a fan of Soccer, or a fan of Hockey. Would you rather get the average game time of 90 minutes of watching your favorite team or would you rather have less time watching your favorite team. What’s more, you pay money for tickets. It’s better value for you ticket to see a longer game. Scorring: Again, I agree with you, there are more goals in hockey, but hockey goals are worth less than soccer goals. Why? It’s easier to score in hockey than it is to score in soccer. Another example is racing. There are more passes in indie races than F1, but F1 passes are more valuable. Skill: Um, no. Hockey players use a tool. IT’S CALLED A HOCKEY STICK. Soccer is difficult as well, I mean, on average soccer players run 7 miles in agame! That takes alot of skill. Out of Bounds. “Averages Offsides: 16 Icings: 9 Goals: 5 Penalties: 5 TV Timeouts: 12 Incidental stoppages: 34 (non-penalized skirmishes, puck leaving rink, puck frozen, etc)” That is a good amount of stoppages. Do remember that since according to you soccer games are longer, which means more stoppages. Alright, I am very tired, and a little lazy, but I think I have done a good job. Why we have won: We have provided sufficient evidence for our side We have successfully wrecked his points. He had false evidence. THANKS, DDD VOTE CON References (for the whole debate) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.urmc.rochester.edu...... http://articles.sun-sentinel.com...... https://ca.answers.yahoo.com...... https://www.youtube.com...... http://www.fifa.com...... https://www.youtube.com...; https://answers.yahoo.com...", "title": "Hockey is better than soccer", "pid": "cf884bab-2019-04-18T15:50:33Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.0301055908203}, {"text": "I will give a source for the percentage. I do not deny that that had happened to football players, as well as basketball. But it is a proven fact that things, like video games, can effect ones emotions and way of acting. It was shown in tests that even music effects ones emotions. Violent video games like Black Ops 1-3(I do play them)can and will effect ones emotions, and many have faced it. It even says on in the game,\"WARNING, extended play may influence ones emotions.\" Thought not all violence can relate to things like this. My sources~ https://www.wikipedia.org... http://www.aaas.org... https://www.google.com...", "title": "Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport", "pid": "c752a687-2019-04-18T14:10:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.01681518554688}, {"text": "My apologies, a giant Nazi duck attacked my house and I was busy and stuff. Even though Boxing is a dangerous sport but how dangerous? It's more of a gentlemen sport, you're talking about MMA being dangerous. And I do boxing, there are a lot of rules as well; It limits how dangerous it could. So far, you never presented any evidence whatsoever, against my argument. I mean even if we do introduce other activities such as Football, (One of the most dangerous sports) there still might be violence but I favor Boxing because people can release their anger on their opponent instead of doing it in the courtyard. You still have not provided evidence that they will take this outside but, the prisoners actually became interested in boxing and some of them actually joined boxing leagues. There were no reports of violence outside the prison, upon release after boxing.", "title": "Boxing should be allowed in Prisons", "pid": "2e186eb1-2019-04-18T17:26:00Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.98704528808594}, {"text": "1. Embellishment- In soccer there are many players who love to fake injuries, as you can tell from the video in my last argument. It is very rare to see that happen in hockey. When a player embellishes an injury they are given a penalty. Accuracy- Hockey players have better accuracy. Under NHL rules, the opening of the goal is 72 inches (6 ft ) wide by 48 inches (4ft ) tall. In soccer, the uprights are 8 yards, or 24 feet, apart and the lower edge of the crossbar is 8 feet above the ground. Now take the goalies and place them in the nets. In hockey you have a goalie at least 6 ft tall with pads on. That is covering almost every opening of the net. In soccer you have a goalie of about 5'11\" standing in a large net with many openings. However the average score in a soccer game is about 2 (depending on the team). In hockey the average score is about 4. Toughness - A recent ESPN study concluded that ice hockey is the most demanding team sport in the world. Durability is a quality that hockey players display perhaps, paradoxically, more than any other athletes. They play a sport that is more physically demanding than any other - 60 minutes in a confined area with no \"comfort zone\" out of bounds. Hockey is non stop action. Either you are rushing on a break, or hurrying back to get into your defensive zone. There is no time, especially in the NHL, where a player would really have the chance to catch their breath during a game. In hockey you are constantly moving your feet. There is no such thing as standing still while on the ice. Each period lasts is 20 minutes long and there are 3 periods in a game. There are only 2 intermissions which last about 15 minutes so they can clean the ice. Each game lasts about 2 1/2 to 2 hours. http://www.iihf.com... (this debate is only about soccer and ICE hockey. not field hockey)", "title": "Hockey is better than soccer", "pid": "cf884b8c-2019-04-18T15:50:31Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.98193359375}, {"text": "... is naughty.", "title": "fighting", "pid": "9d267b6a-2019-04-18T14:46:26Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.9710693359375}, {"text": "I will again start by refuting my opponents points then giving some of my own. Refute/Rebuttal My opponent desperately tried to think of ways he could stop a possible rebut that I might possibly say, yet failed to discern one thing. You know why there are less shots in soccer? Because defense plays way, way better, and has way more players so it is hard for an attacker to score in soccer. In Hockey there is only 2 defense that in some cases are complete flops. This is not to say that soccer defense players can not flop, they definitely can, BUT they have more players to back them up! Also, my opponent stated that Hockey is more of a \"Team Sport\". Well, in soccer you have an average of 420 passes per game. How is that not a team sport? And, if you want more of a \"Team Sport\", saying that having more shifts and different players does not make it more of a team sport but instead just switches the player talent around. Also, if you wanted more of a team sport, wouldn't you want more of the team playing on the field/ice at the same sport? One more thing: REFS CATCH THE FAKERS IN SOCCER. The players learn that this ridiculous. Yes, the players where faking it, but refs see through it, and give them penalties for \"faking\". Anyways, back to the points!: Point #6: Injuries In any league of ice-hockey, there is many, many injuries, because of the physical play of hockey players. Concussions, broken bones, ribs injured and sprains are very often, which makes the game way more risky. These injuries come from the constant hitting and fighting in hockey, where as in soccer, if you check or rough anyone you are given a yellow or red card. Injuries in soccer are usually minor sprains. In hockey, big hits lead sometimes to a life-ending injury. In this next video, Lars Eller of the Montreal Canadians takes a really, really nasty hit (the video commentator is french but the point is still made): Scary Right? THAT\"S HOCKEY! Point #7 Goalies In Hockey, the Goalies are almost the size of the net, making it almost too easy for them to save a puck. They move rarely and have a very non-flexible job: SAVE THE PUCK. Where as in Soccer, as a Goalie, you have to dive for the ball, which takes skill, and in soccer, players kick the ball on spin so it is hard to read the play. Soccer goalies know this and have fine-tuned there skills to read plays. What's more, in soccer, the goalie has to boot the ball an incredible distance and they do it just fine. This goes to show that the Goalies in Soccer are way better. Thanks for this awesome debate, jacobie1121 :)", "title": "Soccer is a better sport than Hockey", "pid": "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.9654083251953}, {"text": "Only one more round till the best part: Rebuttals. :) Anyways, back to the points!: Point #6: Injuries In any league of ice-hockey, there is many, many injuries, because of the physical play of hockey players. Concussions, broken bones, ribs injured and sprains are very often, which makes the game way more risky. These injuries come from the constant hitting and fighting in hockey, where as in soccer, if you check or rough anyone you are given a yellow or red card. Injuries in soccer are usually minor sprains. In hockey, big hits lead sometimes to a life-ending injury. In this next video, Lars Eller of the Montreal Canadians takes a really, really nasty hit (the video commentator is french but the point is still made): https://www.youtube.com...... Imagine you are Steve Moore. He was your average hockey player. Then, one game, against Vancouver, his whole career ended. Todd Bertuzzi comes up to him and wants a fight. Steve Moore says no. A few minutes later, Bertuzzi comes up to Moore, grabs his jersey, viciously punches Moore in the face then shoves onto the cold, hard ice. As a result, Moore was knocked out cold for around 11 minutes. He got three fractured vertebrae and a very major concussion. His passion, career, and love for hockey was done. Over. This is all a result of the violent nature of hockey. Watch: I will elaborate way more in the rebuttal. And what's the worst that soccer has? Suarez? OK, and so he fakes that he does it. But what is worse, faking, or the REAL injuries? Point #7 Goalies In Hockey, the Goalies are almost the size of the net, making it almost too easy for them to save a puck. They move rarely and have a very non-flexible job: SAVE THE PUCK. Where as in Soccer, as a Goalie, you have to dive for the ball, which takes skill, and in soccer, players kick the ball on spin so it is hard to read the play. Soccer goalies know this and have fine-tuned there skills to read plays. What's more, in soccer, the goalie has to boot the ball an incredible distance and they do it just fine. This goes to show that the Goalies in Soccer are way better. Yes, hockey goalies make some crazy saves, but a crazy save in soccer is jut way harder. Judges, what would be harder? Making this save: Or these: The choice is obvious. Soccer! Thanks, DDD", "title": "Hockey is better than soccer", "pid": "cf884bab-2019-04-18T15:50:33Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.96519470214844}, {"text": "I request that voters appreciate that due to the very short round timings of instigator we both have unfortunately forfeited one round each and that neither my opponent nor myself should receive penalty for this since our acts cancel each other out.I shall like to point out that my opponent chose to defend ice hockey as opposed to field hockey (which is definitely what one would assume hockey on its own meant since hockey was originally field only).Nonetheless I shall rebut her points and hope to conclude in a very formal and appropriate manner.My opponent seems to begin justifying hockey's supposed superiority over football by stating that \" In football, you fall on soft ground. In hockey, you slam into hard boards and solid ice.\" This is as if to say that running into a slab of ice is a superior activity than running into a wall of muddy grass. I can assure that the bloodshed and overall damage of the ice is far more gruesome and malignant than the latter unless of course by chance the field happened to have very infested mud (which the well-cleaned professional fields of football do not). Thus this is a rather futile point to raise in favour of hockey as it merely proves the stupidity of ice hockey over football.\"There are no weapons in football.\" This is exactly why it's a safer and superior sport. It is a sport that turns the body into the weapon, one need only master his or her body and then train with it to master football. To master hockey is a far more dangerous and risky ordeal make it far more of a 'who is lucky enough not to get hit?' ordeal than a 'who is the best player?' ordeal.\"In hockey, every player carries a stick that can do serious damage.\" Yes and in the ghetto everyone carries a gun. Does this make the ghetto better than the uptown city?\"If a football hits you in the face, your face guard will protect you. If a hockey puck is slapped into your face, your facial bones will be broken and teeth lost.\" This is because American football is a far safer sport played by very risk-averse individuals usually who will go far in life. In hockey there is a huge element of risk that you could literally get your head cracked open or jaw smashed in, in the blink of an eye due to bad luck. Thus it is a far more barbaric and inferior sport in terms of its system of regulations and safety measures.\"if it[the hockey stick] strikes you hard enough and in just the right spot, you will die.\" Yes exactly, this is why it is a far more dangerous and less pleasant sport to play, referee and watch.\" Football cleats might give you a tiny puncture wound.\" That's because American football players want to be safe while training and competing in their sport, not sorry for ever taking it up.\"A hockey skate blade is razor sharp and at least two players in recent memory came close to bleeding to death after having major arteries sliced by them.\" Because that's exactly what we wants to happen in a sport... Not.\"I could go on but there really is no contest here.\" Then why offer a debate if there's no contest?\"Hockey is infinitely more dangerous to play than football.\" And this is exactly why football is the better sport.Do we think that slitting arteries of people open is a better option than not doing so? The law would suggest we do not.Do we think that smashing someone in the 'right spot' therefore, in essence, committing murder is a better option than not doing so? The law would suggest we do not.So then tell me why is it that a sport that incorporates both of those risks is deemed the better one? The simple fact is you can't tell me why because there is no reason why.As I said in round one, \"in American football anything is being involved in the sport.\" The brutality in American Football isn't one f danger, it is one represented through the fact that one must wear severely heavy padding in order to avoid the possible injury that could occur. Hockey endorses only shin pads and gum shields. This will not stop the hockey stick hitting you in the 'right spot' to cause a fatal blow and thus is a far inferior and barbaric sport in comparison with the civilised and rational sport of American football.I have refuted all points raised by pro (in fact favouring con's side throughout) and re-iterated my own.I leave it to the voters.", "title": "is hockey better than american football", "pid": "8aad4958-2019-04-18T17:51:53Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.95913696289062}, {"text": "I think in this statement \"but these people are intentionally causing harm to each other. I'm sure they could find another sport\" you have clarified your position better. Now we can debate the topic of what I refer to as \"blood sports.\" In my definition of blood sports, the goal is to do as much damage to your opponent until they are so weak that the winner can claim victory. This can be solo competition, for example UFC, martial arts, or boxing, where the goal is to literally beat your opponent into submission, or team sports like rugby or football, where the goal is to get your ball to the other side, and crowds cheer when you knock down, dominate, and \"damage\" the other team. Before we continue, I think it would be best if you agree or disagree with my belief that UFC, boxing, martial arts, rugby, and football, are all examples of sports where \"people are intentionally causing harm to each other.\" If you agree, then we can debate freedom of choice. If you disagree, then this turns into a debate about what \"causing harm to each other\" means.", "title": "That UfC should be banned.", "pid": "249416df-2019-04-18T15:26:50Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.94677734375}, {"text": "Time for rebuttals First argument The cost and the simplicity does not make soccer better than hockey. Hockey is a sport of talent. Not everyone can skate or stick handle, but everyone can run and kick a ball. Second argument The pace of the game has a big factor in entertainment. Would you sit and watch a game of any sport were the players just walked around slowly? That would not be a good sport to watch. While you talk about a man dribbling past 4 guys, a hockey player can do just the same with a puck. Have you ever watched someone split the defense before? Hockey players also display the positional awareness of there team mates and opposing players while keeping pace with both them and the puck. Hockey players are the fastest people on two feet while on the ice. Hockey players also demonstrate skill on the ice during a game while also adding in contact, making more of a challenge. Longer games can be enjoyable if there is a lot of action. There is not much action in soccer compared to hockey. In hockey you are watching a game that is constantly in motion. No matter what position you play you are always moving. A soccer game can get boring after an hour of watching men/woman running back and forth with a ball, kicking it out of bounds and having to throw it back in. Third argument The video is just showing a few clips of what constantly happens during a soccer game. Hockey players do not embellish because that gives them penalties. Soccer players embellish a lot. Fourth argument This one is simple. Large net small goalie, not many goals. Small net large goalie, still more goals then soccer. Simple as that. Fifth argument Have you ever watched the winter classics or the other outdoor games hockey players have been in? They play in a lot of snow. Hockey is mostly played in doors so they are not really exposed to this weather. That makes it better for fans. You do not have to worry about games being canceled/rescheduled because of weather. Sixth argument The equipment does not protect you from everything. There are gaps in the equipment. And getting hit as hard as they are, the equipment just simply absorbs some of the power behind the hit, but it will still hurt ( trust me) when players fight they take off there gloves ( throw down) helmets are not allowed to be taken off, but most of the time they come off with the power of a hit. Hockey players are on the ice 35-45 seconds at a time because while they are on the ice they are constantly moving. If you were to watch a game of hockey, you would notice that while a player is on the ice they are never standing still. They are always skating from one end of the ice to the other. Soccer players might play longer shifts, but that is because they are not constantly in motion. To add to the fact of how tough hockey players are. When you see a soccer player get injured (or pretty much any sports player) you see them lay on the ground until they are taken off by stretcher or helped off. In hockey, the players get up and skate off on there on. The only time you will not see that happen is if they are knocked out. Here is an example. Last season, Paul Martin, who plays for the Pittsburgh Penguins, broke the upper part of his leg. He skated to the bench and sat down to wait for his next shift. He did not realize his leg was broken until he stood up for his next shift and felt the bone move. Another example would be Clint Malarchuk. During a game he had his jugular vein cut by a skate. He refused to get on the stretcher. He skated off the ice on his own. ( he lived) the link to the video is below. If you don't like the sight of blood DON'T WATCH. Seventh argument Out of bounds rarely happens during a hockey game. Getting the game back in motion happens in a matter of seconds. http://video.nhl.com...", "title": "Hockey is better than soccer", "pid": "cf884b8c-2019-04-18T15:50:31Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.93711853027344}, {"text": "Pro, who has full burden of proof, has made the point that hockey is more fun as you move at faster speeds. This is firstly untrue as the players themselves, if anything, move faster in soccer as they fight in a 'melee' style with the ball rather than a 'ranged' style in hockey. In hockey you can be moving our stick as a pivot around your body and shoulder rather than actually be speeding around. In soccer all tackles and all moves involve actual body-based movement and therefore you are moving at greater speeds. The only thing that moves faster in hockey, whether it's on field or ice, is that the actual ball or puck move faster within the game than the soccer ball does in soccer. This not only makes spectating and filming it for TV-based spectating a lot harder as well as real-time commentating but also is a major health risk and is why soccer players can wear nothing but shin pads and be fine but hockey players on field have to learn to use the bat itself as defence and on ice have literally padding top-to-bottom and still get life-threatening injuries. I won't use sources, case studies or go into details as yet. If Pro wants to call me out on any of my claims, I'm happy to oblige in later rounds.", "title": "Hockey is better than Soccer", "pid": "46fa6c07-2019-04-18T14:24:53Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.92396545410156}, {"text": "Would it really be legalizing murder? To an extent, yes. But is murder not already legal? The death penalty, the armed forces, police who are legally allowed to shoot first and ask questions later, those are all forms of murder. Fighting already happens, getting stabbed or shot in the midst of a fight or argument already happens, and people getting murdered because somebody did something stupid already happens. Legalizing fighting won't help or hurt the overall balance. Also, the passing of a new law or legalization of something always comes with a set of rules to regulate it. Rules could be made to ban the use of excessive force, or the use of weapons, or even that there must be witnesses at the time of the event to ensure that the fight is stopped and nobody is killed. It can be legalized and it should be legalized. Like marijuana, alcohol, or sex, just because it CAN be abused doesn't mean that everybody WILL abuse it. And for the government protection thing, the government does a lot more harm to its citizens than good. However, that's a debate for another time.", "title": "Legalize Fighting", "pid": "db68a818-2019-04-18T18:44:52Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.91558837890625}, {"text": "Lets get the points over with. Argument #6: Faster I'm going to be a bit hypocritical and break the rule that I set for myself that I will save my rebuttals for the end. The longest game of hockey would be longer then the longest game of soccer. Why you may ask? Hockey has unlimited Overtime Periods in the playoffs. Now, I know that totally contradicts my point, but I felt I needed to refute your first point right away. Anyways, my point. Usually a Hockey game is 60 minutes long with two intermissions. Not only the game is faster but the player moves faster and the pace is faster due to the small area of play. The speed causes more action because the players can catch up quite quickly to the puck. They also may know that due to the limited time frame they need to put on a very fast but entertaining show. The word \"Longer\" and the word \"Better\" are NOT the same. Argument #7: Promotion of Winter fitness We can all agree. Hockey is a winter sport. Whether your a Canadian like me or from Scandinavia or Russia or any where cold you know that it's difficult to do exercises because of the winter. You can't go jogging. Soccer and Baseball are much more difficult to play but Hockey? All you need is some gear, a puck and friends and your ready to not only have snowy fun but much-needed exercise. The cold should never stop you from being healthy. In fact I would say Hockey promotes fitness year-round. There is field hockey in the spring and summer, In the fall you can play street hockey and I am sure there are many more types of hockey that can be played! Now Jacobie, I can already here you typing \"What about indoor soccer?' Well, do you get the full experience of the wind at your back? The sun shining on your face? Do you get that warm summer feeling in indoor soccer? Two letters: NO. I'm looking forward to your rebuttal my friend! Thanks.", "title": "Soccer is a better sport than Hockey", "pid": "d4da401a-2019-04-18T16:24:29Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.90713500976562}, {"text": "1. Embellishment- In soccer there are many players who love to fake injuries, as you can tell from the video in my last argument. It is very rare to see that happen in hockey. When a player embellishes an injury they are given a penalty. Accuracy- Hockey players have better accuracy. Under NHL rules, the opening of the goal is 72 inches (6 ft ) wide by 48 inches (4ft ) tall. In soccer, the uprights are 8 yards, or 24 feet, apart and the lower edge of the crossbar is 8 feet above the ground. Now take the goalies and place them in the nets. In hockey you have a goalie at least 6 ft tall with pads on. That is covering almost every opening of the net. In soccer you have a goalie of about 5'11\" standing in a large net with many openings. However the average score in a soccer game is about 2 (depending on the team). In hockey the average score is about 4. Toughness - A recent ESPN study concluded that ice hockey is the most demanding team sport in the world. Durability is a quality that hockey players display perhaps, paradoxically, more than any other athletes. They play a sport that is more physically demanding than any other - 60 minutes in a confined area with no \"comfort zone\" out of bounds. Hockey is non stop action. Either you are rushing on a break, or hurrying back to get into your defensive zone. There is no time, especially in the NHL, where a player would really have the chance to catch their breath during a game. In hockey you are constantly moving your feet. There is no such thing as standing still while on the ice. Each period lasts is 20 minutes long and there are 3 periods in a game. There are only 2 intermissions which last about 15 minutes so they can clean the ice. Each game lasts about 2 1/2 to 2 hours.", "title": "Hockey is better than soccer", "pid": "cf884bab-2019-04-18T15:50:33Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.88543701171875}, {"text": "I hope you'll feel better soon and I understand your situation. We have now reached the final round and I will refute my opponent's points, reinstate my main arguments, and tell you why I believe I should win. Refutations 1. \"Like in baseball, a hockey puck is 5 and is shot between 80 and 100 mph, which requires strength, speed, and accuracy because the puck needs to fit into a very small space between the pads of the goalie and the posts of the net. I feel that this is more difficult because of the shot to goal ratio compared to the pitch to hit ratio in baseball. \" I agree with your statement that making a hockey goal is difficult. However, as you yourself stated, it is easy for a goalie to save a goal, for he has a 90% chance to. In hockey, there is an easy and a hard end, whereas, in baseball, nothing is easy for the batter, pitcher, and catcher. The pitcher has difficulty by throwing the ball into a 4 ft x 6 ft box and throwing a fast pitch and knowing how to throw numerous pitches. The batter needs to judge the pitch's speed, time the ball, and make good contact so that he can get on base. The catcher also has difficulty because sometimes a pitcher can throw a wild pitch and the catcher needs to get it or else runners will advance on the bases. Hockey difficulty is as difficult as baseball, which is exactly what I am arguing for. 2. \"Typically in baseball, the pitchers are not good hitters, and thus are not great on offense. Hockey players need to have skill sets that make you good at both offense and defense. \" Not necessarily, because in hockey you have your specific positions i. e. your forward left winger, center, and right winger and your left and right defenseman. You also have your Star and Sniper who are considered the best players. You also have an Enforcer to protect the Star in a fight. Each hockey player has his designated role to win the game. In baseball, you have some people who specialize and focus on a specific role, such as pitcher who wants and needs to excel at his job. Just because you are well-rounded, doesn't necessarily mean you are good. You can be a jack of all trades, but a master of none. Hockey and baseball are similar in this way. 3. \"Fitness is very important in every sport. Baseball has \"spring training\" where baseball players train, however, the sport itself is less physically demanding than hockey. Hockey players that - \" Seeing as your argument was for some reason suddenly cut short, I can't truly refute this. However, I will try to say something about this. Batters need plenty of muscle to hit the ball well and deep and leg muscle to sprint around bases. Catchers need great reaction to catch wild pitches. Infielders need reactions and speed to catch line drives and good throws to get runners out. Outfielders need to run fast to some fly balls and catch them. Pitchers need arm strength and endurance to get through those tough, long games. Hockey players need endurance to move up and down the ice, speed to get to the puck, and strength to hit it hard to score a goal. And they especially need good eyes to find the puck and good coordination. These sports are similar in skill and fitness. Here are my arguments once again. 1. As the Proposition, I stated the resolution and argued that hockey and baseball are similar in skill. 2. Baseball requires strength as does hockey. 3. Coordination, endurance, and speed are evident in both sports. 4. Both have their own difficulties that players can overcome.", "title": "Convince me that baseball is more entertaining and a \"better\" sport than hockey.", "pid": "3655f1b1-2019-04-18T19:03:59Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.87547302246094}, {"text": "I agree two those term's, I would like to start with the physical aspect you probably think it would go to Football but if you think about it not really. Number one you are skating which uses up more energy then running. Second body checking which is pretty physically demanding, you could say is not as hard getting tackled. But with the fights , slashing , illegal checking , ect... about one of these thing's happen during a game and some times all of them. So really it's about as bad as getting tackled. The last thing is the player's in Hockey spend a longer time on the ice none stop playing, when a Football play is about 4 seconds.", "title": "NHL Hockey is a harder sport then American Football", "pid": "6c5cb143-2019-04-18T15:25:50Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.86117553710938}, {"text": "Thanks, Leojm for your response. I would like to respond to my opponent's argument. 1. \"In soccer you are constantly moving to run after the ball.\" Most of the game is spent with the teams passing the ball around to get organized. 2. \"Soccer has overtimes too. If they get a tie. Also professional soccer is longer than a mini league.\" In soccer, if you give up a goal, you still have a chance to win. There is still room for error. In hockey, if you give up a goal in overtime, the game is over. There is no room for error in hockey. 3. \"Soccer fans are crazy when it comes to soccer matches. Soccer also dates way back to BC. Romans also played soccer. Soccer is liked all over the world.\" My opponent did not show how soccer isn't rigged. 4. \"Soccer has a lot of action. There are constantly horrible injuries. People get kicked in the face, get knocked out, and break their legs. It\"s a dangerous sport. By the way, people love a fight that\"s why the referees let the fights go on.\" Injuries do not make a sport entertaining. In fact, injuries slow the game down. 5. \"Also soccer wins the World Cup.\" The same argument can be made about hockey. In the NHL, teams compete for the Stanley Cup, which is known to many people as the best trophy in professional sports.", "title": "Hockey is better than soccer", "pid": "cf884b6d-2019-04-18T17:15:26Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.84527587890625}, {"text": "Stucture R1. Acceptance and definitions onlyR2. ArgumentsR3. RebuttalsR4. Defense of arguments against R3 rebuttalsWill use wikipedia definition for dog fighting. This is the only round to dispute this definition.\"Dog fighting is a type of blood sport generally defined as opposing two game dogs against one another in a ring or a pit for the entertainment of the spectators or the gratification of the dogfighters, who are sometimes referred to as dogmen\" [1]Links1. https://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Dog fightning should be legalized in the USA.", "pid": "ec5896db-2019-04-18T13:46:28Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.82257080078125}, {"text": "Hey Chris,This is not a serious debate. It will be light hearted and jokes/minor insults are allowed. No conduct points should be taken away for these things.BoP is sharedAll 3 rounds for debateMay the best sport win.Limit 3 arguments per round + rebuttals.I'll start off with some arguments. 1) Basketball uses a ball.Ball sports are obviously better than non-ball sports, and a ball is a lot less dangerous than a puck. A common hockey injury2) Basketball takes less skill to playAnyone can pick up a ball and throw it into a hoop, hockey takes skill and skating around on the ice is hard enough by itself. Even kids can play. Fun for the whole family.3) Basketball is cheap to playAll you need is a ball and a hoop. Struggle basketball being played by kids. Minimal resources required.As we can see, hockey is clearly more expensive, harder to play, and more dangerous than basketball.", "title": "Basketball is better than hockey", "pid": "c98c7791-2019-04-18T15:57:27Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.81216430664062}, {"text": "Definitely hockey. In football, you fall on soft ground. In hockey, you slam into hard boards and solid ice. There are no weapons in football. In hockey, every player carries a stick that can do serious damage. If a football hits you in the face, your faceguard will protect you. If a hockey puck is slapped into your face, your facial bones will be broken and teeth lost; if it strikes you hard enough and in just the right spot, you will die. Football cleats might give you a tiny puncture wound. A hockey skate blade is razor sharp and at least two players in recent memory came close to bleeding to death after having major arteries sliced by them. I could go on but there really is no contest here. Hockey is infinitely more dangerous to play than football.", "title": "is hockey better than american football", "pid": "8aad4958-2019-04-18T17:51:53Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.81207275390625}, {"text": "I think that if death row inmates want to, they should be allowed to participate in gladiator battles. They are going to die anyway so if they choose, they can fight to the death. Whichever inmate wins would face the next one until there is another champion and it would just keep going on. It could even be televised as a sport.", "title": "Allow Gladiator Fighting Among Consenting Death Row Inmates", "pid": "8d8b71d2-2019-04-18T11:26:57Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.81072998046875}, {"text": "Thank you.Worthy opponent, we are going to have a slight change in the strategy. In this round, please rebut my arguments mentioned in the second round. In the fourth round, please have defense and conclusions. Thank you again.I don't know why my arguments in the second round are written as a whole argument in one line. Please copy it, paste it in MS Word, and then read it.Some of my rebuttals will be very short, but if I explained every one, we could make an essay out of it. I'll do that as I have more than 3 debates going on, all with arguments due. I ask my opponent to forgive me for that. I also ask voters, if my opponent does not mind that, to do the same.My strategy in rebuttal: (\"Argument\" -Rebuttal)Rebuttal:1. \"First of all, to my first point, boxing, and other violent sports bring lot's of entertainment.\" -CON.-Legalize duels then!2. \"In this source, the top ten are the following, football, ice hockey, basketball, soccer, Baseball, gymnastics, tennis, volleyball, lacrosse, and golf. This is just in the U.S., though. It is funny to see that 6-7 of the sports on the list are violent, and dangerous. I will be expanding this point later on in my argument, but this argument was about that violent sports can be entertaining. And, with this source I have shown tha violent sports are more entertaining then other normal sports.\" -CON.- NONE of them are violent. I will be expanding this point later on in my rebuttal.3. \" Also, in this source, it shows that the 10 greatest sports. Boxing is in number 9. If you look at the comments they say, \"Boxing should be on the top...\" And in golf, it says, \"This is really a sport, but...\" Look at the differences of a boring non-violent sport, and boxing, which is a violent sport. \"-CON.- Two things. Firstly, I agree boxing is entertaining. Very entertaining. But at the same time, very dangerous, too. You will be at fault if you ban any sport just because it is not entertaining. Ban boxing because it's DANGEROUS.4. \"What if we ban boxing? All the fans will be mad, and probably do some stuff. Look at what happened when France lost against Portugal in the UEFA. This is just when they lost. Imagine what will happen if the whole sport will be gone? All these fans will be bazooked!!! They will throw things like this, and make tons of fire. We can call in World War Boxing. To actually prevent this, we should not ban boxing.\"-CON.- What if fans suddenly began loving duels, armed duels, leave them? Just because if you ban duels they'll become violent? So you musn't see what the public wants in everything. Public wants to legalize terrorism, suicide, etc. leave them? So democracy is in matters you can actually change or keep as it is, without danger. Not in dangerous SPORTS like boxing.5. \"My next argument will be that the boxers liberty, and the people who watch's liberty. This will be kinda connected with the first argument. Why do the boxers do boxing. Well, there are lot's of reasons. Yeah, they earn lots of money, get famous, can possibly win, it can be entertaining, and it can entertain the viewers. If the game is boring for the viewers, then it will be infamous, and the sport will not be watched. So we need to entertain the viewers. And as I said in my first argument, boxing is exciting for the viewers. Let's think if we ban this. As I said, there will be rages, as the picture up there, only worse. And all the viewers cannot watch boxing anymore. It is literally banning soccer, just a different sport. Socrates says, \"Even a bad law is a law.\" The same thing with sports. Even a bad sport is a sport. However boxing isn't a bad sport, just less famous then soccer, but still famous. Think about the people's, the watcher's liberty of watching. They want to watch, they should be allowed to watch. Why should thre government even ban boxing when it does no harm for them? Banning it will harm the watcher's liberty. They want to watch these sports, and we should give them the right to, they should watch it, and the government shouldn't make it banned just because of \"safety\". That is ridiculous. \"-CON.- I don't know why my opponent is just debating about whether boxing is good or not. His arguments are full of red herrings[1]. WORTHY OPPONENT, THIS DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER BOXING IS GOOD OR NOT. FAMOUS OR NOT. ENTERTAINING OR NOT. If a sort is good, famous, and entertaining, and at the same time DANGEROUS, BAN IT! Boxing is EXACTLY like duels in this debate. As for the liberty thing, then legalize suicide. Legalize duels. LIBERTY!6. \"And also, why do boxers do boxing? Becuase they want to do boxing? Then why do they do boxing? By doing boxing, that means they accept all the risks to actually do boxing. They want to do boxing, that is why they are doing it. They don't really care if they get hurt, because it is part of their job. They know they might get hurt, because they are boxers, and they know their job. They want to be boxers, that is why they are boxers, and we shouldn't really ban boxing because they get hurt. They know they might get hurt, and by playing, they accept all the risks. Therefore, we shouldn't ban boxing because it can hurt them. \"-CON.- Legalize suicide.7. \"This is the problem. Think about every sport which is not dangerous. There is only few which one is golf. Baseball is dangerous because you can get hit by the ball or get tripped and fall or bump to each other. Soccer is dangerous because the ball can hit you and you might foul and the others might get hurt. Basketball is dangerous too. This is like almost everything is dangerous. Then this means we cannot play those sports million of people around the world like. My source . My source gives a big list of kills, you can click into each one. \" -CON.- 1. Ban walking in the street and eating sugar. 2. Violent doesn't mean everything that hurts or kills. Violent means sports that actually goal to killing or hurting. A boxer's goal is to knock out his opponent. Violent. Whatever happens including injuries or deaths in other sports isn't intended. In boxing, it is.8. \" a) ban all violent sports, which is on my 5th source list, and other sports not on the list, like broken fingers when volleyball, etc. Then all these fans, on every single sport will be mad. There will be a war, only worse, much worser then the picture above. Or b) we can not ban all sports, and make the fans in peace. Obviously peace is better than a fight, so we have to follow b), and not ban any of these violent sports.\"-CON.- I've already showed that other sports like volleyball and basketball aren't violenrt as injuries and deaths aren't intended. On the other hand, injuring is intended in boxing. By this, I've already cancelled the two choices, as only boxing from these sports is violent.In conclusion, I've rebutted all of my opponent's arguments. NO DEFENCE IN THIS ROUND PLEASE.I know my language is very bad in this debate. I'm not getting right words. Sorry. Please don't mind that, as I have many debates.Adil,Qatar.Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "THW ban boxing", "pid": "18f233de-2019-04-18T13:00:35Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.80783081054688}, {"text": "As a 16 year old boxer myself i can agree that their are ways to stay protected however the sport is not for everybody and it definitely shouldnt be forced onto somebody who isn't able to do it (The gym class scenario). You make a good point when you say that rugby is more dangerous: However, that is a statement that could very easily have bias behind as would me saying that boxing is more dangerous because i take part in it. \"if you control the power of your punch\" I like the point your trying to make when you say this but very few professionals can control their punch power let alone a bunch of school students who are new to the sport. And i too understand the risk factor in every sport.", "title": "children should be allowed to box in school.", "pid": "f1c64e5b-2019-04-18T14:02:33Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.80517578125}, {"text": "Hello! First i would like to thank my opponet for letting my debate this topic with you. I disagree, i do not think that boxing should be allowed to be catagorized as a school sport, or to be allowed in school at all. Boxing will actually increase the amount of bullying that goes on in school. The bullies will be able to box their opponets, and be allowed to beat the crap out of them, and get away with it. What will people do when they go up against a guy who can box? And worst of all, it would be allowed. The students getting bullied would have no chance at defending themselves from it. Thus boxing would be bad for bullied students.", "title": "Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport", "pid": "c752a687-2019-04-18T14:10:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.79515075683594}, {"text": "Thank you for accepting my argument. My opponent here is generalizing a bit but actually, there has been multiple prisons wherein they introduced boxing arenas and well, violence and aggression have decreased as well as convicts were more calmer. It reduced prison fights because, the inmates would meet each other up at an arena and spar or fight and it also increased sportsmanship among the prisoners. http://www.youtube.com... Go watch and pause at 0:59 and this video has information about the argument. In Cereso Mexico, the prison over there has not seen violence in one decade ever since they introduced boxing. Yet, where is the negativity you say? The inmates are having it good and their is also a spa included. If we introduced Boxing for an activity at a prison, there would be o or lesser violence at all because the inmates don't have to get butthurt at the food court and yet, they could just meet up and release their anger. So yeah, there is a lot of good coming out of it.", "title": "Boxing should be allowed in Prisons", "pid": "2e186eb1-2019-04-18T17:26:00Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.78485107421875}, {"text": "So is that for this debate?", "title": "Boxing should be allowed in Prisons", "pid": "2e186eb1-2019-04-18T17:26:00Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.76998901367188}, {"text": "Collisions are often not entertaining, and when they are, it’s for the wrong reasons.  Most collisions do not show two athletes engaged in a skilled showdown; they feature athletes awkwardly trying to achieve their goal (scoring or getting the out) without injuring themselves.  It’s not fun or exciting. Fans also tend to be horrified by the injuries they witness in these crashes.  Watching Buster Posey’s leg snap at an odd angle was hardly entertaining or amusing; it was stomach-turning. And if fans do find this sort of thing entertaining, they’re wrong to do so.  Violence should not be glorified, at least not in this sport.  Nobody should delight in watching baseball players put their careers in jeopardy.  Baseball is fundamentally different from other sports; if people want to see athletes impose harmful blows on each other, they can watch boxing or ice hockey or ultimate fighting.", "title": "Collisions are exciting and fun to watch.", "pid": "f83473c9-2019-04-15T20:22:40Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 214.75}, {"text": "Hockey is NOT the MOST skilled sport in America it does take alot of skill but not the most here is why 1. There is a cap on skill 2. There is a team to help 3. There are refs to stop violence 4. There is little creativity To begin, i would say that Chess is a sport that takes more skill than hockey. Chess is a mind-sport and it is under-recognizzed on how much skill it takes 1. There is a cap on skill in hockey, not chess A body can only get so fast, so strong, and so good. A brain cannot. A hockey player will eventually reach a peak of skill, and stay roughly around there. A chess player can keep learning and increasing his skill as high a possible. This cap will never be reached because it keeps expanding exponentially. 2. There is a hockey team, not a chess team In hockey, you have other team mates to help you, protect you and boost your confidence. In hockey, the pressure of the whole game does not rest on your shoulders. In chess, you have no one to depend on, no one to help you, and the pressure of the whole match is on you. 3. There are refs to stop violence there reaches a point in hockey were you can't do what ever you want to the other player. example, they can't take off their skate and stab someone with it. In chess, there is no higher-power to tell the other player to take it easy. No ref to tell him he is going to make a move that will hurt you too bad. 4. There is little creativity in hockey but a lot in chess How many ways can you win? how many ways can you score? how many formations are there? In chess, the answer is infinite. You can win with any combination of moves. The challenge? you MUST RAISE YOUR SKILL AND BE MORE CREATIVE THAN YOUR OPPONENT. in hockey, i could be more creative than any other player, but i would suck. in chess, i could be more creative than any other player and i would do well. It takes another amount of skill in chess to develop creativity than hockey", "title": "Hockey is the most skilled sport in North America", "pid": "815cc433-2019-04-18T19:58:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.74810791015625}, {"text": "i would like to start off by saying good luck. I also think it is very cool that you played hockey, i have been playing since i was 4 ( so about 11 years) and it takes a lot of energy which is good for my ADHD. i would also like to apologize in advance for my spelling i have dyslexia. to start hockey is better then tennese because theres more action. in hockey players are always moving from one end of the ice to the other and you have a puck moving all over the place at speeds of up to 90+ mph. there is also fighting involved. were in tennis players cant fight, hockey players can drop there gloves and start throwing punches. ( although not until college or profesionals) hockey players never stop moving, they skate faster then anyone can run. it takes up so much energhy that they have to change lines every 30 to 45 seconds so they always have fresh legs on the ice.", "title": "Tennis is better than hockey", "pid": "e57a60bb-2019-04-18T17:03:57Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.7327117919922}, {"text": "Boxing teaches discipline. It would teach kids to remain humble. But you stated the bullies will be able to box their opponents, and this is where you are wrong. The student who have a problem with each other will not get the chance to box each other. The closest they will get it a sparring session which are heavily controlled and safe. There is no better bond you can form with someone than when you are preparing another for a fight. So the people you have a chance to spar with will actually become some of your closest friends. You make the statement of \"The students getting bullied would have no chance at defending themselves from it\" as it the bully will always be a stronger force. But like I said, if the bully is not a boxer, and the victim is, chances are the bully won't risk the embarrassment of possibly getting beat if the victim chooses to retaliate. But vise-versa, if the bully is the boxer and the victim isn't I mentioned how boxing does teach respect. As a fighter myself, we do not see ourselves as a force. We know what it's like to have someone stronger and better trained go against us, and that makes us humble. We would never put someone in the situation of making them feel weak. But the possibility of that happening is still there. But just like any school sport, there would be penalties to such action. Maybe if one of the boxers does become a bully, he is done for the season. That would motivate the athletes to not bully, or get in trouble at all.", "title": "Boxing Should be allowed as a School Sport", "pid": "c752a687-2019-04-18T14:10:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.71871948242188}, {"text": "Contention 1: Public opinion My opponent first questions the survey I provide. I assure him and everyone else reading this debate that it exists and I read about it the Greek athletical newspaper \"Ομάδα\" (=Team) sometime last year in an article about referees some time in April or May. Then, he claims that his idea is ahead of its time. This is false, it was in the past when players would fight over a controversial goal, penalty etc, and that is why we have referees to avoid violence and rules are getting more and more strict against violence. On the contrary, in current days we are making and have made serious successful efforts to stop violence in soccer. Therefore, my opponent is wrong in believing that his idea is ahead of it's time, to the contrary it is behind (!). Contention 2: Violence My opponent continues to miss the point of the argument about bad examples and continues his irrelevant argument about violence being better than guns, which is true but COMPLETELY irrelevant. Not only that, his new argument includes the movie business, but this is even more irrelevant because the debate is about soccer and what a movie star that just happened to also have been a soccer player (while playing in a movie you are considered an actor) does, has nothing to do with soccer matches. In conclusion, my opponent once again fails to refute my argument that is therefore extended. Contention 3: Red Cards My opponent takes a boxing match as an example in a failed attempt to counter my argument. He fails to notice the reason why what he refers to happens: In boxing, you can't hit your opponent between rounds or after the end of the match (while still in the ring), simply because the game is not underway (paused or ended) and your opponent cannot defend himself. This example can not under any circumstance be compared with what I presented in this (3rd) contention. Contention 4: Grudges Personally, being a Manchester City fan (fierce rival of Man. United), I despise of both Rooney and Ronaldo, despite accepting their huge soccer talent. In spite of this my opponent basically strengthens my argument by showing exactly the kind of grudges can be devoted between fans and players (that of his own grudge against Ronaldo). Imagine what would English public opinion think about Portuguese if they had gained up on Rooney and injured him. Therefore just because you dislike someone doesn't mean you should hit him Contention 5: Penalties are thrilling My opponent says that managers could bring on players like Barton later on in the game when the match is heading towards a draw. He still fails to understand that Barton is a bad example. If Barton makes the team (even as a sub), this will motivate children to learn to be violent in order to play soccer that is currently the most popular sport in the word, therefore Millions will be motivated to become like Barton in order to play profession or armature and be good at an extra skill (violence). If this was allowed we would have accidents resulting to injuries and hate between players about hitting, while promoting violence in other parts of children's lives. I have already responded to the claim about this supposed heritage, still my opponent repeats it. If violence was in fact a heritage of soccer it wouldn't be rejected by the sport and banned by the rules! As for my opponent's claim about a supposed controlled situation, I would like to remind him about my example of the children in the schoolyard or in the neighbourhood pitch. In conclusion, my opponent failed to correctly refute many of my point (I extended my 2nd Contention twice!) and also failed to provide ANY contention or arguments of his own, because he failed to defend his Round 1 argument and only refuted my own points without notable success as I explain above. Therefore I urge negation. Thank you very much.", "title": "International soccer matches should be settled by fights, not penalties.", "pid": "a08e5384-2019-04-18T19:37:59Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.71533203125}]}
{"idx": 41, "qid": "43", "q_text": "Should bottled water be banned?", "qrels": {"26e5fa0c-2019-04-18T16:04:06Z-00001-000": 0, "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00003-000": 2, "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00004-000": 2, "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00008-000": 0, "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00009-000": 0, "6e2bff99-2019-04-19T12:47:58Z-00007-000": 0, "6e2bff99-2019-04-19T12:47:58Z-00002-000": 1, "6dc1a714-2019-04-18T15:15:29Z-00008-000": 0, "64d27e41-2019-04-18T19:38:48Z-00004-000": 0, "5c280f1b-2019-04-18T11:50:36Z-00001-000": 0, "42af9318-2019-04-18T14:20:18Z-00005-000": 0, "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00006-000": 2, "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00006-000": 2, "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00003-000": 0, "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00002-000": 0, "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00008-000": 0, "e2d49a4f-2019-04-18T13:46:58Z-00003-000": 0, "e2d49a4f-2019-04-18T13:46:58Z-00002-000": 0, "e3944735-2019-04-18T16:33:26Z-00002-000": 0, "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00005-000": 1, "e5913989-2019-04-18T11:42:30Z-00000-000": 0, "e5ab54cc-2019-04-18T19:37:02Z-00000-000": 0, "ffd3138a-2019-04-18T16:03:25Z-00001-000": 0, "3466130d-2019-04-18T19:37:30Z-00005-000": 0, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00002-000": 2, "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00007-000": 2, "dab1f67b-2019-04-18T18:43:23Z-00001-000": 0, "a6cfc7c6-2019-04-15T20:22:22Z-00000-000": 0, "59d1fc1c-2019-04-18T17:56:37Z-00005-000": 0, "a87b0d37-2019-04-18T17:19:07Z-00004-000": 0, "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00001-000": 0, "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00000-000": 0, "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00000-000": 1, "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00004-000": 1, "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00007-000": 0, "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00005-000": 2, "b27d0dc2-2019-04-18T15:15:09Z-00009-000": 0, "c8469c0c-2019-04-18T18:28:13Z-00006-000": 1, "cf97ca8b-2019-04-18T16:58:30Z-00009-000": 0, "d3291ded-2019-04-19T12:48:09Z-00001-000": 0, "d47da880-2019-04-18T15:10:09Z-00004-000": 0, "99f0f171-2019-04-18T18:16:57Z-00006-000": 0, "824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00000-000": 0, "824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00001-000": 2, "824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00003-000": 2, "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00006-000": 2, "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00024-000": 2}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Bottled water should be banned!", "title": "Bottled water should be banned", "pid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 220.9294891357422}, {"text": "I accept and will be arguing that bottled water should not be banned", "title": "Bottled water should be banned", "pid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 220.21054077148438}, {"text": "i meant bottled water is a scam", "title": "Bottled water should be banned", "pid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 220.10174560546875}, {"text": "thank you for accepting,what i was saying i mean bottled water should be banned in supermarkets, dairys etc. that is why this argument is listed in the society category water is free in your tap bottle water companys scam people into think their water is so called - spring - water from mountains in mt Fugi our something bottled water is not water getting transported to overseas countrys with problems, bottled water is what im talking about is in the supermarkets that cost $2!!!! it is a SCAM EVERYBODY! why buy it!? its wasting your money just like that you basicly drinking rubbish factory water that is stored in PLASTIC bottles. HERES A QUESTION! If you had Beer/Coca-Cola/fruit juice coming out of your tap for 3c a Lt would you still buy it up the shop.....? 99% of people would say NO", "title": "Bottled water should be banned", "pid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.8996124267578}, {"text": "it should be banned because oil is wasted making the plastic bottles and it is also very unhealthy for you by drinking somthig that is contained in plastic because the plastic mixes into the water giving it that plastic taste/after taste people who drink bottled water on a regular basis ignour it, and your wasting your money.", "title": "Bottled water should be banned", "pid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 219.62103271484375}, {"text": "Extend arguments. (I really don't know what else to add without repeating the same thing over and over again.", "title": "Bottled water should be banned", "pid": "824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 219.10586547851562}, {"text": "I believe bottled water should be banned because it is polluting the environment, There are health risks and many more. (My points won't be stated in this order and I'll have more than the two mentioned. )According to Food & Water Watch, \"Bottled water is literally more expensive than gasoline -- and about 2, 000 times more expensive than tap water. \" [1] One single-served bottled water costs $9. 47 per U. S. Gallon. That's in comparison to gasoline which costs $2. 35 and tap water which costs $0. 005. Instead of wasting money on the production and manufacturing of bottled water you could just use tap water which costs less. When tap water is sent to homes it is filtered so it is completely safe to use and if you still feel it is unsafe you can simply buy a water filter or boil it in a kettle. \"In 2016, 4 billion pounds of plastic was used in U. S. Bottled water production, Requiring an estimated energy input equivalent of about 64 million barrels of oil. \" states Food & Water Watch. [1] Oil is required to transport and manufacture plastic water bottles and considering that it is a limited resource we could very well run out. In order to make plastic, Water and crude oil is required. A lot more water is required to manufacture a bottle than to fill it, Which is the whole purpose of the plastic bottle. This is a waste of our natural resources which could be used towards something more useful that could benefit the society. Also, The cost to transport bottled water is quite high and could easily be avoided if we just banned plastic water bottles for good. People are really careless and even with the existence of garbage cans many fail to put waste in its right place. They simply just throw the plastic water bottles wherever they want without a care in the world. Often times these plastic water bottles end up at the bottom of the ocean and it could harm the aquatic ecosystem and animals that live there. Plastic water bottles could take over 450 years to biodegrade (break down/decompose). Plastic alone takes nearly 1000 years to biodegrade. [2] The best option to get rid of the plastic for good would be to incinerate* [3] it, But it's rarely done. But even if you were to do that, Burning plastic can also lead to the release of dangerous toxins in the environment. So it would just be easier to ban bottled water for good. By manufacturing bottled water dangerous forms of carbon emissions can be released into the atmosphere, This in turn leads to pollution. Countless of people foolishly believe that bottled water is better, Safer and cleaner than tap water when that is in fact a lie. As I mentioned earlier, The tap water that is sent to your home is filtered so it isn't contaminated before it reaches your house. This prevents any \"unclean\" water. A test was done by the State University of New York in Fredonia, In which they bought 250 [plastic water] bottles in nine different countries and examined them. Their test on major brands of bottled water concluded that nearly all of them contained tiny particles of plastic (micro plastic). This isn't safe or good for humans. BBC said that \"Companies whose brands were tested told the BBC that their bottling plants were operated to the highest standards. \" [4] Clearly this is false because if that were true tiny particles of plastic wouldn't have been found. This doesn't just apply to major brands, But bottled water in general. *Incinerate: verb - to cause to burn to ashes [3]Sources (Since the links are causing me some problems I'll just type in what you should search in order to get the website):[1] Search: Take Back The Tap: The Big Business Hustle of Bottled Water (foodandwaterwatch. Org)[2] Search: How Long Does It Take Garbage to Decompose? (thebalancesmb. Com)[3] Search: Incinerate (merriam-webster. Com)[4] Search: Plastic particles found in bottled water (bbc. Com)", "title": "Bottled water should be banned", "pid": "824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 218.5301513671875}, {"text": "I would like to apologize to the voters for Pro changing the resolution twice in the same debate and for posting a six word argument after all this. .. .. 1st resolution: Bottled water should be banned <- Literally his entire first round argument 2nd resolution: Bottled water should be banned in supermarkets <- 3rd round opening statement 3rd resolution: Bottled water is a scam <- The ONLY thing he posted in his final argument. .. . Bottled water is not a scam. It costs money to have that water come out of your tap, in extreme cases it can easily be shown to be very hazardous to ones health, and when those extensive and aging systems begin to fail they cost taxpayers billions of dollars, meanwhile you can buy the same water in a clear plastic bottle for $2 and carry that little jug of pure life with you anywhere. .. .. As for the rest of my arguments which the Pro did not even address and simply changed the resolution every two rounds, 1) Pro forfeits that oil used in making the plastic bottles is heavily refined and not hazardous to ones health 2) Pro forfeits that water's health benefits completely outweigh any side effects from a plastic after-taste 3) Pro forfeits the usefulness of being able to move tons of water overseas through plastic bottles 4) Pro forfeits that banning bottled water would cost thousands of jobs 5) Pro forfeits that tap water can catch on fire 6) Pro forfeits that the US government is not taking adequate care of public water systems, costing taxpayers billions 7) Pro forfeits that the government has considered and actually put fluoride in drinking water 8) Pro forfeits that bottled water can be more accessible than tap water 9) Pro has conceded hat us municipal water systems are aging and falling in disrepair 10) Pro forfeits that bottled water can easily be recycled 11) Pro forfeits that bottled water is just extra filtered tap water, making it safer 12) Pro forfeits that many people dont even like the taste of tap water 13) Pro forfeits that bottled water is very cheap and accessible to the middle and lower classes 14) Pro forfeits that water is beneficial to ones health 15) Pro forfeits that he changed the resolution of the debate twice in the same debate 16) Pro forfeits that tap water in some cases are simply not accessible to everyone 17) Pro forfeits the debate. He didnt really say this but anyone who waits until the very last round to change the resolution of the debate yet again and doesnt give any additional arguments, evidence, or intellect probably doesnt care about this debate anymore and has admitted defeat. .. .", "title": "Bottled water should be banned", "pid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.01171875}, {"text": "No it shouldn't. That is too much government. People have the right to exchange money for a water bottle. Whether limousine liberals want to ban water bottles, Or conservatives want to ban gay marriage, I am tired of both parties trying to ban same sex marriage I am tired of people like my opponent saying \"I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad.", "title": "Bottled water should be banned", "pid": "824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.89187622070312}, {"text": "My argumentsOf all the very valid points I bring up, the Pro only responds to one of 15 examples, the one about joggers. Yes people survived before bottled water.... people also survived before smart phones too, but if you banned smart phones people wouldnt know how to function anymore........His arguments - 1 - \"These two brands are essentially filtered tap water,\" - Meaning they are safer than tap water....\"And that's why there's no shortage of companies that want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame.\" - I dont see how a product should be banned because wise and witty businessmen can create enterprises and jobs to meet the demand of portable bottled water.... should computers be banned since pound for pound they are making good money? Of course not. Its not illegal to exploit a resource in high demand with the potential for generating huge amounts of profit and you havent explained why it should br. - 2 - \"While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established\" - Your shooting yourself in the foot here Pro, that only reinforces my argument about how bottled water could be seen as healthier than tap water - 3 - Yes it is true that bottled water generates trash, but im curious about why your putting the blame on the water bottles instead of people..... It is people who throw them away rather than recycle them, and the blame should be on the consumers in this case, not the product. Anyone here who has knowingly thrown away a plastic water bottle rather than recycle it knows very well it is their own fault for doing so. However the Pro is trying to blame the water bottle here....... thats absurd - 4 - \"Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety.\" - Again, thanks for giving me such great arguments :)\"Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources.\" - Ha, good one. Most of the middle class can live with paying $6 for a cup of Starbucks coffee, and you claim they cant do the same with $2 for a bottle of water? Bottled Water is one of the cheapest commodities you can buy....\" the requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes.\" - So your admitting that tap water can be very costly to society. Hmmm let me do the math here, Bottle of Water = $2Tap water that needs constant taxpayer dollars to stay in shape, at one point costing $17.5 billion in taxpayer dollars in the state of California alone....Which is cheaper again? - 5 - Now in this argument your claiming water companies are evil for trying to expand their profits, but how is this necessarily a bad thing? The US government has already shown how they do a dreadful job of providing us with water (pollution, flouride in tap water, leaky and poor conditions of the infrastructure, billions in costs in a YEAR, etc) whereas water companies are completely on their own to supply us with water, and they dont have access our taxes to fix their mistakes, giving them a hell of an incentive to make sure their systems are modern and up to speed....Pro's remarks:\"If you drink to much water it is draining all the natural minerals OUT OF YOUR BODY\"\"I choose not to because i like fizzy drinks\"I like how the Pro tries to say that water is bad for your health yet states his preference for fizzy drinks, sort of implies he really doesnt know how anything about trying to be healthy... May i suggest a healthier alternative to those fizzy drinks, Oh yes i did ;D", "title": "Bottled water should be banned", "pid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.84149169921875}, {"text": "I hope we could see the others perspective without any troubles. No it shouldn't. That is too much government. - I'm not sure I completely I understand how it is \"too much government. \" By banning bottled water the government would only be involved in the actual banning of bottled water as they have to enforce that law. But after that, The government wouldn't really have anything to do with bottled water since it would be banned. I am tired of people like my opponent saying \"I don't like this, Let's ban it. ' - I'm suggesting we ban bottled water because people don't seem to understand the negative toll bottled water has on our lives and society. Even if they do understand, They don't do much to try and prevent or stop the negative effects from happening. You don't have to ban water bottles, But it would be a lot better if you use materials that can actually biodegrade/decompose. I am a progressive, And I think cash rewards for recycling would both help poverty, And end polution of the environment - Could you please elaborate on how cash rewards would help with poverty and the environment? Also, If possible please give me evidence of where this has been effective. Rewarding good behavior is far more effective than punishing the bad. - You are right when you say that it is more effective to reward good behavior, But good behavior has to be shown in order for it to be rewarded. In this case people aren't showing good behavior by carelessly throwing water bottles around. Although some do throw it out not all do. Instead of looking at banning bottled water as a \"punishment\" you should view it as an opportunity for people to move away from this belief that bottled water is better than tap water when it is the other way around. As I mentioned in round 1, Tap water is cheaper, Healthier and more effective to use. My opponent didn't really rebuttal my points from round 1.", "title": "Bottled water should be banned", "pid": "824ed986-2019-04-18T11:15:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.83358764648438}, {"text": "Way to change the resolution halfway through the debate, next time you should state what your intentions in the first round. \"Bottled Water should be Banned!........................... In Supermarkets!\"Also why didnt you bring this up in the last round? you mention nothing about super markets at all you only mention oil, money, health problems, and thats it. Whatever Ill just go with it.....First of all, I still dont think that spending $2 on a bottle of something essential to all living things is considered a \"waste\" and so far that is simply your opinion, you need to offer substantial evidence to support your claim. So far the only evidence you offered is that water comes out of the sink, so why not use that.Reasons why bottled water is safer than tap water1) It wont catch on fire.....You heard me right, sometimes sink water is highly flammable, im not full of s***, look at the video above. There are some areas in America where natural gas mining has contaminated local drinking water supplies that come out of the tap, causing it to become highly flammable and very toxic to ones health if consumed. (tap water = 0, bottled water = 1)http://www.youtube.com...2) The government is considering putting flouride in tap water..... and in some cases already haveIf this sounds more bs than my first point, im still not lying. Many people in the halls of power want to put flouride into tap water. If somehow they are granted their wish than the government would be legally putting chemicals into your tap water, but that bottled water over on the counter will be 100% H2O and nothing else...(tap water = 0, bottled water = 2)http://www.dailymail.co.uk...http://www.holisticmed.com...http://naturalsociety.com...3) Access The last major \"argument\" the Pro presents is that it should be banned solely because you can get it for free from your sink. Therefore I only need to present examples of places where you could use water but are not near a sink.... - 1 - The desert - 2 - In an airplane - 3 - In your car - 4 - In any classroom - 5 - Walking around anywhere on a sidewalk in a major city - 6 - At a beach where the nearest source of water is contaminated with tons of salt and pee - 7 - In a forest - 8 - Anywhere at sea - 9 - IN SPACE - 10 - When your outside jogging sweating your a** offOther reasons bottled water is necessary and easier than tap water - 11 - In your bedroom but you dont want to get up to get water because your too tired - 12 - If your a midget and you cant reach the sink or water fountain - 13 - Outside because your homeless.....I think 13 examples is enough for now (Happy Friday the 13th btw)(tap water = 0, bottled water = 10 to 15 based on personal experience)Bottled water should not be banned because in some circumstances it is healthier, safer, more protected from government intervention, easier to access, and wont catch on fire like tap water could......(for the record, the pro forfeited all his previous arguments in round 2.... just keeping score for the voters)", "title": "Bottled water should be banned", "pid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.7301025390625}, {"text": "FYI if you type in bottled water in google image/google you will only see bottled water IN SUPERMARKERTS have a look http://www.google.co.nz... and what are you talking about bottled water being in classrooms, holding while you run, in the city excuse me! back in the 1950's in NYC you wouldent SEE ANYBODY holding bottled water not in the 40's, 30's, 20's!! ever and humans still survived it was introduced in 1970's 1) Bottled water isn't a good value Take, for instance, Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines alongside soft drinks — and at the same price. Assuming you can find a $1 machine, that works out to 5 cents an ounce. These two brands are essentially filtered tap water, bottled close to their distribution point. Most municipal water costs less than 1 cent per gallon. Now consider another widely sold liquid: gasoline. It has to be pumped out of the ground in the form of crude oil, shipped to a refinery (often halfway across the world), and shipped again to your local filling station. In the U.S., the average price per gallon is hovering around $3. There are 128 ounces in a gallon, which puts the current price of gasoline at a fraction over 2 cents an ounce. And that's why there's no shortage of companies that want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame. 2) No healthier than tap water In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group's National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there's very little empirical evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent. 3) Bottled water means garbage Bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. According to Food and Water Watch, that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away. That assumes empty bottles actually make it to a garbage can. Plastic waste is now at such a volume that vast eddies of current-bound plastic trash now spin endlessly in the world's major oceans. This represents a great risk to marine life, killing birds and fish which mistake our garbage for food. Thanks to its slow decay rate, the vast majority of all plastics ever produced still exist — somewhere. 4) Bottled water means less attention to public systems Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety. This is like running around with a slow leak in your tire, topping it off every few days rather than taking it to be patched. Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Once distanced from public systems, these consumers have little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment. There's plenty of need. In California, for example, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated the requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes. 5) The corporatization of water In the documentary film Thirst, authors Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman demonstrated the rapid worldwide privatization of municipal water supplies, and the effect these purchases are having on local economies. Water is being called the \"Blue Gold\" of the 21st century. Thanks to increasing urbanization and population, shifting climates and industrial pollution, fresh water is becoming humanity's most precious resource. Multinational corporations are stepping in to purchase groundwater and distribution rights wherever they can, and the bottled water industry is an important component in their drive to commoditize what many feel is a basic human right: the access to safe and affordable water.BOOM i win and also if you drink to much water it is draining all the natural minerals OUT OF YOUR BODY i can live on 355ml of water everyday no problem but i choose not to because i like fizzy drinks", "title": "Bottled water should be banned", "pid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.72842407226562}, {"text": "1) Oil The type of oil used in making plastic bottles is a heavily, heavily refined form of crude oil that is also used in products such as clothes, shampoo, food packaging, home furnishings, CD's, computers, etc. If you want to ban plastic water bottles almost exclusively because they contain oil, then by that logic all the other products that I listed should also be banned on the sole grounds that they contain oil.... If you are arguing that oil is bad for your health and that is why plastic water bottles should be banned, the oil used in the plastic is refined many, many times to the point where it is completely harmless and poses no immediate and large threat to a person's health. http://www.icistrainingsite.com... 2) Now it is true that sometimes drinking bottled water carries a plastic after-taste, but the fact that one is drinking clean water provides so many health benefits it completely outweighs the \"harmful\" side effects that a simple after taste inflicts on people. Drinking clean water is shown to have numerous health benefits....... On the other hand drinking water with a plastic after taste doesnt cause any significant health deterioration at all. http://www.freedrinkingwater.com... http://www.wellness-with-natural-health-supplements.com... http://www.lifehack.org... 3) The claim that buying bottled water is a waste of money because it has a plastic after taste doesnt really count as \"wasting\" money since the health benefits that come from that water for about $3 is almost a steal.... Lastly I will introduce 2 of my own points and end it here for now.... 4) Bottled Water is the easiest way to transport water overseas to places that are experiencing a crippling drought. It is cheap and effective and banning bottled water would single handedly cause the death of millions of people since wealthy nations like the US would now lack the ability to move tons of clean drinking water to regions in desperate need of it..... 5) The industry made from the manufacturing and sale of bottled water is pretty massive in the US alone, thus banning bottled water would cost a very large number of jobs....", "title": "Bottled water should be banned", "pid": "824ed8eb-2019-04-18T18:32:31Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.70098876953125}, {"text": "There is a growing movement against bottled water. All kinds of folks from newspaper columnists to religious groups to city governments (for example, San Francisco, Salt Lake City) are eschewing bottled water. Here's why: * 86% of plastic water bottles used in the United States become garbage or litter. That means less than 15% are recycled. * Transporting heavy bottled water uses lots of oil for shipping. More oil is used to make the plastic for the bottles. That means more air and water pollution, and increased dependence on petroleum products. * 40% of the bottled water is just over priced, high-falutin tap water. Read the label.", "title": "It quite simply can taste better.", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00032-000", "bm25_score": 217.00692749023438}, {"text": "Round 1 is accept Rounds 2&3 are arguments and and rebuttals Round 4 is rebuttals and conclusions", "title": "Bottled water is harmful", "pid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.00457763671875}, {"text": "Clearly me and my opponent have a difference of opinion and for this reason I will end this debate.", "title": "Bottled water is harmful", "pid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.8542938232422}, {"text": "Its harmful to the environment", "title": "It is time to stop buying bottled water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 216.84573364257812}, {"text": "I strongly believe that bottled water is in every way better than tap water. Tap water has been shown to cause things like abnormally large head growth, unicorn horns sprouting, and getting \"Beiber-Fever\". Tap water sucks.", "title": "Bottled Water is better than Tap Water", "pid": "5618cfde-2019-04-18T16:58:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.7899169921875}, {"text": "It enhances enjoyment and feeling of wellbeing", "title": "It is time to stop buying bottled water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.77403259277344}, {"text": "There is no argument for this, stop trolling or I will get my friends to vote for me.", "title": "Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con)", "pid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 216.75709533691406}, {"text": "People believe the marketing hype too much", "title": "It is time to stop buying bottled water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 216.59190368652344}, {"text": "It is often just straight from the tap and therefore no better for you than tap water. Case in point: The Coca-Cola company attempted to release Dasani water in the UK, which was just filtered tap water. It is still on sale in the USA. In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight. On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group’s National Tap Water Database. While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there’s very little empirical evidence which suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.", "title": "Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 216.48916625976562}, {"text": "Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway", "title": "It is time to stop buying bottled water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.45143127441406}, {"text": "Water quality", "title": "It is time to stop buying bottled water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.37635803222656}, {"text": "Its no better for you.", "title": "It is time to stop buying bottled water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.30799865722656}, {"text": "That was an interesting concession. Haven't seen that before. As someone pointed out in the comments, if you thought you were going to get someone who agreed with you then why'd you start a debate? Anyway I had fun, and at least you stuck around to the end instead of bailing! Thanks for the debate, best of luck at the polls and in your future debates. -InnovativeEphemera", "title": "Bottled water is harmful", "pid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.28663635253906}, {"text": "Just because the quality of something is high does not mean that we should not have the right to drink it if we so wish. If we banned bottled water because \"we don't need it\" where would this lead? We don't need toasters - we can make fire. We don't need washing machines because we can use the river. We don't need cars because we've got legs. Banning bottled water would start an irreversible trend of banning that which it can be argued we don't need.", "title": "Water quality", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00024-000", "bm25_score": 216.2330322265625}, {"text": "It quite simply can taste better.", "title": "It is time to stop buying bottled water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.23178100585938}, {"text": "I assume this debate is from an American point of view of tap water, as apposed to say, a Somalian. It is regulatedTap water in the US is \"federally regulated and screened for dangerous pollutants\"[1] so you can be assured that your head growth claim will not be true. Nor do I beilive there have been any cases of Unicorn horns or Beiber Fever due to unregulated tap water, just going out on a limb here. Health BenefitFlouride, added to tap water to increase dental health. \"fluoridation started in the late 1940's and over the years led to a reduction in cavities in children from 50-70%\"[2]It is cheaperBottled water is up to 2000x higher in cost then regular water[3]. For the cost you would think that you are getting cleaner water right? WRONG. b\"ottled water plants are exempt from standards for certain toxins and cancer-causing chemicals that tap water plants must meet.\"[3] Plus, E-Coli and many other viruses, regulated in tap water, aren't regulated in bottled water.Better for the enviromentMore than 80% of bottled water goes into landfills each year[4] and contributes to billions of bottles going into the landfill. Also transportation of these bottles realeases co2 into the atmosphere. They also take years upon years to decompoze. [1]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...[2]http://ezinearticles.com...[3]http://www.slate.com...[4]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...", "title": "Bottled Water is better than Tap Water", "pid": "5618cfde-2019-04-18T16:58:17Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.0850372314453}, {"text": "ik you were about to ask me this, i was to tell you this is a troll question.", "title": "Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con)", "pid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.06822204589844}, {"text": "Some bottled water does unquestionably taste better. There maybe a risk of bacteria and financial wastage but bottled water gives the individual free choice. Some tap water is also tainted with pollutants, when tap water in London was tested it was found to contain estrogen, and cocaine. Some people's water is affected by peat content which makes the water brown and different local minerals that affect the taste.", "title": "It quite simply can taste better.", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00033-000", "bm25_score": 216.06468200683594}, {"text": "Tap water has been shown to cause wide amounts of dehydration among children and young adults. Bottled water has been known to increase awesomeness. (Btw I hope you know this is a joke, im not being serious XD)", "title": "Bottled Water is better than Tap Water", "pid": "5618cfde-2019-04-18T16:58:17Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.04544067382812}, {"text": "Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water", "title": "It is time to stop buying bottled water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 215.98855590820312}, {"text": "\"Btw I hope you know this is a joke, im not being serious XD\"Oh...now I feel silly...I don't get sarcasm, so I am just going to go on with this debate like its cereal. Nom Nom Nom. Tap water has been shown to cure AIDS in unicorns.", "title": "Bottled Water is better than Tap Water", "pid": "5618cfde-2019-04-18T16:58:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.98825073242188}, {"text": "This was not a troll debate in the first place. Thanks for wasting my time.", "title": "Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con)", "pid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.98159790039062}, {"text": "This doesn't apply to most Western countries though and people there could easily rely on tap water for their needs. << wrong side of the debate :/", "title": "Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 215.97108459472656}, {"text": "Before starting the debate, here are a few rules: 1. Please do not write things that are too off topic. (Things that are off topic, but related are okay) 2. Please, do not be rude. Argument 1: A lot of bottled water are actually just filtered tap water. Buying a pitcher water filter is cheaper than buying bottled water in the long term. [2] \"In 2006, the Earth Policy Institute , a Washington-based NGO, found that around 40% of bottled water actually starts off as tap water with minerals added later on, questioning assumptions over its special health impact. Similarly, research carried out by the University of Geneva for conservation group WWF in 2001 found that bottled water is not safer than tap water unless consumed in areas where water is contaminated. \" [1] 2. Tap water contains fluoride, which is good for your teeth unless overdosed. \"According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, infants begin to need fluoride supplements when they are six months old. If your local drinking water (tap water) contains at least 0.3 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, then it is usually best that they get that fluoride from fluoridated water. While you can instead give your child fluoride drops, there is the risk that he will get too much fluoride if he also drinks fluoridated water and gets too much fluoride, which can cause tooth staining.\" [3] 3. Bottled water is 10,000 times more expensive than tap, can be distributed without meeting tap water standards or testing for E.coli. Bottled water is also more wasteful, only 1 in 5 are recycled. [4] [1]http://www.totallydrinkable.com... [2]http://www.waterbenefitshealth.com... [3]http://pediatrics.about.com... [4]www.onlineeducation.net/bottled_water", "title": "Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water", "pid": "51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.9349822998047}, {"text": "Yes! I am admitting to something. I effectively equated the quality of tap water to bottled water, thus negating the resolution. The argument is valid because I do not have a BoP. All I have to do is to show that tap water is NOT better than bottled water. I do not dispute their equality and I do not advocate bottled water. A water fountain is a water fountain is not a tap. A water fountain\"s purpose is solely to give drinkable water (Hence many fountains have a \"For drinking only\" sign). A tap\"s main purpose is to supply water. Period. I do not dispute that there can be harmful chemicals in bottled water. I dispute, however, that there can be no toxic chemicals in tap water. Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur. P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water. Thus, I have shown clearly that tap water is not necessarily better than bottled water.", "title": "Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)", "pid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.93211364746094}, {"text": "I have blocked you for derailing a serious debate. The admin/moderator of this site has said that making your friends vote for you just because they are your friends is a conduct violation. You know what violating site rules means, right? My opponent has refused to argue about anything or make a legitimate case like I did. This is the second time in a row this has happened to me, the last one washttp://www.debate.org...Somebody must be making multiple accounts to prevent me from doing a legitimate debate and therefore dragging down my ELO.", "title": "Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con)", "pid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.9159393310547}, {"text": "However, I don't know which debate they were participating in, because it certainly wasn't this one. The resolution as proposed by my opponent and accepted by me is: Bottled water is harmful. As there was no disagreement, the definition stands that harmful means injurious and causing injury to physical health. At no stage has my opponent argued that this is the case, and it is yet to be demonstrated that bottled water is harmful. Let's unpack it. RebuttalsHealth effectsMy opponent states in her very first paragraph: \"No one knows what the health outcomes are. \"This is the only paragraph in which my opponent directly addresses the health concerns, and her conclusion is essentially, \"we don't know and I don't want to find out\". My opponent has not demonstrated that water bottles are in fact harmful. Further in her piece she discusses the potential leaching of water and collection of antimony in settled bottles. But that's the point; it's potential. Your assertion is not that 'bottled water is potentially harmful'. You are arguing that it is harmful. I will address this more robustly in my main argumentation. Everything elseI'm going to do something rather unusual here; I'm going to agree with my opponent's arguments. Almost all of them. Bottled water is worse for the environment. It's more expensive. It doesn't contain added goodies like fluorine to improve dental health. It's also unnecessary, especially in well-resourced countries with access to reliable infrastructure to provide clean drinking water. Personally, I never buy bottled water while I'm out, I always carry a reusable container of some description, or water fountains. But once more, this is not the topic of the debate. My argument has yet to make any argumentation for her case. As it stands, the resolution is being resolved in the negative, as it has not been demonstrated that bottled water is harmful. Onto my argumentation. Opening argumentsBottled water isn't saferMy opponent asserts that \"Bottled water is not safer\". By most accounts (in most places) I agree, though I have recently been backpacking through Asia for two and a half months and I can absolutely assure you that unless you filter the water yourself thoroughly, bottled water is the only safe thing to drink. Because we haven't specified a region, I could easily take this as a safe escape route and you would have a very difficult time challenging me. However, I don't believe I need to resort to this. Your profile doesn't say where you're from, so let's take my country, Australia. In Australia, bottled water does go through stringent safety testing (1) and the Australian Government keeps very close watch over tap water safety (2). So they're both safe. Bottled water definitely isn't safer than tap water here, but it is not harmful, as my opponent is trying to convince you. Bottled water and tap water both meet safety standardsBoth tap and bottled water meet safety standards here and in the U. S. (1, 2, 3). You suggest bottling/Thermosing(? ) your own tap waterBut I thought you said that bottled water is bad for you? Surely this would leech metallic toxins, given that plastic leeches toxins? I mean, if we're following your argument, then this variety of bottled water is harmful too, right? Glass bottlesIncreasing numbers of large water distributors, like Santa Vittoria, San Palegrino and Perrier (5, 6, 7) are using glass water bottles instead of plastic. We have defined bottled water as, \"Water which is purchased over-the-counter or by-unit, in contrast to being purchased through general household consumption\". Glass is included in this scope, and it's important that it is, because glass water bottles are a highly prevalent option. Glass can shatter, which could be considered \"injurious\", however this does not pertain to the safety of the bottled water. Please illustrate the mechanism of action by which glass water bottles cause water to become harmful, noting that the literature indicates glass is completely safe (8). Further, a U. S. -based company has begun production of a glass-plastic water bottled hybrid because of their concerns that plastic water bottles leech chemicals. They're wrong, and it's a marketing gimmick, but hopefully you can elaborate on the safety concerns of these water bottles? (9)What my opponent has to doIn order to demonstrate that bottled water is harmful, it is incumbent on my opponent to present evidence that it is. Further, it would be greatly assisstive if she could demonstrate some disease or ill-health effects of bottled water. Please tell us, in what way is it harmful? How have you determined this? What illness does it cause that constitutes 'harm'? I'm no advocate of bottled water, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated to be harmful. I thank my opponent for a fun and spirited round, and I'm looking forward to your rebuttals in this non-conventional rendition of an otherwise common debate. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________(1) [. http://australianbeverages.org...](2) [. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au...](3) [. http://edition.cnn.com...](4) [. http://www.santavittoria.com.au...] (5) [. http://www.santavittoria.com.au...](6) [. http://www.sanpellegrino.com...](7) [. http://www.perrier.com...](8) [. http://www.feve.org...](9) [. http://www.glassticwaterbottle.com...]", "title": "Bottled water is harmful", "pid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.91171264648438}, {"text": "Thanks to my opponent for her round.Before continuing, I'd like to request that you show your opponents a little more respect in your argumentation. I've had a look at some of your other debates, and you do the same thing: copy and paste quotations for the absolute vast bulk of your rounds. Your last round consisted of 98 words, six of which were your own. That means that your work is just over six percent original. Even with citations, this is blatant plagiarism and is disrespectful. These debates are much more fun and engaging when they're between two people with counterposing ideas, beliefs, arguments or positions, rather than between one person and a series of pasted elements of other people's work._________________________________________________________RebuttalsNot much to be said, other than you didn't finish reading your own source (emphasis added): \"(We suspect that people who are not cleaning their hands or the bottle tops before opening are causing this infection). So please clean the tops before drinking.\" Didn't think I'd check, did you?My opponent has yet to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful.-> Not can be harmful-> Not has been harmful-> Not the Potential for Harmbut to demonstrate that Bottled Water is Harmful. Next!", "title": "Bottled water is harmful", "pid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.85922241210938}, {"text": "Okay. So, the way I see it, you're saying that we should get rid of plastics because there is some sort of new material. But, if we were to ban all plastic bottles, or plastics overall, then where would we put the plastic? Its not like we have huge landfills laying around where we can dump the billions of pounds of plastic. So, where would we put the plastic? Also, what about the plastic currently in circulation? How would we deal with that plastic? So we are killing animals and destroying the environment, and I am admittedly against this as well. But face it: if we're going to eliminate all the plastic, we have to consider the cost, as well as where it would be relocated to. I look forward to seeing your response!", "title": "plastic bottles should be banned", "pid": "5141ec23-2019-04-18T11:29:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.82150268554688}, {"text": "Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water", "title": "It is time to stop buying bottled water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.8096923828125}, {"text": "In response to my opponents challenge. \"Campylobacter infects about 50,000 people a year in England and Wales, far more than better-known organisms such as salmonella. Yet until the mid-Seventies it was virtually unheard of. epidemiologist Dr Meirion Evans. \" \"The results, in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, reveal that up to 12 per cent of cases could be attributed to bottled water.\"(1) \"The Natural Mineral Water Service said bottlers already test for campylobacter, adding that the study had failed to differentiate between mineral water from underground and spring water, which could be polluted by agricultural waste. \" (1) (1) http://www.cidpusa.org...", "title": "Bottled water is harmful", "pid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.79937744140625}, {"text": "Plastics should be banned. In the ocean, plastics are killing thousands of animals each year! They don't decompose or benefit the environment in anyway. Even though we use them for daily use, animals shouldn't pay because you wish to consume some over-sugared drink. New scientists have discovered a type of material that can take the place of these plastic bottles, so why keep them around? We need to put a stop to the destruction of animal life and think before we take action. Factories that produce these bottles also are releasing green house-gases into the atmosphere! This means that, as well as killing our animals, we are destroying our planet as well!", "title": "plastic bottles should be banned", "pid": "5141ec23-2019-04-18T11:29:56Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.78408813476562}, {"text": "Many bottled waters contain toxins, even if they've nixed BPA. \"Bottled water companies increasingly use BPA-free plastic, but laced into plastic bottles are other chemicals that can seep out if bottles are exposed to heat or sit around for a long time. Some of these chemicals are possible endocrine disruptors. No one knows for sure what the health outcomes are. Do you really want your body to undergo that experiment?\" (1) I know that I would not want to the experiment case for this one. Would you? Bottled water is expensive \"Americans spent $10.6 billion on bottled water in 2009 and paid up to 1,000 times the cost of tap water. And almost half of all bottled water (48.7 percent) came from municipal tap water supplies in 2009. A growing share of bottled water is now coming from tap water.\" (2) It makes no sense to me why someone would want to spend a couple dollars on a bottle of water when we have tap water at home and most likely drinking fountains at work. Spending money on something when you have the chance to get it for free is silly. Bottled water is bad for the environment \"Bottled water wastes fossil fuels in production and transport. Bottled water production in the United States used the energy equivalent of 32 and 54 million barrels of oil to produce and transport plastic water bottles in 2007\"enough to fuel about 1.5 million cars for a year. Rather than being recycled, about 75 percent of the empty plastic bottles end up in our landfills, lakes, streams and oceans, where they may never fully decompose.\" (2) \"Water bottles are made of completely recyclable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastics, but PETs don't biodegrade they photodegrade, which means they break down into smaller fragments over time. Those fragments absorb toxins that pollute our waterways, contaminate our soil, and sicken animals (which we then eat).\" (5) Every time you walk outside you will probably see a water bottle lying on the ground. Looking at the statement above, it makes me nervous to know that the food I eat may have been contaminated by a bottle of water somebody bought and they threw on the ground when they were done. Bottled water is not safer \"Tap water in the United States is subject to more stringent federal safety regulations than bottled water. Federal, state, and local environmental agencies require rigorous testing of tap water safety and make test results available to the public. And despite the marketing claims of purity, independent testing of 10 different brands of bottled water conducted in 2008 found 38 contaminants.\" (2) \"The fact of the matter is\" Bottled water may be hurting your health. A new study suggests plastic bottles release small amounts of chemicals over long periods of time. The longer water is stored in plastic bottles, the higher the concentration of a potentially harmful chemical, a new study suggests.\" (3) \"Research found that the concentration of certain chemicals, such as antimony, increases the longer the water sits in the plastic bottle. It increases over time because the plastic is leaching chemicals into the water. Antimony is a white metallic element that in small doses can cause nausea, dizziness and depression. In large doses, it can be fatal. Antimony is similar chemically to lead. It is also a potentially toxic trace element.\" (3) I would rather drink water from the tap knowing that it must go through a rigorous testing schedule. With plastic bottles releasing chemicals over time why would you want to risk drinking from one? Nobody knows how long that bottle of water has been sitting on the shelf before you buy it so why take that chance? What can you do? \"There's a simple alternative to bottled water: buy a stainless steel thermos, and use it. Don't like the way your local tap water tastes? Inexpensive carbon filters will turn most tap water sparkling fresh at a fraction of bottled water's cost.\" (4) There are always alternatives to bottles water as is stated above. You can always buy a thermos or just use a regular cup and bring it with you to work/school. This way you know that it won\"t end up on the street where it can cause harm to the environment. (1)http://www.mindbodygreen.com... (2)http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org... (3)http://www.banthebottle.net... (4)http://www.mnn.com... (5)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...", "title": "Bottled water is harmful", "pid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.76527404785156}, {"text": "I have PM'ed the admin, and he said that this counts as a serious debate, and that derailing serious debates is a conduct violation. This was not intended to be a troll debate in the first place. Many debaters have already done serious debates on this topic. You are the one who is trolling and derailing it, according to the Admin.", "title": "Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con)", "pid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.75247192382812}, {"text": "In the UK the terms 'natural mineral water' and 'spring water' denote water from an aquifer or underground source, with rules on hygiene and mineral content. Similar laws on how you describe your product exist in the US. If you're stupid enough to pay a premium for something which just says 'water, product of the Coca-Cola company' then you probably deserve getting the hefty dose of bromide that came free in bottles of Dasani. More importantly, whether or not the bottled water comes from the tap, there is still the convenience of being able to purchase, albeit at a premium, water without having to carry a bottle around with you. Moreover if you were, say, travelling in India, or any similar area, the very process of filtering the tap water is rather useful given the reputation of the country's 'potable' water supply.", "title": "Bottled water is often just tapwater anyway", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 215.7517852783203}, {"text": "In a cosmopolitan age, many tourists and business people wish, or are required to travel to areas of the globe where tap water is dangerous to drink, or simply not available. However costly, bottled water provides a solution to the problem of water availability in such areas. Given the length of time it takes to squeeze a cupful of water through a reverse osmosis pump, I suspect bottled water is here to stay for travellers. Drinking 'dirty but 'purified' water is ALWAYS a last resort for travellers. Also it tastes disgusting which is a pretty minor point morally speaking, but in any case will still affect large numbers of people. Make it safe and not taste as horrible then try to convince people.", "title": "Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00031-000", "bm25_score": 215.74794006347656}, {"text": "HA ARE YOU KIDDING ME? OF COURCE TAP WATER IS BETTER THAN BOTTLED WATER, WHO WOULDN'T THINK THAT. RETARDS OF COURSE.", "title": "Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con)", "pid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.738037109375}, {"text": "Dude. How am I going to say Botle Water is better than Tap water? Dude, of cource it is better, god unless you have something to say about bottled Water, go ahead.Because plastic would kill animals and it is bad for the envorionment, the only good part is the fresh water. So what? Our sanity sewers make tap water still fresh.Plus, bottle water is 40% fresh water, and it is ripping us off.Dude, I don't like troll questions, don't post these, or I will report it to an admin or a mod.", "title": "Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con)", "pid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.7339324951172}, {"text": "This is my first time on this website so when I inevitably do something wrong, please point it out and ridicule me. Firstly yes some bottled water comes directly from the mains, which on the face of it may seem very wrong. However you're forgetting that you are not just buying tap water but tap water stored in a convenient container that you can take anywhere, a luxury not available with the mere tap water. This then leads to a major pro for bottled water, its ability to be available anywhere! If you're going for a peaceful walk along a mountain trail, you can't take a tap with you. What you can do is pick up a bottle at almost any store and then take it with you and drink it whenever you want! Now as you've already stated 'around 40% of bottled water actually starts off as tap water' which would mean that around 40% of bottled water provides the exact benefits of tap water, but with the bonus of being available anywhere! Also mineral waters come in a bottled form and boasts many health benefits such as reducing the risk of heart attacks and magnesium deficiency(which causes nervousness, dizziness and headaches or migraines) due to its naturally occurring magnesium, the strengthening of bones and preventing blood clots through calcium, aiding the liver and aiding digestion through sulphates and preventing oestioperosis(which leads to increased risk of bone fractures) through silica. [1] Yes there is technically a huge mark up but it isn't as if you're going to be paying huge amounts for your water. Supermarket chain tesco will only charge you 17p for 2 litres of water [2] that you can carry around and drink whenever it pleases you. Proof that people have no problem with paying this is that as you stated 1 in 5 recycle there bottle, but 4 in five people therefore have absolutely no problem with going out and buying another bottle. Ide also like to argue that bottled water is actually doing the environment a favour. A 438 millilitre bottle of Pepsi one will release 2.2 grams of carbon dioxide directly into our atmosphere [3], whilst bottled water would produce none due to not containing carbonated water. Therefore by being on direct competition with soda brands the bottled water becomes an unsung hero in the battle for our planet and this isn't even taking into consideration the inevitably higher amounts of co2 created in the production of a soda, due to its much broader range of ingredients. Ide like to end by presenting you with a scenario. Family a and family b both live in area prone to natural disasters. Family a keeps a well stocked supply of bottled water but family b doesn't. One day a disaster strikes and the water supply is shut off. Family b are forced to love without water and are faced with threats of potential dehydration and even death. Whilst family a live happy in the knowledge that until things return to normal, they have water aplenty and face none of the risks family b endure due to there dependance on the unreliable tap water. [1] http://www.finewaters.com... [2]http://m.tesco.com... [3]http://www.science-house.org...", "title": "Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water", "pid": "51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.6797332763672}, {"text": "I accept.Because you have not provided opening definitions, I will place some simple framework ones here, however I will not post any argumentation as this is the acceptance round, as per your instructions.Harmful: Injurous or causing injury to a person's physical healthBottled Water: Water which is purchased over-the-counter or by-unit, in contrast to being purchased through general household consumption (e.g. council water mains, etc).________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Over to you to open the debate.", "title": "Bottled water is harmful", "pid": "aec074d3-2019-04-18T15:35:44Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.66958618164062}, {"text": "You call me trolling? Look who is talking, I should report you. This debate has nothing to say. Of cource Tap Water is better. Who wouldn't agree?", "title": "Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con)", "pid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.64028930664062}, {"text": "Burden of proof is shared. First round will be arguments, the following rounds will be rebuttals. Some definitions: Bottled water: Drinking water packaged in plastic or glass and sold as a commodity Tap water: Potable water supplied to taps 1. Carbon footprint 1/5 of plastic bottles from the bottled water do not get recycled. [1] To manufacture these bottles, 47 million gallons of oil are used per year. [2] Even more fuel are needed to send them from the manufacturing plant to the town you live in, and still more to move them from the warehouse to your local grocery store. Using tap water means less demand for non-reusable bottles, which means that less bottles will be manufactured, meaning that the 47 million gallons of oil can be used for necessary purposes, such as transporting food. 2. Health Bottled water is no healthier than tap. In fact, 22% of bottled water contained more chemical contaminants than the state health limit allows. [1] A study conducted by NRDC found that 1/3 of the tested bottled waters have one sample or more that have contamination levels above state and/or industry guidelines. [3] In fact, the chart in the study shows that bottled water is less regulated/less frequently tested than tap water. [3] 3. Transparency Bottled water frequently lie on their labels or have bad transparency. A bottled water brand with “spring water” on its label was actually from an industrial parking lot near hazardous waste. Another bottled water brand claiming to be Alaskan glacial water is actually municipally sourced.[3] Many bottled water companies refuse to disclose the water source, the purification method or whether it even is purified, and whether tests show contaminants. [4] This is not a problem with tap water. [4] Conclusion Due to the 3 problems that bottled water have but tap water don’t, bottled water is worse than tap water. [1] http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2] http://www.mnn.com... [3] http://www.nrdc.org... [4] http://www.ewg.org...", "title": "Tap water (Pro) Bottled water (con)", "pid": "e01b315f-2019-04-18T17:32:02Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 215.63699340820312}, {"text": "My opponent starts his second round claiming that he is \"prepared to refute [his] claim that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned\" Well shoot, and here I thought that was my job! Seriously, though. MY opponent now decides to say that since he never specified from where it should be banned, he would now do so. But before he does that, he cites another bit of info from dhmo.org - \"Two separate studies found that 86% and 90% of Americans, respectively, felt that they would in fact sign a petition and support and outright ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Both studies also concluded that more education was necessary of the sample before conclusive decisions should be made.\" Let us realize that these studies obviously were worded the same way my opponent's opening arguments were. In a way that makes it appear harmful, at least before we think about it. These studies only prove that people are ignorant, something that's been well-documented for quite some time. I assure you that if the words \"Dihydrogen Monoxide\" had been changed to \"water\" in the surveys, the percentage of people in favor of banning it would fall to near 0%. Now, my opponent decides to make a ridiculous case - that what he really meant by the resolution is that water should be banned from all mogwai. Since mogwai do not exist, it would seem that we would gain absolutely nothing from banning water near them. Second, he claims that contaminated water should be banned from drinking water. First, 'banned' is not the word to be used here, 'removed' is. Banning it would be like saying 'if that drinking water's contaminated, you're not allowed to drink it.' Next, consider that my opponent gave us no way to do this. Also, consider that it is not water, H2O, being banned here, it is contamination. Water is exactly what we want in drinking water. Next, my opponent claims that water is responsible for many natural disasters. Have I not already shown this to be irrelevant? We cannot ban rain. IT is impossible. And even if it weren't, life requires it [plants need rain, animals need plants, animals need those animals, etc.]. Also, I never said rain was not water, as my opponent confusedly claims I did. And yes, perhaps contaminated drinking water can cause tumors. As my opponent pointed out, water is not the culprit, it's simply a means of transportation for the contamination. Banning contaminated water is the same as banning contaminated anything-else. It's a ban on the harmful chemicals, not a ban on the water [or the anything else]. Banning the use of water is not ever done. Banning excessive drawing from city water lines is sometimes done, but this is not an effective ban on water. A person can still do whatever with whatever water they have, they just have a limited supply from the city. Limiting a city's supply of water is not banning water. Anyways, a ban requires complete disallowance. I'll go over this one more time. \"Dihydrogen Monoxide\" in the topic refers to H20, otherwise known as water. Therefore, we are only talking about H20, not H20 with poisons mixed in with it. H20 is it. Mixing other things in with it, it ceases to be H20. We are only talking about WATER, not a mixture of water and X. Notice that the topic is stated as a general rule. \"Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned\" implies that overall, it should be banned. Consider this hypothetical topic: \"People should be brutally slain\" PRO for this topic cannot argue that only Hitler and Osama Bin Laden should be brutally slain, because \"People\" refers to people in general. Here's another one. \"I'm better than my opponent.\" PRO has to do more than just show that he's better at ONE THING, he has to show that he's better OVERALL, or better at something that is obviously meant by the initial context. My opponent is doing this same thing - he's changing \"Dihydrogen Monoxide\" to mean \"Dihydrogen Monoxide that also contains contamination\", which ironically enough, ceases to be Dihydrogen Monoxide, but is rather a mixture thereof. Also, consider that my opponent completely made up an entirely new advocacy between this round and last. The topic is stated generally, and the opening paragraph seemed to be speaking generally, but now he is claiming that it should only be banned in these few eency weency scenarios.", "title": "Dihydrogen Monoxide should be banned", "pid": "e1463160-2019-04-18T19:39:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.61639404296875}, {"text": "We actually need some healthy water where taps can not provide that.", "title": "Bottled water is good where there is a lack of healthy water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 215.57965087890625}, {"text": "In Conclusion, bottled water does not need to pass E.coli tests, is not required to produce quality reports, costs more than tap, and is wasteful as only one fifth of them are recycled.[1] Bottled water does not even taste better than tap, according to a survey from Penn and Teller. [2]Their only pro is that they are put in a portable, carry-able bottle. [1]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2]www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdvJOF-2mm0", "title": "Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water", "pid": "51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.5493621826172}, {"text": "\"The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks.\" So now Pro is admitting to something. \"The scientific evidence is clear that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water.\" Water itself is a chemical. In large amounts it does kill (drowning by ingestion). Tap water IS strictly regulated, but only during the period before it is piped to users. My contention stands and is admitted. This argument should thus be removed. One has to use a container to drink tap water. One has to then wash the container. Using the same amount of water as that required to make a bottle. My argument is not based on how many minerals there are, but on the amount of build-up made. One may have only a little mineral in the water, but it still would leave deposits in the pipe. Cost: I was talking about wholesale buying, not single bottle. If one were to buy a shipload of bottled water, one would almost equal the cost of buying that amount of tap water from a water company. (Depends also on the supplier, this argument is also hypothetical) The taste argument has no bearing whatsoever. Give a group of people the choice between sugar water and tap water, most would go for the sugar. It is filtered and checked for contaminants before bottling, whereas tap water is filtered, checked, and left to stagnate in an open tank. The BoP is on Pro. I make a hypothetical case. Con concedes the carbon footprint point. E. Coli is not the most dangerous substance to be found in water. Dead human are. http://indiatoday.intoday.in..., which shows that anything can get into the water tanks. Refutation was given by means of the argument that water is tasteless. Conclusion I have not given a single source in this debate. Other than four sentences past. My arguments are hypothetical, and the validity of some were admitted by Pro. Pro does not seem to understand my refutation of point 4. It was not even technical. Pro uses a source that is unreliable. It cannot be followed up on. It does not provide enough information to make a valid, informed, value judgment. This is evident in the case where the number of bottles made is not given.", "title": "Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)", "pid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.51556396484375}, {"text": "\"Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur. P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli\" But wait! What about the remaining from the other 60%? (40% of them are processed tap water. ) Plus, bottled water gets processed before being sold, and how do you guarantee that the processing plant is free of E. coli? \"I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water. \" Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water. With this logic, we can also conclude that: P1. Unicorns have glitter. P2. Unicorns produce the glitter. C. Unicorns are real. Therefore this rebuttal is false.", "title": "Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)", "pid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.51136779785156}, {"text": "Here are your arguments and my responses \"Some bottled water come from tap, though it is in a bottle so it can be carried, which is not available with tap.\" There are reusable bottles that can be used for moving tap water from place to place, and buying one can be cheaper than bottled water in the long term, as bottles for bottled water are usually not designed to last, though those reusable ones do. \"Mineral water is available in bottled form, and those minerals reduce some health risks.\" Those minerals are healthy for you, but can also be got from food and not from something that flows for almost free on our tap and is sold for thousand times of that. For example, milk also got a lot of these minerals, and so does some other foods too. 'Minerals or milk salts, are traditional names for a variety of cations and anions within bovine milk. Calcium, phosphate, magnesium, sodium, potassium, citrate, and chlorine are all included as minerals and they typically occur at concentration of 5\"40 mM.' [1] \"You stated that only 1 in 5 recycle their bottles, though 4 in 5 have no problem with buying another one. It is not very expensive.\" Only one in five recycle their bottles [2], and that causes environmental issues, like giant piles of bottles ending up in landfills. Then, they buy them again when they can just get it for almost free from the tap. \"bottled water is good for the environment because soda releases co2 into the atmosphere and bottled water does not\" Bottled water industries use 17 million barrels of oil each year to make plastic. [2]And count all the shipping around the world before they end up on the shelves. Plus there sure are carbonated bottled water on the market. [3] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [3]http://www.finewaters.com...", "title": "Tap Water is Better than Bottled Water", "pid": "51260ca8-2019-04-18T18:07:31Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.44403076171875}, {"text": "I'll be arguing that tap water is better than bottled water. 1. Health benefits Tap water is fluoridated, which is good for your teeth. \"Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride.\"[1] Fluoride is lethal in high doses,[2] but is harmless in low doses. Plus, bottled water isn\"t tested for e. coli.[3] which makes it potentially dangerous. 2. Environmental impacts \"Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year. ...Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled.\"[3] 3.It is expensive! Bottled water is 10,000 times the cost of tap water, and 40% of bottled water is actually taken from tap water. [3] 4. It does not even taste better than tap. \"D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.\"[4] 5. Conclusion Bottled water : Less regulated Costs more than tap Bigger carbon footprint Not as good for you as tap Tastes worse than tap [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [4]D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.", "title": "Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)", "pid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 215.42166137695312}, {"text": "There are environmental costs to purifying tap water too. Not to forget the toxic materials necessary to pump and deliver the water to the tap. Moreover the problems you raise are more with the bottles themselves and how we dispose of them than with the concept of bottled water per se. Biodegradable corn starch 'polymers' or a more responsible attitude to recycling would also solve the problem.", "title": "Its harmful to the environment", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 215.39537048339844}, {"text": "Thanks for a well written response! \"The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks.\" So now Pro is admitting to something. I am only saying that the water tanks can be dirty, but bottles can be dirty due to not being sealed properly, so this argument is invalid. \"One has to use a container to drink tap water. One has to then wash the container. Using the same amount of water as that required to make a bottle.\" Nope. Tap water can be drunk using a water fountain, etc, plus, the containers for bottled water are poisonous. While reusable ones don't. \"The compounds on which most concerns have focused are Bisphenol A (known as BPA), which is used in tough polycarbonate products and epoxy resins that line tin cans, and a group of plastic softeners called phthalates. Furthermore, a landmark report on BPA published in 2008 by the U.S. National Toxicology Program concluded that there were concerns over BPA\"s effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland development in foetuses, infants and children. It also found that because of the ratio of body weight to exposure, \"the highest estimated daily intake of Bisphenol A in the general population occurs in infants and children\".\"[1] \"E. Coli is not the most dangerous substance to be found in water. Dead human are.\" Remember, bottled water companies are taking the same tap water here, except not tested for e.coli, and then selling it for thousand times more money.[2] \"Refutation was given by means of the argument that water is tasteless.\" Let's see his refutation: \"Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution.\" The only thing this tells is that the taste is not from the water itself. It only explains the taste, and does not refute it at all. [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2]http://www.onlineeducation.net...", "title": "Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)", "pid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.38577270507812}, {"text": "I contend that Hydroxyl acid should not be banned for the simple fact that it is WATER.......", "title": "Hydroxyl Acid Should Be Banned", "pid": "8d266032-2019-04-18T16:46:37Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.286376953125}, {"text": "\"Pro's logic is inherently flawed. If unicorns have glitter, and if they produce glitter, that does not make them real. Therefore, this logic is flawed.\" This is exactly your logic in the taste argument: Unicorns have glitter. (Tap water tastes better than bottled water in D.C.) Unicorns produce glitter. (The taste is from the impurities in the water) Therefore unicorns are real. (Therefore the taste argument is refuted.) Your logic is flawed.", "title": "Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)", "pid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.2826385498047}, {"text": "Marketing, that's all it is. Like Madonna, it's all hype. The elemental problem with the purchase and continuation of the bottled water industry is the marketing of it; if bottled water were advertised simply as a means to hydration in the same way that juices, fruits themselves, tap water, etc. are seen by the general public, then it may soon be realised that the coincidental nature of the sounds of the words 'l'evian' and 'live young' are just that: a coincidence. Water that has trickled through mountains for hundreds of years will not be like 'manna from heaven' trickling from the edges of the holy grail, it's just H2O.", "title": "People believe the marketing hype too much", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 215.26889038085938}, {"text": "I accept, since my other debates have a high possibility of forfeiture. The BoP is on you, but I will present arguments. 1. Health benefits. It is quite clear that fluorine can be added to bottled water just like chlorine is added to tap water. Proper tooth care would negate the need for additional fluorine. The assertion that E. Coli is not checked for in bottled water, which I cannot verify, but in tap water is opposed by the statistics by Pro that 40% of all bottled water uses tap water. There is the high probability of contamination of tap water tanks as opposed to bottled water, which is sealed. There is nothing to prevent contamination AFTER testing, at the period of time when it stagnates in tanks. However, bottled water is sealed right after packing. 2. Environmental effects. I do not deny the fact that it uses a large amount of oil to produce plastic bottles, but how much? Pro states, \"Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year.\" How many bottles? He leaves out that important piece of information that allows us to compare. Tap water, on the other hand, is hard water. Hard Water deposits block pipes, and the cost to replace those pipes in an environmentally friendly manner probably outweighs that of disposing the same amount of bottles. 3. Cost Depending on where the bottle is bought and in what amount, the cost of bottle water actually can be lower than tap water, especially in locations that have no pipe. Furthermore, a container would have to be used to consume the water. Water would then be needed to clean that container. The waste in water far outweighs the benefits. 4. Taste Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution. Conclusion: Bottled water : Less regulated. No such point was made. Costs more than tap. Not necessarily. Bigger carbon footprint. No such point. Not as good for you as tap. Refuted. Tastes worse than tap. Not due to the water. I have thus negated the resolution. I believe tap water to be equal to, not better than, bottled water.", "title": "Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)", "pid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.2537841796875}, {"text": "P.S. the taste one I posted was from http://www.nbcwashington.com..., it wasn't in my last argument due to a copy/paste error. Now to the real debate. \"It is quite clear that fluorine can be added to bottled water just like chlorine is added to tap water. Proper tooth care would negate the need for additional fluorine. The assertion that E. Coli is not checked for in bottled water, which I cannot verify, but in tap water is opposed by the statistics by Pro that 40% of all bottled water uses tap water. There is the high probability of contamination of tap water tanks as opposed to bottled water, which is sealed. There is nothing to prevent contamination AFTER testing, at the period of time when it stagnates in tanks. However, bottled water is sealed right after packing.\" The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks. Plus, check out this: \"In fact, certain brands of bottled water have been shown to have more contaminants than tap water due to the leaching of harmful chemicals from the plastic bottles. The scientific evidence is clear that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water.\"[3] Tap water: Possibility of contamination from container, Strictly regulated. Bottled water: Isn\"t tested for e. coli. Can be distributed even when tap water standards are not met. Not required to provide source. [1]Lower possibility of contamination from container. Environmental effects argument: \"How many bottles? He leaves out that important piece of information that allows us to compare.\" It isn't on my source, but tap water does not use bottles AT ALL. \"Tap water, on the other hand, is hard water. Hard Water deposits block pipes, and the cost to replace those pipes in an environmentally friendly manner probably outweighs that of disposing the same amount of bottles.\" Hard water=water that has high mineral content. [2] How many minerals are in tap water has many factors: the source, the filtration method, etc. so this argument is invalid until you put evidence for it. Cost Argument \"Depending on where the bottle is bought and in what amount, the cost of bottle water actually can be lower than tap water.\" Maybe you can give me a link to the website of a store? \"Furthermore, a container would have to be used to consume the water. Water would then be needed to clean that container. The waste in water far outweighs the benefits.\" Well, it takes 3 bottles of water to produce the bottle, only 1 used to fill it. [1] Taste \"Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution.\" This still does not prove my taste argument wrong. \"Less regulated. No such point was made.\" It is not checked for E.Coli. It is less regulated. [1] \"Costs more than tap. Not necessarily.\" No proof given. \"Bigger carbon footprint. No such point.\" Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled. Instead, 4 go to the trash dump to create about 3 billion pounds of waste just from all of the discarded plastic. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year.[1] As you can see, I did have such point. \"Not as good for you as tap. Refuted.\" It still is not tested for E.coli. [1] \"Tastes worse than tap. Not due to the water.\" No refutation given at all. Conclusion My opponent has not given a single source on this debate. No evidence given from opponent. My opponent did not refute point 4. (No personal attack intended) [1]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.waterbenefitshealth.com...", "title": "Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)", "pid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.24560546875}, {"text": "so youre saying we shouldnt buy bottled water because you don't like how its being advertised? Thats the dumbest reason to not buy a product i've ever heard. Really? So what how its advertised? If i want to buy a bottle of water i'll buy it, i don't care what the label looks like or how theyre being sold, i just want a damn bottle of water.", "title": "People believe the marketing hype too much", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 215.23098754882812}, {"text": "If 60% of bottled water do not come from tap water, one must conclude that the majority of bottled water is not from taps. If bottled water is processed after being taken from the tap, it ceases to be tap water. There is no guarantee of anything. Tests do not always pick up on E. Coli. \"Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water.\" Just because the tap water has a better taste does not mean that tap water is superior. Pro\"s logic is inherently flawed. If unicorns have glitter, and if they produce glitter, that does not make them real. Therefore, this logic is flawed.", "title": "Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)", "pid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.2235107421875}, {"text": "Bottled water costs up to 1,000 times the price of tap water", "title": "It is time to stop buying bottled water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.22088623046875}, {"text": "Bottle water is not the better choice it's expensive, wasteful and not any healthier for you than tap water :1.Its not a good value2.No healthier than tap water 3.Bottled water brings harm to the environment 4.Brings less attention to public systems. 5. Effect local economies. I will explain these reasons throughout the debate.", "title": "Which water is the best water", "pid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.20916748046875}, {"text": "Walking in the countryside, playing chess or swimming may improve one's sense of well-being - but these activities have no detrimental consequences for the wider environment. This is not just a reference to the scientifically debatable concept of 'carbon footprints' &c. involved in bottle production and transit, but to the landfill and litter that the consumption of bottled water inevitably produces. If it is the feeling of wellbeing one seeks, then purchase only one bottle, and re-fill it, as required from the tap, or perhaps a tabletop water filter. One doesn't need to keep purchasing bottled water to feel good.", "title": "It enhances enjoyment and feeling of wellbeing", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00026-000", "bm25_score": 215.1773223876953}, {"text": "My reason are still more valuable than yours, just because different companies provide varieties of flavors this still doesn't disprove my point that water bottle's cause a danger to the environment. The process of making plastic water bottles uses approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil, and according to the Earth Policy Institute that’s enough to run 100,000 cars for an entire year. Also 80 percent of water bottles are not recycled, resulting in 38 billion water bottles clogging landfills taking 700 years to decompose.", "title": "Which water is the best water", "pid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.958740234375}, {"text": "I will explain my logic a little to spare confusion. 1. Tap water tastes better than bottled water. 2. All water has impurities. 3. Pure water ideally is tasteless. Conclusion: Tap water has impurities which causes its taste. Applying this to unicorns. 1. Legendary history are nicer to hear than fact-based history. 1. Legends have unicorns. 3. Pure history is boring. Conclusion: Legends have unicorns which cause it to be better to hear. Thus, unicorns are not proven. Conclusion: Conduct: Pro He is far more courteous than I. Spelling: Tie There isn\"t much in the way of a difference here. Arguments: Con Pro has basically dropped all arguements Sources: Pro Con provides almost no sources.", "title": "Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)", "pid": "b0a7bcdb-2019-04-18T18:05:08Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.9381561279297}, {"text": "The proposition forgets that most bottled waters marketed in this country are \"mineral\" or \"spring\" waters. For a water to possess the name of \"mineral\" or \"spring\" water, it must come from a spring in the ground and be bottled at source. Waters such as Dasani are unpopular - Dasani itself was itself completely withdrawn from sale in the UK. The bottled waters popular in this country, i.e. Evian, Volvic, San Pellegrino, Buxton, all come from natural springs and contain natural elements, such as iron, potassium etc, which are all necessary for the human body to function healthily. Often, some natural flourides occur in mineral water. Fluorides are only sometimes artificially added to tap waters, and in large quantities this has the undesired effect of staining teeth instead of improving their health. Tap water is often highly chlorinated. Bottled water does have a health benefit and is better than tap water.", "title": "Its no better for you.", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 214.93780517578125}, {"text": "First, I think you don't know that price of bottled water is 1000 times more than tap water, and you can boil the tap water and pour it into glass cups. Second, aluminium cans are also a choice to replace plastic and many drinks are packed with aluminium cans. They are large amount produced. Lastly, plastic can't smelt so they exist in this world for more than 1000 years at least. But glass and aluminium can be smelted down and change into something new. THE END", "title": "Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles", "pid": "5986c100-2019-04-18T13:20:46Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.8521728515625}, {"text": "The care for these public water sytems has been forgotten in many places and because of easy access to water bottles they switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Then little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment. I believe I have showed more information that goes against bottled water than my opponent.", "title": "Which water is the best water", "pid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.80531311035156}, {"text": "Bottled water is healthier and better than filtered water", "title": "Which water is the best water", "pid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 214.8044891357422}, {"text": "I don't know what to do here.", "title": "Soda should be banned", "pid": "f3fd5f9a-2019-04-18T13:42:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.80430603027344}, {"text": "They don't leak into my bag at college", "title": "It is time to stop buying bottled water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.74267578125}, {"text": "You have only covered only a few reasons why bottled water may be good but as you will see when I explain in more depth my reasons that your explanation will not suffice. First it is not a good value. For example Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines if you can find a $1 machine that works out to 5 cents an ounce. Most Tap water would cost less than 1 cent per gallon. So you are far from saving money. You also might think that bottled water is healthier than regular tap water but you are mistaken. 70 percent of bottled water never even crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA to overlook. Also On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. Tap water is also is not only safe it’s beneficial unlike bottled water most tap water contains teeth-strengthening fluoride. There's very little evidence that suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.", "title": "Which water is the best water", "pid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.72116088867188}, {"text": "The motion in debate calls for the proposition to defend that in general, the sole owner of and provider for water should be the state. They have failed. There is no piece of evidence they presented that I didn’t either successfully debunk or accepted and then used against the motion. Some of their points weren’t supported by analysis or evidence. They said companies can’t be trusted to justify the proposal but in their rebuttal they accepted that governments, like Venezuela’s, can’t be trusted either. They said that the government is the only proper agent because of having the budget and the political support. I demonstrated that there are huge private companies and that there is growing discontent with state monopolies and growing acceptance of privatization (like in Scotland) and that a policy’s popularity is different than it’s quality. They proved that fresh water is dwindling, but failed at explaining why that means the motion should be approved. I countered by showing how by giving away water, you could cause it to dwindle faster. They conceded that there can be some privates amongst suppliers Prop We stand that the state should CONTROL the process in those cases where private industries supply the resource, to avoid speculation in emergency situations. Prop. contradicted itself. First they said that prop one cannot play with supply and demand with something as important as water. Privatize water would be like privatize air. We need them equally and the state should provide enough for everyone. And then, in another point they said prop We are not suggesting giving free bottle water to everyone but the company that provides this product should be owned by the state. So on one hand water should be free or near free (no supply and demand games) and on the other they say they are not suggesting free bottled water. And does a bottled water company enter the category of need? No. I provided a framework for analysis for the examples of both State being successful and privately owned companies failing: they’re isolated examples. I provided evidence that proves state owned is a bad idea because it usually fails. I explained why they usually fail. Political abuses, lack of innovation (when innovative technologies like desalination are crucial), too cheap prices creating a high demand. Also, I linked the examples of private failings to them being protected by the government’s dealings with lobbyists and pressure groups. Lastly I provided spaces the poor to still get water while keeping the quality for everyone else. For this reasons, I think this policy should be opposed.", "title": "Summary", "pid": "d3291ded-2019-04-19T12:48:09Z-00037-000", "bm25_score": 214.69161987304688}, {"text": "Invaluable for aid in natural disasters/famine", "title": "It is time to stop buying bottled water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.66763305664062}, {"text": "You will be the death of us all. If water was sold in plastic bottles, people would be forced to drink tap water and use other containers. You just can't produce enough glass to meet the demand. What's more, glass is extremely fragile and will break if I drop it, but plastic bottles won't. I know plastic bottles harm the environment, but glass bottles would take up even more energy and resources, which would do equal or more damage to the environment. Plastic bottles for life!", "title": "Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles", "pid": "5986c100-2019-04-18T13:20:46Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.63681030273438}, {"text": "We could, if we could be bothered, take water purification devices with us. The inconvenience suffered would be far preferable than seeing beautiful paradise islands overcome by plastic bottles, as has happened in Thailand to my knowledge and I'm sure other places too. We have a responsibility when we travel, the responsibility to leave the place as we found it - as much as we possibly can. Dumping water bottles ruins an environment for decades to come. Taking our own means of purifying water is the responsible thing to do.", "title": "Invaluable for travellers in areas with unsafe tap water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00030-000", "bm25_score": 214.5986328125}, {"text": "You end up with a bottle that needs to be recycled and often isn’t 85% of plastic water bottles become garbage. The bottling companies find it easier and more profitable to let you throw the water containers away and buy a new one each time. About 2 million of them are thrown away every hour. Most bottles sold are actually small sized bottles, increasing the wastage", "title": "Its harmful to the environment", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 214.5826873779297}, {"text": "According to Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), special treatments to remove impurities—such as distillation or coronation—are performed on top of municipal filtrations by certain bottled water manufacturers, such as Aquafina and Dasani. Bottled water offers consistent quality control, as each bottle is of the same quality as the previous one. Lead levels for tap water are lower for bottled water than tap. According to Mama’s Health, tap water is set at 15 parts per billion (ppb) and bottled water is set at 5 ppb.", "title": "Which water is the best water", "pid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.55206298828125}, {"text": "My opponent may have stated her reason but has not justified them. First and foremost, the best thing about bottled water is the portability. We’re always on the move, and taking the time to look for a water fountain can be out of the question. However, if we be sure to always carry a bottle of water or two, our problem is solved. Bottled water can also save money. Instead of buying expensive soda or coffee, if we were to have a bottle of water on hand, we’d be set.Also people prefer variety. There are also energizing waters for those of us who need that extra boost during a long day, and also relaxing waters to aid in falling asleep. Bottled water also lacks that heavy stench of chlorine that often accompanies plain tap water.", "title": "Which water is the best water", "pid": "c8a50f55-2019-04-18T18:22:24Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.53578186035156}, {"text": "To counter your statement, my point was not that God would not want water to be open to everyone, but that if we did make water legal and open to everyone, that would cause even more problems in our society. 1) Yes, God cares very much about humans, and does not want them to thirst or starve. However, He does want us to work towards what we want and need. Making the water free, means that even the people that don't work, or don't go out into the world and get a job, get the same priveliges that poeple do who do work hard. 2) There are places where you can get free water. There are many places where you can get free cups of water. People don't NEED bottled water. If they are so picky, they can earn some money and buy themselves a bottle. 3) There are worldwide systems and organizations that help people get water. We should take those oppurtunities and help the countries in need. Thank you for listening to my side of this debate.", "title": "<GY> Water should be Privatized", "pid": "2ed17cc9-2019-04-18T18:59:58Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.4698486328125}, {"text": "If plastic bottles are left out in the sun and melt into the water - the materials in the plastic which were melted will disolve in thr water - contaminating it. It is not good to have plastic in water if people are going to consume it for energy - they will become sick.", "title": "Plastic bottles should be left out in the sun", "pid": "db49fdec-2019-04-18T14:34:53Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.3984832763672}, {"text": "Why when it comes cheaply out the tap would you pay 1,000 times more? Volcanicity perhaps... Take, for instance, Pepsi’s Aquafina or Coca-Cola’s Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines alongside soft drinks — and at the same price. Assuming you can find a $1 machine, that works out to 5 cents an ounce. These two brands are essentially filtered tap water, bottled close to their distribution point. Most municipal water costs less than one cent per gallon. Now consider another widely-sold liquid: gasoline. It has to be pumped out of the ground in the form of crude oil, shipped to a refinery (often halfway across the world), and shipped again to your local filling station. In the U.S., the average price per gallon is hovering around $3. There are 128 ounces in a gallon, which puts the current price of gasoline at fraction over 2 cents an ounce. And that’s why there’s no shortage of companies which want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame.", "title": "Bottled water costs up to 1,000 times the price of tap water", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00019-000", "bm25_score": 214.39035034179688}, {"text": "Before I begin: thanks to my opponent, as well as the voters. 1. On what basis is this claim founded upon? Because it is certainly a false notion. A 24-pack/35-pack of 500mL bottled water costs $4~6 at Safeway, even cheaper at Costco. Now, one-gallon waters costs a dollar, and it lasts an average family (with four people) half a week. That means $2 per week, $8 per month, and ultimately $96 per year. Even cheaper is getting water filled from a water vending machine. They are quite safe, with multiple stages for clarification; yet, they do not compromise their cheap price tag (20 cents or so for a gallon). The $760 claim is simply preposterous. If bottled water was that expensive, then they would have become long obsolete. As for the cost, bottled water is not the only option. Water filters, like Brita, are also a great alternative. A 10-pack costs around 45$ at Costco, and each should be used for three months (recommended). That means that, for $45 (plus the cost of the water filter itself, which costs as low as $25) one can last 30 months, or two years and a half. 2. The same goes for bottled waters and filters. Buying three - five bottled water every time you drop by your grocery store will keep you well-supplied for at least a week and a half. Water filters also allow users to get water anytime they want (as long as they have tap water). 3. Anecdotal evidence = / = applicable in debates. Apparently, your so-called friend has not heard of buying bottled water or using water filters. It's his fault for being allured to sugar rushes. 4. Yes, tap water is not very healthy. That is why there are healthy alternatives available in today's market that are cheap and inexpensive. 5. Source for this claim? Water filters are quite scrupulous when it comes to eradicating all the debris out of the water. Sole contention: There is no reason to pay an extra of hundreds of dollars when there are two prominent alternatives that are cheaper. The cost to fix a water dispenser could also add on to the already-hefty price tag. Vote Con. Sources: http://www.howitworks.net... http://hypertextbook.com...", "title": "Refrigerators with water dispensers and ice dispensers are better!", "pid": "96617488-2019-04-18T19:02:49Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.38525390625}, {"text": "The source of your bottled water is likely to be the same one that serves your home. Coke revealed last year that the source of it´s highly publicized Dasani Brand water was London's municipal water supply (with a 3000% markup). PepsiCos Aquafina Brand bottled water is treated tap water coming from 11 different wells around the USA. Mostly the only difference is that bottled water has added minerals and salts, which do not actually mean the water is healthier. Drinking water is better for your teeth as it contains flourides. Bottled water does not.", "title": "Its no better for you.", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00021-000", "bm25_score": 214.3332977294922}, {"text": "So before I launch into my first point, I'd like to talk about the Precautionary Principle. Essentially, it states that if an action or policy is suspected of causing some harm to either the public or the environment, then the burden of proof lies mostly on proving the lack of a harm. It's a principle used by policy markers when scientific knowledge is either lacking or uncertain, and it implies a basic level of social responsibility to protect the public from harm. I think we can all agree that, at the end of the day, those harms are the most important to consider, whether from an economic, environmental or health standpoint. Therefore, the burden of proof is on Con in this debate. He must prove either that fracking can cause no demonstrable harm to humans, or that the restrictions he presents will adequately protect human beings from any and all such harms. Now, starting on my points. One of the most well-known problems with this is groundwater contamination. In 2008, a hydrologist found benzene in a water well in Wyoming above where fracking was occurring. [1] There is a tremendous amount of film available showing that flammable gas is leaking through dinking water pipes, which poses a dramatic risk to homes and their inhabitants. [2] Lives are placed at risk, as well as livelihoods. But Con will probably say that his restrictions solve for all this. Sadly, that is wrong. This problem results from two key problems that aren't going to be solved by the regulations he's proposed. The first of these is that the fluids used fracking are considered to be proprietary formulas. [3] Most companies don't disclose nearly enough information on the chemicals used in fracking. [4] Include all of the regulations he's stated in R2, and you don't get around this. They will still be injecting these chemicals into the ground at high pressure. Some of them will go into groundwater sources, even with the best regulations, since we don't know where all of them are, since extensive techniques must commonly be used to be certain. [5] The second problem is how it's done. The process of injection is mostly safe when the wellbores are constructed strongly, but the injection itself is meant to send large amounts of chemicals outward into porous soil, from which it cannot possibly all be recovered. [6] Hell, porous rock is normally required at the point of injection. [7] In other words, it's a part of the process. Unless Con means to institute an effectual ban by regulating them out of using a process necessary to continue fracking, he's simply not solving for this. Onto another point that is commonly known to be associated with fracking: earthquakes. Con's own #3 actually supports my point here quite well. It provides all the background I could ever need on how fracking has led to earthquakes at a number of different locations, something that Con actually concedes. [8] He simply says that he can solve for this. Of course, that ignores much of what the article itself says: \"Drillers inject high-pressure fluids into a hydraulic fracturing well, making slight fissures in the shale that release natural gas. The wastewater that flows back up with the gas is then transported to disposal wells, where it is injected deep into porous rock. Scientists now believe that the pressure and lubrication of that wastewater can cause faults to slip and unleash an earthquake. \"[8] \"Too much wastewater in a disposal well forces liquid downward and outward, he adds. It can meander for months, creeping into unknown faults and prying the rock apart just enough to release pent-up energy. \"[8] Remember all those nice regulations Con touts? Well, one of the current ones is disposal of fracking fluid. It's done by injection, which can cause earthquakes. [6] Again, Con would have to remove an integral piece of how fracking works to solve for this. Now, let's talk air pollution. I'm not saying that oil or coal are good, but natural gas is, at best, no better, and at worst, dramatically worse. Recent studies have shown that methane, a more potent greenhouse gas, is leaking out of the soil and into the air from many of these wells. [9] This leakage is thought, again, to result from the porosity of soil, which allows gas to travel through it in the event that the rock around that gas is disrupted. That's exactly what fracking is supposed to do. It's only a short term solution, as the amount of natural gas available to be fracked is still limited. It also releases CO2 when burned, producing a smaller but still substantial amount of the greenhouse gas. The biggest effect, however, is one that is not direct. The price of natural gas is so low that many companies are simply abandoning renewable energy alternatives. [10] It's gone so far that natural gas \" a resource-limited, carbon dioxide-emitting fuel source \" is being rebranded as green energy by the European Union! [11] So sure, putting aside the methane emissions, may be we benefit from lower carbon dioxide emissions. But the reality is that it's pushing back our progress in biofuels and green energy, which means we're just going to keep burning for longer. It's a net detriment in the long term. But let's go back to the Precautionary Principle, because what we know isn't all that matters here. Most companies engaging in fracking is currently exempt from the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Con hasn't stated that he would force them to adhere, so they're being held to a different standards than literally every other industry. They deny many scientists access to the wells to actively prevent us from understanding the impacts of fracking. They even go so far as to use lawsuits to prevent what information does come out from being disclosed. [12, 13] Unfortunately, I don't have the space to fully address Con's economic points here, so I'll leave that for the next round. For the time being, I'll simply state two things. First, any economic benefit is transient at best and actually causes more harm in the long term. And second, the environmental and health harms are always going to outweigh due to the long-term impacts they create. Even billions of dollars are not worth a devastating earthquake and people poisoned by their own drinking water. With that, I return this debate to my opponent's hands to refute my case and build on his. 1. . http://www.npr.org... 2. www. scientificamerican. com/article. cfm? id=natural-gas-make-water-burn 3. . http://www.psr.org... 4. . http://twon.tamu.edu... 5. . http://water.usgs.gov... 6. . http://www.scribd.com... 7. . http://twon.tamu.edu... 8. . http://www.motherjones.com... 9. . http://www.nature.com... 10. www. greenoptimistic. com/2012/10/31/biofuel-companies-miss-the-point-turn-to-natural-gas/#. UymwC4W-jC4 11. . http://www.livescience.com... 12. . http://www.theguardian.com... 13. . http://www.ucsusa.org...", "title": "Be it resolved that hydraulic fracturing be banned from the USA", "pid": "fc220308-2019-04-18T16:28:36Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.23358154296875}, {"text": "You can't say use aluminium, you have chosen to use glass to replace plastic bottles. Cans and bottles are nearly same. Plastic can be recycled and reused, glass once broken isn't reusable. Plastic is more durable than glass. Tap water needs to be boiled in certain areas to be drinkable, which would increase fuel consumption. Plus, plastic bottles can't be used as a weapon, but glass bottles can shed blood. Glass can reflect light and cause distraction, plastic can't.", "title": "Glass bottles should replace plastic bottles", "pid": "5986c100-2019-04-18T13:20:46Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.0944061279297}, {"text": "No because people do not let plastic out in the sun melt into their drinking water - they are not stupid. And those who do (I can't imagine anyone who does this) probably don't consume it daily - either way, it is not healthy.", "title": "Plastic bottles should be left out in the sun", "pid": "db49fdec-2019-04-18T14:34:53Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.08724975585938}, {"text": "The quality of water is very high in this country is very good. In foreign countries bottled water is only consumed because they cannot drink the tap water. There is no need to drink it.", "title": "Water quality", "pid": "39e75959-2019-04-19T12:45:40Z-00025-000", "bm25_score": 214.0727081298828}]}
{"idx": 42, "qid": "44", "q_text": "Should election day be a national holiday?", "qrels": {"790c6317-2019-04-18T14:20:46Z-00002-000": 1, "337b3aee-2019-04-18T16:22:29Z-00003-000": 0, "be96fc73-2019-04-18T17:02:03Z-00005-000": 0, "4c68354c-2019-04-18T13:19:39Z-00000-000": 0, "adb11e8-2019-04-18T13:30:49Z-00001-000": 0, "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00003-000": 0, "9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00000-000": 0, "62943939-2019-04-18T17:46:25Z-00001-000": 0, "62943939-2019-04-18T17:46:25Z-00002-000": 0, "5fa207c6-2019-04-18T17:59:10Z-00001-000": 0, "5fa207c6-2019-04-18T17:59:10Z-00002-000": 0, "5e30e768-2019-04-18T19:07:13Z-00000-000": 0, "5b09f246-2019-04-18T16:17:57Z-00002-000": 0, "5b09f227-2019-04-18T20:01:38Z-00004-000": 0, "5666d2e5-2019-04-18T12:54:00Z-00001-000": 0, "54bd63d7-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00020-000": 0, "4c34b2a1-2019-04-18T13:21:19Z-00000-000": 0, "470ed1f-2019-04-18T19:34:46Z-00005-000": 0, "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00007-000": 0, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "40a68302-2019-04-18T14:17:57Z-00003-000": 0, "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00002-000": 0, "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00023-000": 1, "62943939-2019-04-18T17:46:25Z-00000-000": 0, "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00024-000": 0, "6313dc6f-2019-04-18T18:19:12Z-00003-000": 0, "63b4a1cb-2019-04-18T13:13:54Z-00001-000": 0, "63b4a1cb-2019-04-18T13:13:54Z-00005-000": 0, "7068d2b9-2019-04-18T18:58:24Z-00004-000": 0, "80e3ce8f-2019-04-18T15:56:43Z-00007-000": 0, "8f6f694e-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00057-000": 0, "9860f93c-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00076-000": 0, "9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00006-000": 0, "29adee3b-2019-04-18T15:25:42Z-00000-000": 0, "62943939-2019-04-18T17:46:25Z-00004-000": 0, "62943939-2019-04-18T17:46:25Z-00007-000": 0, "b38b6b92-2019-04-18T13:11:31Z-00002-000": 0, "c56b5c73-2019-04-18T17:57:10Z-00009-000": 0, "c213a393-2019-04-18T17:11:09Z-00002-000": 1, "b9e3533f-2019-04-15T20:22:51Z-00008-000": 0, "b8738fe-2019-04-18T11:11:08Z-00004-000": 0, "b8738fe-2019-04-18T11:11:08Z-00008-000": 0, "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00005-000": 2, "e76f7b80-2019-04-18T18:21:51Z-00002-000": 0, "ad015253-2019-04-19T12:45:12Z-00021-000": 0, "a9586a5-2019-04-18T15:18:07Z-00001-000": 0, "f16b5ef2-2019-04-18T12:46:05Z-00001-000": 0, "db06427c-2019-04-18T11:49:34Z-00004-000": 0, "fcb46bcd-2019-04-18T18:23:49Z-00003-000": 0, "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00000-000": 2, "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00004-000": 1, "db06427c-2019-04-18T11:49:34Z-00002-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "History: In 1845, Congress had to decide when to let Americans vote. It took a very long time to travel. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the time of worship. So they chose Tuesday. Because Wednesday was market day. In 1875 Congress extended the Tuesday date for national House elections and in 1914 for federal Senate elections. This no longer applies to American society because travel is a lot easier and nobody would travel three days to vote. Election day should be moved to the first Saturday in November. This keeps the date close to the other date and does not hurt schedules now too much. It is so inconvenient to leave work on Tuesdays or to generally get around. It would be a lot more convenient for Americans if Election Day was moved to a Saturday. Census data shows that many Americans do not vote due to the fact that it is so inconvenient or unlikely that they will be able to leave work.", "title": "The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday.", "pid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.45797729492188}, {"text": "The original reasoning behind choosing Tuesday for election day no longer applies. That you have clearly demonstrated in your opening argument. However, this should not lead one to conclude changing election day to a Saturday. Although the original reasons for a Tuesday election are outdated, this does not mean that other reasons have not also come into play as times have changed. First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. Corporations very rarely give workers an entire day off, but there are a great many that still give extended lunch hours to workers in order to vote. In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. This cannot happen if election day is a Saturday. Most people have Saturday as a regular day off anyway. This may seem like it would lead to more voting, but this is probably not true. Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. I don't think they are really trying to move election day to Saturday. That is always a problem with that type of poll. The honest answer is not given. In this census, what percentage said they simply didn't feel like voting? I'm sure the number is extremely small if that answer even appears in the data. Yet common sense and experience would tell us that the number of people that simply don't feel like voting is very high. This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. And as I mentioned earlier, when a person is given extra time to vote (and a Saturday would not fit this category since it is not extra), it can cause a guilt trip and make that person more likely to vote. But this reason is actually a minor one. There is a much bigger problem with your idea that I will present in the next round.", "title": "The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday.", "pid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.2827606201172}, {"text": "Opponent>>> First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. >+>+> This is true. However, MOST JOBS DO NOT GET ELECTION DAY BREAKS. Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters. >+>+> Almost everybody has Saturday off. This will increase voter turn out, if it is more conveinent for voters to vote. Opponent>>> In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. >+>+> This is an untrue assumption. Many workers do not get this time off so will never expreience this guilt trip and just never vote. >+>+> Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else. >+>+> This extended break or entire day off severely reduces productivity. This lowers revenue for the company. In our failing economy, we cannot afford reduction in revenue. Congress just passed a stimulus plan that would try to increase revenue in the country to help the economy. If there is less revenue being generated in the economy, the economy suffers tremendously. And if this break happens as often as you say it does, this break or extra vacation day really takes a toll on our failing economy. >+>+> Also, guilt trips should not be looked up to as a good thing. Guilt trips are bad psychologically and could damage work productivity, therefore, danaging the economy. Also, it will reduce the happiness of Americans. It will also hurt the judgment of Americans when they are psychologically damaged in this way: temporarily or permanently. If Americans judgment is hurt, then they are more likely to drink and drive. Drinking and driving kills innocent civilians. One of these civilians could be a day away from revealing the cure for AIDS. If this potential person is killed, millions of unnecessary people will die. But it is not just this person, but rather any important person. The probability is great and so is the impact. Opponent>>> Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? >+>+> People do not just not feel like voting. There are reasons behind it like political ignorance or most commonly inconvenence. People will express the truth and even if you feel this legitimate source to be illegitimate, you will have to admit that increasing conveinence for voting will get more people to vote. It is common sense. Opponent>>> Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. >+>+> No matter why, these people claimed that work conflicted with their voting. If they did not have that conflict, the problem would be solved. It is inevitable logic. If you have a conflict of two things and remove one of those things, you no longer have a conflict. Opponent>>> This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. >+>+> Most people do not even receive this day off. >+>+> The greater good is for Election Day to be more conveinent. This will increase voter turnout, especially among working class voters. Increased voting turnout is good because it will be closer to the voice of the people, rather than the voices of a few. Election Day is inconveinent. This is evident in the fact that my opponent's main argument was that 'It is inconveinent, but the inconveinence is good, because it presents a guilt trip to vote and a day off. ' Everybody here agrees that Election Day is inconveinent, and the census data shows that the inconveinence is the main reason why people do not vote. If it were more conveinent to vote, common sense tells us, more people would vote.", "title": "The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday.", "pid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.9522247314453}, {"text": "I love potatoes so potatoe day should be a national holiday if anyone disagrees give valid information why it should't", "title": "Potato day should be a national holiday for all places", "pid": "a9586a5-2019-04-18T15:18:07Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.62887573242188}, {"text": "Opponent>>> Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Rebuttal>+>+> This seems like a nice point at a glance, but it is really turned in my favor. Your argument is destroyed. I do not think that Americans are sent into a guilt trip. I think Americans want to vote, but the reason they are not voting is because of the inconveinence as surveys and Census data suggests. If voting was more conveinent for Americans, they would vote, because it makes people feel responsible and helps them express themselves. People like voting. They do not like going way out of their way to vote on a Tuesday. When Americans have a much more conveinent time voting, they vote. This is what all relevant data suggests. Opponent>>> Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Rebuttal>+>+> When Americans work they are making money for their boss. The company is also more likely to do well if it is open more often, because it is more time the employees get practice, more money is being generated, and the company name is getting out. A day off hurts that company and if as many companies as you suggest get this day off, millions of company suffer each Election Day. Even if there is a very small probability as you suggest, which there is not, it's only common sense, there is no reason to put our economy at risk, even a small one, when it can all be avoided. You wouldn't take a nap in the middle of the road, because there is a small probabilty a car would come. There is no sense in taking unnecessary risks. Especially, not with our fragile, internationally influential economy. Opponent>>> Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. Rebuttal>+>+> A break may make them more productive, but a guilt trip will not. Guilt will make people sad or angry and cloud their judgment, which is bad for them and bad for society. Guilt makes people feel unhappy. Why would you send people through this guilt trip and make them sad or angry when it can be avoided by simply rescheduling Election Day. Opponent>>> The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Rebuttal>+>+> The probability is very high of this happening. Really think about it. Guilt trips will make people think of their guilt. It will make them sad or angry. This will cloud their judgment. (www. nlm. nih. gov/medlineplus/tutorials/depression/mh019101. pdf; www. signonsandiego. com/uniontrib/20080208/news_lz1n8read. html) If their judgment is harmed, they may do something stupid or ease the pain with drugs or alcohol. However, they still have to drive back to work later or sometimes they just drive anyway. This leads to drinking and driving, which kills people. No sensible person would risk lives when they could simply be saved. And if you don't think that they will ease the pain with drugs or alcohol, it is still true that they will have clouded judgment, because they have guilt. This clouded judgment can lead to very bad decisions and definitely bad work, reducing economic productivity. There is no reason to cloud people's judgment unnecessarily when it can simply be avoided. Opponent>>> The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U. S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. \" If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? Seventh Day Adventists and some Jews worship on Saturday. Rebuttal>+>+> Wow. This is pretty funny that you would actually post that. This is really reeaching. It shows how desperate you are to find flaws. Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Saint John the Baptist and has special services dedicated to him. So then it should be moved from Tuesday. The fact is that there is going to be a religious service each day, but Election Day has to be some day. Also, Seventh Day Adventists and Jews do not worship all day. They can find time to vote. The vast majority of the population are not Seventh Day Adventists or Jewish. My case outweighs your case. More voters are likely to vote, if the day is Saturday, because it will be more convenient and not conflict with work. If a church service that lasts only a few hours hinders a person from voting, then work on a Tuesday must significantly hinder a person from voting. These voters if they will stay at church all day after service is over for some reason, can use an absentee or mail-in ballot to vote. It does not stop them from voting, and is therefore not unconstitutional. Also, the people have the right to exercise their religion still. It does not prohibit them and is obviously not unconstitutional. Opponent>>> But the polls open up at 7:00 A. M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P. M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. Rebuttal>+>+> The point is convenience. And your statement is untrue. Many lower class voters work mulitple jobs. And ride public transportation, which in most places takes a very long time and will not allow them to get to a polling place and work in time. Why would you deny certain people with tight working schedules and/or less tranportation accessibilty the ability to vote when they could have a chance on a day when most Americans are not working? My case proves to be better. I proved advantages to my plan, which includes much higher voter turnout. I responded to all his arguments. He has no reason as to why Tuesday is a more advantageous day to have an Election Day. The Saturday Plan is much more beneficial than the Tuesday Plan. The Saturday Plan is also more fair to working voters. It gives everybody a chance to participate in the process. Thank you for reading.", "title": "The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday.", "pid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.42254638671875}, {"text": "Simply changing the day elections are held doesn't make it any more attractive for people to vote. Those people who don't care won't care any more now that an election is on a Saturday, regardless of how much easier it is for them. Just as people have better things (in their opinion) to do during the week, they will have alternative activities for the weekend. Compulsory voting addresses the fact that people simply don't turn up to vote, which weekend voting doesn't.", "title": "Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution", "pid": "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 214.3455810546875}, {"text": "In previous rounds you stated that when given extra time to vote, most people use it for other purposes. I rightly pointed out that this hurts your argument, since Saturdays grant extra time and if people use extra time for something else, they would not vote. You say it is a nice point at a glance, but turned in your favor and my argument is destroyed. You did not show how that actually happens. You then state \"If voting was more convenient for Americans, they would vote, because it makes people feel responsible and helps them express themselves. People like voting. They do not like going way out of their way to vote on a Tuesday. When Americans have a much more convenient time voting, they vote. This is what all relevant data suggests.\" What data could this possibly be? The Tuesday election days have been around for a long time. We cannot possibly have data that show people voting more on alternate days. As far as your economics point, we both disagree. You feel that one extra day off per year, or even a slightly longer lunch break during election day will severely damage the economy due to lack of productivity on that one day. Now I am well aware of the fact that our economy is not very good at the moment. But if it is so fragile that an extended hour on election day sends us into a downward spiral, then we are in much more trouble than even the economists claim. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the day off for teachers, civil servants, et cetera has been in effect for quite some time. If such things damaged the economy in the way you claim, then we would not have had such economically prosperous years in the past as these days off and extended lunch breaks were still around back then. Your other claim was that guilt trips can lead to psychological damage which in turn can lead to drinking and driving. The drinking and driving can in turn lead to someone getting behind the wheel and killing a person that is one day away from curing AIDS. Despite your attempts to show that guilt can cause psychological damage, I still stick to my claim that your scenario is far-fetched and a bit ridiculous. I suppose the voters will decide that. Then I point out the main flaw in your argument (i.e. that the Sabbath occurs on Saturday for some religions). To this you reply \"Wow. This is pretty funny that you would actually post that. This is really [reaching]. It shows how desperate you are to find flaws.\" I'm sorry that you feel that excluding entire religious sects from voting is inconsequential. But I, for one, disagree. You also state \"Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Saint John the Baptist and has special services dedicated to him. So then it should be moved from Tuesday. The fact is that there is going to be a religious service each day, but Election Day has to be some day.\" You seem to have a huge misconception about Sabbath observers. The Sabbath is not a mere religious service. Followers are forbidden from taking part in any secular activity on that day. That includes voting! They are not merely skipping out on a religious service. You are downplaying the importance of the Sabbath to the followers of Judaism and the Seventh Day Adventists. You also state \"Also, Seventh Day Adventists and Jews do not worship all day. They can find time to vote.\" You are clearly unfamiliar with the customs of such people. They happen to worship from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. This means that they may not be allowed to leave home until after the polls close. Maybe a few years ago you would've had a point that they can vote at night. But on August 8, 2005 as per the Energy Policy Act, Daylight Saving Time was extended into November. Since many polls close by 8:00 P.M. this means that it may still be light out. You cannot select a day for voting that discriminates against entire religious groups. You also state \"The vast majority of the population are not Seventh Day Adventists or Jewish. My case outweighs your case. More voters are likely to vote, if the day is Saturday, because it will be more convenient and not conflict with work.\" This is a dangerous mindset. The fact that the majority of people do not follow these religions does not imply that it is acceptable to eliminate them from the voting process. This notion that you are implying falls in line with a concept known as Tyranny of the Majority. This concept was mentioned by John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty. The philosophy regarding the rights of citizens took this concept into account and using things like a bill of rights, constitutional limits and electoral colleges has tried to prevent such a thing from occurring. Just because the majority of citizens do not practice those religions, that is not cause to say that we have a right to make election day fall on their Sabbath. You state \"If a church service that lasts only a few hours hinders a person from voting, then work on a Tuesday must significantly hinder a person from voting.\" Once again you show your complete ignorance by this statement. It is not a few hours. It is from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. The absentee ballots, as you claim, could be used for these people. But I still see a huge problem with having everyone of a certain faith apply for an absentee ballot while everyone else can simply vote in person. You also state \"Also, the people have the right to exercise their religion still. It does not prohibit them and is obviously not unconstitutional.\" It doesn't prohibit them from following their religion, but it does prohibit them from both voting and following their religion. They should not be forced to choose. It seems to me that you view a mild inconvenience of the majority more severe than extreme bias and discrimination towards people of certain faiths. I highly disagree.", "title": "The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday.", "pid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.24493408203125}, {"text": "I accept Imabench's challenge and solemnly promise not to post any pictures of vaginas as part of my arguments.", "title": "Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday", "pid": "9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.0420379638672}, {"text": "I disagree. May the Fourth should be an international holiday. Everyone should be able to celebrate the splendor of Star Wars.", "title": "Star Wars Day should be a national holiday.", "pid": "7c0b669f-2019-04-18T18:19:34Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.90524291992188}, {"text": "I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' a day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature, should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though Now can be accepted :D", "title": "Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday", "pid": "9df1ccdc-2019-04-18T17:38:07Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.88311767578125}, {"text": "This is my first debate, so forgive me if I\"m not exactly sure how it works. Here is my best case for single day polling: I submit that voting should be on one day only and as a secondary statement submit that the day could be moved to Saturday, if needed. No absentee mail in ballots should be allowed either. 1. Internet access is widespread in America (about 75% at home according to US census) that people who cannot make it to a polling location on a specific day can still vote. People who do not have access to the Internet certainly have reasonable means to find access (friend, library, school, work). Anyone who claims they absolutely cannot get to the Internet for any reason probably means they did not get to a connection because they did not value the vote. http://www.census.gov... 2. A single day vote may actually increase voter turnout. If the day is made special like Super Bowl Sunday, perhaps turnout will increase over the current apathetic levels. Last year, television ratings for the Super Bowl were about twice as high as the rounds that led up to the single day game. The reason is that it was made special, the weeks preceding the game lead up to the Super Bowl, and it was limited time frame. Those factors bring in the casual fan. On an anecdotal level, ask people next year after the game who did not watch to provide you a reason. My educated guess would be they did not watch because sports does not interest them, not because they could not find a television or device to watch it on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.usatoday.com... 3. Inconvenience is not the major reason people don\"t vote. As it is now, most states have absentee ballots that allow citizens to mail in their ballots over the course of weeks in some cases. Yet, voter turnout is still low. With the option of mailing in a ballot or showing up at the polls, participation is not low because people cannot get to a physical location on a Tuesday, it is low because the non-voters don\"t care to vote for a variety of reasons. Some major reasons are: people feel like the government has for whatever reason let them down, they don\"t follow politics so they don\"t care to vote and the Electoral College technically elects the president so why bother? 4. I would be in favor of moving the single day from Tuesday to Saturday. Since more people work on weekdays than weekends, the Saturday date could increase voter turnout as well as provide opportunities for local celebrations and parades. If an election day were ever to bring in the casual voter like Super Bowl Sunday brings in the casual sports fan, the aforementioned civic celebrations might be the only avenue. 5. I will admit that computers can be hacked and online voting on a single day could open the process up for fraud. However, I would submit that just because a problem exists does not mean the activity should always be avoided. When cars became faster, engineers designed seat belts, they didn\"t avoid driving over 20 miles per hour. Election fraud is rampant now anyway (will the word Florida suffice?). Also, online identity theft occurs but people still shop online and go on social media sites, they just need to be more careful. Since we won\"t be eliminating all online activity just because it can be dangerous, why would we avoid online voting?", "title": "Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day", "pid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.86647033691406}, {"text": "Heck to the yeah. First of all, it's awesome to be able to debate Imabench. Reading his debate are never boring, so I know this will be fun. Second, I am legitimately opposed to celebrating one gender and leaving the others high and dry. I look forward this!", "title": "Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday", "pid": "9df1ccdc-2019-04-18T17:38:07Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.85643005371094}, {"text": "I trust that Pro wil not post anything related to the debate in round 2. He will respond to my questions in round 3. I hope we have a good debate!", "title": "The USA Should Have A One Day Primary and Election Instead Of A Whole Campaign", "pid": "5c5b4bdf-2019-04-18T12:36:30Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.8165740966797}, {"text": "I do want say something key, I am not completely against the idea, But there is a trend of society overall. Traditions rarely last long, The original ones. July 4th is the day America became independent, And adopted the declaration of independence. Most people don't know that. Originally it was not a holiday, As is is now, Instead it is a celebration, Why, Just to celebrate. This does not apply to everyone, Just a lot of people in America. Also you said \"Australians only care if they get a day off. (most)\" so if that is why they are making the holiday, Then it should not be one, Also my opinion. My final idea is this. If people don't know about the event as much now, Someone has to announce it. Someone who is power and has influence, Most powerful people would not go through the trouble of announcing it, So it's likely it would not happen anyways. But still, I'm not completely against the holiday, I just think a holiday is a day of celebration then a day of mourning. Not completely against it though", "title": "The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia", "pid": "5edc9da-2019-04-18T11:14:48Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.79161071777344}, {"text": "My opponent seems to be absentee debating.", "title": "U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state.", "pid": "e95c9f90-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.78578186035156}, {"text": "I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor and those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to. Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well. For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both. Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes, then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen. EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less", "title": "Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day", "pid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.77894592285156}, {"text": "Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited this round. Hopefully he will return to the debate next round.", "title": "U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state.", "pid": "e95c9f90-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.67303466796875}, {"text": "https://quizlet.com... . http://www.usnews.com... I ask the voters to consider this when voting on this debate.", "title": "U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state.", "pid": "e95c9f90-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.67076110839844}, {"text": "There are a number of inconveniences when it comes to voting in American elections, but foremost it is getting to the polling station on the particular day. In our computerized society I see no reason for there to be single election days besides for the drama it creates and TV dollars it generates. I propose that polling during elections be at least a week's worth of time A few assumptions to be kept in mind 1. all results will be held till the end of polling 2. systems in place to ensure no re-voting or fraudulent voting Round 1 Opening statements Round 2 rebuttals to Round 1 Round 3 closing arguments", "title": "Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day", "pid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.62026977539062}, {"text": "Maybe my opponent is busy voting.", "title": "U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state.", "pid": "e95c9f90-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.61309814453125}, {"text": "I do not like potatoes, so using your logic there should be no Potato day. Your opinon is no better than mine, and I am fairly sure there are tons of people who dislike potatoes. I do not mean to sound pretentious, but using the logic of pro against them I technically win.", "title": "Potato day should be a national holiday for all places", "pid": "a9586a5-2019-04-18T15:18:07Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.55975341796875}, {"text": "According to a poll commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs.\", 91% of Australian's are proud to be Australian's. 85% of Australian's also believe Australia day is a day for celebration. Australia day is a time where everyone should come together and celebrated our multicultural and heartwarming country. We are all citizens, not just customers and deserve the best experience in Australia and that is why we celebrate Australia day, to celebrate our achievements. January 26th marks the beginning where the indigenous and those born here celebrated the nation we call home.", "title": "The date for Australia day should be changed", "pid": "83938c1f-2019-04-18T13:21:20Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.53228759765625}, {"text": "This debate is about whether Columbus Day should be a national holiday in the United States. I believe that either the holiday should be abolished or that it should be renamed. Columbus' treatment of the natives was inhumane as his men murdered and raped members of the native tribes. I will wait for a challenger and provide more evidence to support my argument in the next round.", "title": "Columbus Day should either be abolished or re-named", "pid": "4f3adbc7-2019-04-18T12:51:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.44517517089844}, {"text": "I rescind any statements in the comments section. I am not forfeiting and I urge voters to be mindful of the following statements. I would like to make a couple of overarching statements before I respond to some house-keeping issues and line-by-line analysis. I am confident that many of you will take these things to heart, but whatever. If I've lost you by this point I'm not worried about how you respond to this. a. let it be known that there was not a framework established for constructive arguments, clash, or rebuttals in the first round. This is important as my opponent seals his final speech with an underview speaking on my supposed drops and urging you, the voters, not to listen to any 'new arguments' in this speech. The first thing that I said in my second round 'speech' is that I would use that round for constructive arguments and then use this round for rebuttals; I made my intentions clear from the get-go, and there's no reason to ignore that framework since an alternative was not provided. Further, I'd like to point out that my opponent used this speech to respond to my argument, so attempting to block me from responding to his is bull. And if you don't buy that, I still on comparative advantage so drops wouldn't matter anyway. b. U mad bro? Pro is obviously upset at how I've tackled this debate, this is evidence that I've done a good job trolling him. We need to move away from this idea that the only good kinds of 'trolls' are established memes or cliches, that's both boring and lazy. I opponent didn't expect me to respond in the way that I did and it threw him off-guard, I've done an excellent job trolling him. Further, if the issue of entertainment is what you're concerned about I win there too. Reading some dadaist nonsense in the form of a 'debate' may get a chuckle, but the drama that this debate will cause will be much more entertaining to read. Now onto the line-by-line. I'll cover my opponent's constructive by grouping similar arguments and responding appropriately. 1. Women have things they have to put up with? Cool beans, so do men. Primarily the issue of being disposable and the possibility of being financially enslaved following a divorce. [14] [14] . http://bit.ly... 2. Why women and no-one else? Women are a gender, blacks are a race. This issue of discussion that the Con proposes is that of male disposability, something Black men are not immune to. So MLK day doesn't make ground for anykind of argument. 3. Why call it Vagina Day? This is really mute as I never attack it's name. 4. Plan Also mute as my opposition wasn't how we would enact it, but it's ethical repulsiveness. 5. Portion of others without Holiday Men. Now with all that housekeeping out of the way I'm going to tell you very simply why you need to vote Con in this debate a. Instead of being a good troll and continuing to debate in a silly manner, Pro gets butthurt[15] about how I've decided to respond and makes passive aggressive as well as directly aggressive remarks about my conduct. This is not the mark of a good troll, and serves as a substantial reason to vote Pro. [15]. http://bit.ly... b. Pro doesn't even realize how badly he's been trolled as of his previous speech. He doesn't seem to understand that making a serious argument to an obviously silly argument is a brilliant trolling mechanism. If he doesn't have an appropriate response given this reaction, then he deserves to lose. c. Con is winning one every technical round imaginable: I'm winning arguments, framework and sources -- even if you don't buy my argument that a serious response is still a troll, then you'd have to vote for me based on the content of the debate. Finally I'll leave with this: the only possible ground I could see anyone voting for Pro, is by them siding with him that I've 'ruined this debate'. However I'm going to predict that many will largely abstain from voting altogether.", "title": "Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday", "pid": "9df1ccdc-2019-04-18T17:38:07Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.44329833984375}, {"text": "We live in a democracy, Our government has been chosen to present the viewpoints of the American people. But, The majority of Americans claim their views are not represented, This is a problem, Presidency-The voting day for the presidency should be a holiday, This is a huge day for many important reasons, The president holds power over which bill is passed, The president is the commander of the military. In 2016, Donald Trump was elected into the white house. Trump has an unfavorable rating of 55%. 55% of Americans dislike the president, A democracy would not theoretically function if 55% of the population disapproved of the president's job. Senate and House- The senate and house are the most democratic institutions in America. They are meant to represent the will of the American people. 75% of Americans disapprove of congress. The will of the American people should be at utmost priority. If Congress only represents the will of the people, Than this country would turn into an oligarchy.", "title": "All Citizens should be required to vote", "pid": "a4b5fda8-2019-04-18T11:11:55Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.4386749267578}, {"text": "I believe Australia day should stay on January 26th because it is one of the most unique national days in the world that celebrates the anniversary of the arrival of the first fleet of criminals to Australia in 1788. Although it celebrates the anniversary, the real meaning reflects contemporary Australia, our diverse society and landscape, our remarkable achievements and our bright future. It also is an opportunity to reflect on our nation's history, and what's great about Australia and being Australian.", "title": "We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians", "pid": "4c34b2df-2019-04-18T13:21:20Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.42208862304688}, {"text": "States’ rights", "title": "hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.", "pid": "8a695b78-2019-04-15T20:22:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.3651123046875}, {"text": "May the Fourth be with you! The impact that George Lucas's franchise has had on our culture cannot be overstated. Even while they complain about the changes being made to these movies, and about The Phantom Menace, fans have made this one of the most, if not the most, commercially successful franchises in history. This cannot help having an impact on culture. Moral values have been influenced by Luke Skywalker and Yoda. \"He joined the Dark Side\" has become synonymous with doing something evil. Star Wars changed our culture. I believe that May 4th should be a national holiday. Not a major one like Christmas, but just something recognized by everyone as a tradition. Maybe a few banks can close.", "title": "Star Wars Day should be a national holiday.", "pid": "7c0b669f-2019-04-18T18:19:34Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.31027221679688}, {"text": "Argument 1: Underfunded Campaigns of Small Candidates A national primary would give a huge advantage to better-known, better-funded candidates since only they would be able to finance the expensive advertising and large campaign operation needed to run a national \"get out the vote\" effort in all states. Lesser-known candidates without extensive campaign operations would not have an opportunity to reach out to voters in retail-style fashion and build support. Moreover, densely populated states with higher delegate counts would become the dominant focus of the campaigns and the media. In addition, political parties would have little control over the selection of their eventual nominee, and state party leaders would no longer have the flexibility to set their primary or caucus dates according to state-specific considerations, such as redistricting issues, state holidays, or other state and local elections. In 2008, at least 24 states held a primary on February 5, resulting in what was essentially a de facto national primary. Super Tuesday became Tsunami Tuesday. The situation was so bad for overwhelmed campaigns, party leaders, and election officials that the two parties worked together to ensure their rules for 2012 would help avoid a repeat.", "title": "U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state.", "pid": "e95c9f90-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.27989196777344}, {"text": "Australia day is on January 26th for many reasons, it's the day that we come together as a nation to celebrate the amazing country we live in. On Australia Day, over half of the nation\"'s population of 24.3 million attend either an organised community event, or get together with family and friends with the intention of celebrating our national day. Many more spend the public holiday relaxing with family and friend. We come together as a nation to celebrate what's great about Australia and being Australian. It's the day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation. It's the day for us to re-commit to making Australia an even better place for the future.", "title": "The Date Of Australia Day Should Be Changed", "pid": "2db5fce7-2019-04-18T13:17:49Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.27923583984375}, {"text": "The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns", "title": "hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.", "pid": "8a695b78-2019-04-15T20:22:24Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.2386932373047}, {"text": "The United States have developed an institutional tradition of undemocratic mechanisms designed to actually control political processes.These institutions such as the Supreme Court, the Electoral College , the President's veto power have been part of the American Government and have helped preserve democracy since the foundation of the United States.", "title": "Primary elections need not be fully democratic", "pid": "651b1111-2019-04-17T11:47:45Z-00045-000", "bm25_score": 213.23654174804688}, {"text": "If the purpose is to increase turnout, weekend voting would be the more sensible option. It gives people more free time in which to vote, and doesn't have the problems that coercion brings with it. It doesn't address the wider problem of apathy, but treats the non-voting problem more acceptably than compulsory voting does. Better yet, introduce a public holiday on election days and provide free public transport to and from polling stations.", "title": "Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution", "pid": "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 213.20013427734375}, {"text": "Regarding United States presidential elections, the electoral college should be replaced by a country-wide popular vote because the electoral college is both unfair and un-American. The United States is a country grounded on equal rights, as shown by the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence. The electoral college gives US citizens of heavily populated states more voting power than US citizens of lightly populated states, and therefore Americans are not equal in this manner. It is also an unfair way of determining US presidency because there have been elections that have gone out of favor of the popular vote, and therefore goes against the interests of most American citizens. With a simple country-wide popular vote, all citizens of the United States would bear equal voting rights as well as a fair election.", "title": "Presidential elections should be decided by a popularvote instead of the electoral college.", "pid": "7b7584cd-2019-04-18T13:10:25Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.19146728515625}, {"text": "I understand that my opponent was probably celebrating the holidays, so I extend all arguments.", "title": "Resolved: direct popular vote should replace electoral college in presidential elections", "pid": "196ff2c-2019-04-18T18:36:24Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.17262268066406}, {"text": "Because my opponent forfeited, I urge a Con vote. Please disregard any future arguments my opponents may make as I will be unable to respond to them", "title": "Direct Popular Vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.", "pid": "5dfa3e2e-2019-04-18T18:37:00Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.15505981445312}, {"text": "Because my opponent forfeited, I urge a Con vote. Please disregard any future arguments my opponents may make as I will be unable to respond to them", "title": "Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.", "pid": "7371560d-2019-04-18T18:37:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.15505981445312}, {"text": "Fist I would like to address some problems in cons argument: When people make a holiday out of something it's normally a day of celebration. In Australia, We have a public holiday for Anzac day. This is about our fallen soldiers in the wars. This is not a celebration. I would make a building or a museum to commemorate them, And so Australians know more about the information. Australians only care if they get a day off. (most) A public holiday is the only way to speed to the news. Most Australians don't even know we had an emu war. This is why I believe a public holiday would make it a well known and commemorated event. Also if we did maybe Americans would start pronouncing emu correct.", "title": "The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia", "pid": "5edc9da-2019-04-18T11:14:48Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.11331176757812}, {"text": "New South Wales first celebrated January 26th which was referred to as the First Landing Dar or Foundation Day. From the first time this was celebrated it was a time to reflect on the great country we live in. according to historian Dr Elizabeth Kwan the traditional toast on this date was \"to the land boys, we live in\". The intention of the celebration was not to exclude others but to join in the united celebration of a great land. By 1988 states had accepted January 16th as the official national day. Celebrations of the day has increased considerably since the 1980's. There are arguments from the same members of the community that the date of January 26th should be named invasion or survival day. There are claims that this date signifies damage to indigenous peoples relationship to the land. However many inf=diginious people are achive within Australia day commitees and view this date as an opportunity to recongnise the honoured place indigenious australian in our nations history", "title": "The date of Australia day should be changed", "pid": "5d52ac69-2019-04-18T13:21:20Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.1016845703125}, {"text": "Australia day is a day we come together as a nation to celebrate whats great about Australia. Australia day should not be changed as its a day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation. It is much more then barbeques and parties. It is pride and excitement of new citizens who call themselves Australian for the first time on the 26 of January after being conffered Citizenship.", "title": "We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians", "pid": "4c34b206-2019-04-18T13:21:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.0765380859375}, {"text": "Yes, you. Resolved, that you are voting on a Wednesday. If you are voting, you are voting on a Wednesday, as you can see by any calendar, and as you are voting on a Wednesday, the resolution is affirmed, and as the resolution is affirmed, you ought to vote Pro. Vote Pro! In case you don't have a quick reference to today's calendar day, this site is quite handy: http://todaysdate.com... Happy voting!", "title": "I know what day of the week you will vote.", "pid": "497d9f24-2019-04-18T18:12:15Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.02525329589844}, {"text": "Australia Day should NOT be changed from the 26th of January to another date. Australia is a national public holiday in Australia. It is the celebration of the arrival of the First Fleet of British Ships at Port Jackson on the 26th of January 1788. It is celebrated annually because it is celebrated on what is means to be Australian and what's great about being Australian and living in Australia as a community. It is a day to reconnect with others as a community and a society and to feel special as a community and family. It is more than any other public holiday, it is a great day to be together as a society or/and a town/suburb. It is celebrated in every town/suburb/city. My two arguments will be that Australia day is on the 26th of January to people can remember/celebrate what being Australian is all about and its history and that Australia day brings families and communities to remind them about Australia's history!", "title": "Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date", "pid": "e8dd2df4-2019-04-18T13:19:43Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.017822265625}, {"text": "Voting in local, state and national elections should be compulsory for all who are eligible to vote because it is the best way to judge the will of the people and achieve the fairest or most democratic outcome. Leaving voting up to the most motivated or the most able will only skew the results and give a false perspective on the wishes of the electorate. Voluntary voting also leads to dirty tactics for candidates and campaigners including, for example, legislating rules that would unfairly affect poorer people as suggested in certain states of the USA in their last federal election. The second best method would be to randomly select voters, however this can still lead to skewed results especially in smaller electorates.", "title": "Voting should be compulsory.", "pid": "70d26bcf-2019-04-18T15:47:32Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.0151824951172}, {"text": "Before my opponent suggested that Australia day is a time of grief and sadness for the Aborigines but in fact it is a happy day that should be celebrated as we now reconcile with the aborigines and reflect on how we acted towards them back in the days. Australia Day (26th) is a very historical day as it is the anniversary of the arrival of the first fleet of 11 convict ships from Great Britain and the rising of the Union Jack at Sydney Cove commanded by Captain Arthur Phillip, in 1788. Although Aboriginals call this day \"Invasion Day\" this was when Australia actually became Australia. Countries, for example America have their \"National Day as 4th of July\" because it was when they received their independence from Great Britain.", "title": "Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date", "pid": "672a41c7-2019-04-18T13:21:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.99603271484375}, {"text": "Primaries encourage organisation and activity at a local level", "title": "hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.", "pid": "8a695b78-2019-04-15T20:22:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.99562072753906}, {"text": "The foundation your argument and many others in favour of Australia Day is based upon is that it is a day for celebration and unity. However, every year radio stations and tv programs act as a force to divide our nation in a great debate about the date change. If the reason for celebration is unity of our country shouldn't we celebrate on a date that reflects the views of everyone? While apologies have been spoken to the aboriginal people and supposed \"land rights\" have been given, land is still seen as something profitable as reflected in the NT minister's decision to support the Uluru climb despite backlash from Indigenous communities (SBS news article), the continuation of celebrating on this date is the nail in the coffin.", "title": "The date for Australia day should be changed", "pid": "83938c1f-2019-04-18T13:21:20Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.9864044189453}, {"text": "cool thankyou", "title": "The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia", "pid": "5edc9da-2019-04-18T11:14:48Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.98455810546875}, {"text": "Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution", "title": "Voting should be compulsory in the UK", "pid": "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 212.97576904296875}, {"text": "well you will never find another war like this. i have m made my point so let the voting win", "title": "should September 2 be a holiday", "pid": "eb5233c9-2019-04-18T15:04:28Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.9573974609375}, {"text": "Before my opponent suggested that Australia day is a time of grief and sadness for the Aborigines but in fact it is a happy day that should be celebrated as we now reconcile with the aborigines and reflect on how we acted towards them back in the days. Australia Day 26th is a very historical day as it is the anniversary of the arrival of the first fleet of 11 convict ships from Great Britain and the rising of the Union Jack at Sydney Cove commanded by Captain Arthur Phillip, in 1788. Although Aboriginals call this day \"Invasion Day\" this was when Australia actually became Australia. Countries, for example America have their \"National Day as 4th of July\" because it was when they received their independence from Great Britain.", "title": "Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date", "pid": "672a41a8-2019-04-18T13:21:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.95237731933594}, {"text": ".. .", "title": "Resolved: direct popular vote should replace electoral college in presidential elections", "pid": "196ff2c-2019-04-18T18:36:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.9473876953125}, {"text": "Whether or not Columbus Day should be celebrated lies in whether or not it is a national holiday. Thus, the resolution should read: Resolved: Columbus Day should not be a national holiday. Definition: Columbus Day: a federal holiday as declared by President Benjamin Harrison in 1892 celebrating the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas. Framework: As my opponent has stated, the BOP for the CON is to show why Columbus Day should still be a national holiday. Thus, the BOP for the PRO is to refute the contentions presented by the CON and establish his own advocating why we should no longer make Columbus Day a national holiday. Additionally, read Contention 3 for the last part of PRO's BOP, where he must prove that there is bad INTENT in celebrating Columbus Day. --- Arguments: Contention 1: America has long admired Columbus Columbus Day marks the arrival of Europeans to the New World, and celebrates the \"beginning of a cultural exchange between America and Europe\"[1]. America has more Columbus statues and Columbus memorabilia than any other nation in the world. He's admired for his bravery in sailing West at a time when most uneducated believed the world to be flat. Contention 2: Columbus Day is the only day which recognizes the heritage of almost 26 million Italian Americans. Columbus Day became a national holiday in 1971 after Congress passed a law stating that the second Monday in October is Columbus Day. Along with the accomplishments of Columbus, the law passed in 1971 commemorates the arrival of over 5 million Italians a century prior. Columbus Day is thus the only day which recognizes the heritage of a group now nearly 26 million in size. Contention 3: Intent It is important as we judge this debate to consider the intent of Columbus Day. The intent, as defined, is to celebrate Columbus's arrival to the New World. Much like how Manifest Destiny didn't encourage the killing of Natives and much like how Independence Day doesn't celebrate the killing of British in the Revolutionary War, Columbus Day doesn't celebrate the deaths of Native Americans that may have ensued. It's a celebration of the discovery of the New World. In order for my opponent to win this round, he MUST prove that there is bad intent in celebrating Columbus Day. Unless he does so, he cannot win. This is added to his BOP. --- Refutations: ++represent my opponent's arguments ++\"It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented\"++ How has his legacy been misrepresented? He discovered two new continents, and that's what he's celebrated for on Columbus Day. ++\"His \"accomplishments\" was nothing more but a failed journey\"++ Again, how was it a failed journey? I understand that my opponent is upset over the deaths of natives that ensued after the discovery of the New World, but the intent of Columbus Day is to celebrate the discovery of continents on which 1 billion people now reside [2] [3]. When Columbus Day is described or taught in classrooms, it's taught as a celebration of discovery. No one is celebrating death on Columbus Day. Furthermore, Westward expansion and Manifest Destiny are two deeply rooted American beliefs, but as a result of them many Native Americans were killed. Should we remove the verse \"from sea to shining sea\" from the national anthem [4] because it hints to those who died in westward expansion? Should we no longer celebrate Independence Day because we killed many British and lost American lives during the preceding war? ++Columbus Day celebrates \"genocide and imperialism.\"++ Basically, my opponent is a) claiming that Columbus Day celebrates the deaths of Natives, b) imperialism is bad, and c) he is upset about it. My responses: a) that isn't the intent of the holiday. and, b) imperialism was the way of the world back then. c) the killing of Natives wasn't a genocide. The primary cause of death was smallpox, which was unintentionally brought from Europe to the Americas. Disease easily traveled across continents thanks to sea travel. and, d) Columbus was merely an explorer, actually didn't do much in the Americas except travel. He made four voyages and stopped at numerous locations on the Americas. It was the later conquistadors who were the ones who enslaved and killed natives on a large scale. The resolution has been negated. I thank my opponent for posting this debate and eagerly anticipate his responses and upcoming contentions. [1] http://www.osia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated.", "pid": "7068d2b9-2019-04-18T18:58:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.93475341796875}, {"text": "Re-doing this debate because the last one got accepted by an idiot who doesnt know what a f*ckin troll debate is THIS IS INDEED A TROLL DEBATE. That means if you take it seriously then youre a dumba**. The point of troll debates is to use semantical and humorous arguments to make a case just for sh*ts and giggles. I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' (A day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature) should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though If you want the debate leave a comment and ill decide who will get it.", "title": "Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday", "pid": "9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.924560546875}, {"text": "Australia day may be a day for celebration but for some it is a day for mourning, why should we come together as a nation on a day where we mourn? In 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd formally apologised to the Indigenous people who were forcibly removed as children from their homes and parents' care and placed in Church missions or adoptive white family. At the time, the government saw it as a protective measure for future mixed race Aboriginal children, whereby their Aboriginal hertitage would be bred-out in a couple of generations time. For decades, the Indigenous community asked for the Australian government to apologise. Now that's it has finally happened, it's worthy of celebrating every year. Australia Day is the day filled with little more than flag waving and mass consumption of alcohol, to distract us from the fact that we aren\"t as great a country as some would otherwise like to think. Keeping Australia Day the same means that we have more respect for the awful past and not enough care to fix this situation up. Would you want our ansectors to mourn a day that should be a happy day for our country?", "title": "We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians", "pid": "4c34b2a1-2019-04-18T13:21:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.900634765625}, {"text": "In the previous round I did mention that the jobs that get days off or extra time can cause a guilt trip, but I also stated that it was only a minor objection to your notion. In this round I will go over some of the arguments you mentioned in your rebuttal, but I will also get to the heart of the problem. In response to my mentioning of time off, you claim that most people will not give in to the guilt trip. You stated in the last round \"Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else.\" Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Nevertheless, the days off and the guilt trips were only a minor point to reveal in Round 1. Now I will get to the true problem with your idea. The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U.S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\" If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? A denomination of Protestant Christians known as Seventh-day Adventists celebrate their Sabbath on Saturday. Changing the day of the election to a day that prevents followers of a religion from voting is clearly wrong. Furthermore, religious Jews also celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday. So now we have two separate religions that you wish to eliminate from the election process simply because it is more convenient for you! Well this is not how America works. You cannot place people with a decision between following their religion or voting. In the last round you stated \"Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters.\" But the polls open up at 7:00 A.M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P.M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. This is not the case with the religious denominations mentioned. With them it is not a mere inconvenience to get up earlier, or to go vote after work before heading home. They cannot both practice their religion and vote if the elections were changed to a Saturday. I know of no religious denominations that celebrate their Sabbath on a Tuesday, and therefore it is culturally fair to leave election day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. It is true that most people have work that day, but there is time for both voting and going to work. You ended your last round with the statement \"Vote PRO for the better debater and better position!\" But in light of the fact that a Saturday election is clearly biased, I don't believe you have the right to claim the better position.", "title": "The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday.", "pid": "b7d8dba7-2019-04-18T19:42:33Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.89845275878906}, {"text": "We have holiday 4 teachers. but what about the students? Without us they wouldn't have jobs.", "title": "Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday", "pid": "1b4be3e0-2019-04-18T12:49:26Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.89077758789062}, {"text": "Round 1: Pro R2 : Cross Examination R3: Con R4: Cross Examination R5: Rebuttals/Summary/Final Focuses I am aware the rounds are a bit off from a real debate. That's because debate.org only allows so many rounds. I apologize for that. ---------------------------------------------- Be it resolved that, the United States should convert over to a one day primary campaign when it comes to electing a new president. I firmly stand in affirmation for this claim for the following contentions. *Contention 1* The idea of a one day Primary essentially means there would be one day for campaigning and the next day would be the actual election. There would most definitely be a better change in private policy. Even if the representations were to go up, that doesn't mean everyone will benefit. A one day Primary would easily boost political participation. In 2012's Primary, had a 17% turn out. Why? Well according to the University of Mexico, the voters in the outside states rarely vote because they feel their votes don't matter. This is because they are lead to believe the primary states have already decided the election, when in reality this isn't true. Every vote should count! There is a belief that the most votes from the more wealthy and educated citizens, causing the less wealthy and educated to feel below them. Even some Congressmen state, \"A one day Primary could close the gap in voter turn out and prevent both political parties from becoming victims to polarization. *Contention 2* At the moment, our current state of election is full of media madness. This takes away from the real idea of voting; electing a new leader to guide the nation. We get so caught up in the, \"he said she said\" aspect of it that we seem to forget about how much really is at stake here. The media seems to focus on \"Horse Race\" journalism. This means they only cover, \"Who's winning in the delegates?\" or \"Who's higher in the polls this week? Will it change next week?\" You wouldn't see any of that in a one day Primary! Patrick Whithers explains in 2012, \"Staggered elections reduce turn out by fatiguing the voters' pattern of the constant political he said, she said mess.\" The media crowds the main focus on policy and discussion. Out of 63% percent of journalists, only 16% focus on policy positions and records. *Contention 3* Many voters seem to give up their votes because their candidate drops out. The candidates the usually drop out are the less known and wealthy ones. Why? These candidates believe they don't have a chance half way through because the media makes it much harder for them to become recognized whereas Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were widely recognized because of their status in the media! A one day Primary would easily wipe this out, allowing more candidates to enter the race and more voters participating because they have the chance to vote for their candidate of choice. Statistics show that the earlier states were 5x more influential than the outside states causing them to be nearly unrepresentative. This past election, is was very hard to determine the voter turn out and neither state nor candidate could completely balance out their influence to give others a fighting chance. This creates an unbalance of power and harms democracy. This can lead to a division of the democratic ideal of \"One person, one vote.\" Earlier states seem to earn more federal money after the election than outside states, leaving them in the dust. This is why I firmly stand in affirmation for the resolution.", "title": "The USA Should Have A One Day Primary and Election Instead Of A Whole Campaign", "pid": "5c5b4bdf-2019-04-18T12:36:30Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.8826904296875}, {"text": "The people would still be voting through endorsements. But Instead of an election being determined by 3% of the population, it is determined by a national congress, and everyone is weighted against each other heavily. Also if you consider an endorsement a vote this will increase turnout. One of the problems with our system is that people simply can't get to the polls on the appointed day. Then that raises the issue of does that state/ city have absentee voting or not. Also what about people who are working , can they take time off of work? With this system, endorsements are registered on your time not the governments time. Yeah the system would be robust but it would be more efficient in the lives of the individual in the long run. We all understand that sometimes people are just too caught up in life to research all of the candidate's and pick the best one. When thats the situation your faced with voting for a candidate based upon a scant amount of information, or withholding your potential harming or regrettable vote from the election. With this system when you vote for president you will be voting for your Electors whether they follow your party affiliation or they run without a party your voting for them based upon them representing your shoes in that congress. And then if you do find the time to really research into these candidates, you can go and give them your endorsement to bolster up his case before the congress, - and you do that on your own time. I think an elected congress that represents the people and is dedicated to choosing the right person for the job would do wonder for our country and take a load of the citizens, and at the same time it is more representative, because a small percent of the population isn't choosing an official that will serve the entire community.", "title": "United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out.", "pid": "5c32174c-2019-04-18T19:57:01Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.83285522460938}, {"text": "The Australian national anthem even has words that represent that way that Australia is. It calls on rejoice as we are young and free, it also includes the word home. Above everything, it is freedom that we are celebrating, which is why Australian's are free to spend the day how they want. Our country is lucky as not many countries around the world get the kind of freedom we have. The national anthem tells a story of what Australia is today and words like rejoice, young, free, home say that we are a country representing all. So why should the date be changed if it represents our freedom and happiness and us coming together with the indigenous? Why should we get rid of a day that has been the date of January 26 for many, many years?", "title": "The date for Australia day should be changed", "pid": "83938c1f-2019-04-18T13:21:20Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.82733154296875}, {"text": "Extend all arguments.....", "title": "Resolved: direct popular vote should replace electoral college in presidential elections", "pid": "196ff2c-2019-04-18T18:36:24Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.8260498046875}, {"text": "In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compulsory voting prevents interference with access to the vote. Compelling voters to the polls for an election mitigates the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. It is a measure to prevent disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. Polls are generally held on a Saturday or Sunday as evidenced in nations such as Australia, to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Similarly, mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes and hospitals to cater for immobilized citizens, and postal voting may be provided for people who are away from their electorate on election day.", "title": "Compulsory voting helps protect voter access.", "pid": "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00083-000", "bm25_score": 212.8170623779297}, {"text": "Personally, I've felt that the electoral college has denied democracy by forcing politicians to focus on electoral college votes, rather than the votes of the people. I would like to have a friendly debate on the issue.", "title": "The United States should replace the Electoral College with direct elections", "pid": "6ec66cd9-2019-04-18T14:50:01Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 212.8043212890625}, {"text": "The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states", "title": "hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.", "pid": "8a695b78-2019-04-15T20:22:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.79815673828125}, {"text": "My opponent has forfeited. But, as mentioned in the comments, it was due to a personal matter. I opt to defer this round. Thus:VOTERS: only make your votes based on the prior rounds. The forfeit should not affect your decision. Thanks!", "title": "The United States should replace the Electoral College with direct elections", "pid": "6ec66cd9-2019-04-18T14:50:01Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.78448486328125}, {"text": "Unfortunately, my opponent never provided us with any original arguments, so I am without anything to refute. Having said that, I am still able to make my own argument: Argument: Having the primaries in every state is something we should employ. We should do this because it would increase voter turnout. As it stands now, as it becomes obvious as to whom is going to win each party's respective nomination, people in states that vote later will be less likely to vote because they see it as a waste of time. On the other hand, if each state were to vote on the same day, the future of the nomination would be more in doubt, making it more likely for turnout being higher. Higher turnout ensures that our system of government remains strong, keeping us out of chaos.", "title": "U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state.", "pid": "e95c9f90-2019-04-18T13:42:54Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.78208923339844}, {"text": "Compulsory voting hides the problem which is causing people to be disengaged from politics; it allows politicians to ignore measures that can tackle the true causes of political disengagement.   States instead should seek on strategies that will eliminate barriers to voting along with reducing the costs of turnout for its citizens, weekend voting, making election days a holiday, simple registration procedures, reforms such as to the party finance rules to widen the playing field, and the creation of a centralized, professional bureaucracy concerned with all aspects of election administration. In the UK, for example, adopting a more proportional system will allow for a political spectrum rather than the three major parties that currently dominate.     improve this  ", "title": "There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement", "pid": "4ce497c-2019-04-15T20:22:56Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 212.76123046875}, {"text": "This is also my first debate so this should be interesting. Voting should not be compulsory because it reduces the quality of the election, does not take into account the possibility of a voter not being able to choose between candidates, and actually contrasts the idea that in a democratic nation the voters are free to choose how want to vote, a choice that includes not voting at all.", "title": "In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.", "pid": "29758b9-2019-04-18T17:06:05Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.7545166015625}, {"text": "Hello Heineken. Thanks for accepting this debate. Christmas Day is a holiday under federal law in the United States. On Christmas Day, federal government employees are forced to take a day off to celebrate this religious festival, and they are paid to do so. Each year, Christmas Day costs US tax-payers around half a billion dollars (1). Thus, every tax payer, irrespective of her private religious beliefs, is being forced to subsidize this Christian festival. No other religion is celebrated in this way, of course. Christmas Day is the only compulsory religious festival in the US calendar. The US government has tried, and failed, to excuse this appalling unfairness with the following argument (2), which I’ll paraphrase here: Christmas is a Christian festival, but Non-Christians can join in the activities, so Forcing them to subsidize a Christian festival is a legitimate government activity. The government designates the following Christmas activities as appropriate “even for” non-Christian Americans: Decorating houses and yards with lights Putting up “Christmas” trees Giving gifts Sending greeting cards If the aim is inclusiveness, why not have a government-sponsored solstice celebration on December 19? All those activities for non-Christians would still apply. Then, six days later, anyone who wants to can celebrate the birth of Jesus privately. But why would anyone want to? Not even Christians are pretending that Jesus was actually born on December 25 (3). The winter solstice celebration was hijacked hundreds of years ago. It needs to be returned to the people. However. This idea about winter solstice is just my own suggestion to improve the lives of millions of Americans. There are many other options. Government interference in the “Christmas” festival could be cancelled with no replacement holiday, for example, or the New Year celebrations could be lengthened. The important thing is that the government does not force non-Christians to observe a Christian religious day (by not being allowed to work), and does not force any American to subsidize a Christian religious festival (by using taxes to pay federal employees for the day of observance). The US Department of State claims that religious freedom is a “core objective of U.S. foreign policy” (4). Maybe start at home. The government needs to stop pushing Christmas onto its citizens. 1. http://www.washingtontimes.com... 2. http://www.usa.gov... 3. http://www.christiananswers.net... 4. http://www.state.gov...", "title": "The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas", "pid": "5fa207c6-2019-04-18T17:59:10Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.7537078857422}, {"text": "Please stop trying your argument by verbosity, it's obnoxious.The negative's argument is essentially that a popular election might be contested for so long that it would somehow go past January 20th.The first example used is the hanging chad recount fiasco. This example, however, is invalid, based on the fact that we no longer use the butterfly ballot. Therefore, because the main, if not sole, factor of the only major recount in US election history cannot ever come into play again, this example does not support your argument.The second example used is the 2016 election, whose quick popular vote resolution proves my point, not my opponent's. The popular vote result was obvious by noon the following day, so backing up the assertion that an election could be contested past the date of inauguration with an election whose popular vote result was decided the next day was a confusing and easily defeated move. Because the examples my opponent used did not support his/her argument(and even supported mine), I urge you to vote for the affirmative(pro) on this issue.", "title": "The electoral college should be abolished in favor of direct election.", "pid": "a52fa32e-2019-04-18T12:01:36Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.75106811523438}, {"text": "Round 1: Rules and position clarification. Round 2: Opening Statements. Rounds 3 and 4: Evidence/Rebuttals Round 5: Closing statements. I will be arguing that presidential elections should be decided by a popular vote of the entire United States.", "title": "Presidential elections should be decided by a popularvote instead of the electoral college.", "pid": "7b7584cd-2019-04-18T13:10:25Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 212.7394256591797}, {"text": "Low election turn-outs result in a government that does not truly have the democratic mandate of the population. Compulsory voting would ensure the governing party has the majority of the country on its side, and better reflect the wishes of the people. In my ever so humble opinion voting should be compulsory because I believe (perhaps somewhat niavely) that if an individual is forced to vote they would/should make an effort to become more informed on the issues that the various parties are campaigning about, and the issues that affect themselves and their local electorate. In Australia (yes I am Australian but live in the UK) voting is compulsory. That being said, the only compulsory part of the process is showing up and getting your name ticked of the roll. What you do in the privacy of the booth is entirely up to you. If you dont agree with any of the politicians or parties you vote incorrectly which makes you vote invalid and therefore doesnt count. (stupid but legal)", "title": "A true democratic mandate for the government", "pid": "13fc3acf-2019-04-19T12:45:38Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 212.73287963867188}, {"text": "There are several objections to a national voting identification standard. Firstly, voting procedures are methods for the states and the federal government should not interfere in their affairs. And if uniformity was desirable, it would be better to scrap all voter identification laws, returning to the previous situation that you just register to vote when you move and don’t’ need special identification at the polling booth. Finally, a national identity card is in itself an invasion of privacy, leading the way to a police state and the dangers associated with poor data management on the part of the government, including identity theft.", "title": "There are currently very different identification requirements for voting from state to state, meani...", "pid": "15a2bd73-2019-04-19T12:44:11Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 212.71804809570312}, {"text": "I accept", "title": "Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote", "pid": "b661889e-2019-04-18T17:56:09Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 212.71719360351562}, {"text": "The current system disenfranchises minorities as Iowa and New Hampshire have disproportionately low Black and Latino populations", "title": "hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.", "pid": "8a695b78-2019-04-15T20:22:24Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.71585083007812}, {"text": "These militant feminists would no doubt hijack the celebrations and turn them into \"Pvssy Pride Parades\" where young women would flaunt their genitalia in public, shocking onlookers with their defiance displays of nudity. Naturally, these young women would organise themselves into groups such as \"The Labia Liberation Front\"; \"The Gash Gangsta Girls\" and \"The Muff Mafia\" and send 'snatch' squads into places where men traditionally congregate to assert their femininity on any unsuspecting males they find therein. Think about it, gentlemen, how would you like it if a gang of young women burst into your local pub and asserted their feminine self-confidence on you by pressing your face into their vaginas? Well, how would you like that? You wouldn't like it, would you? Okay, some of you might quite like it, but that's not the point, it's an invasion of your own personal space, and that's why I urge you to vote against my opponent's proposal. Thank you.", "title": "Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday", "pid": "9df1ccfb-2019-04-18T17:35:14Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.6934814453125}, {"text": "It's Australia day, not white people day it is directed at all Australians January 26 is a very significant date to celebrate Australia day. It is a date for all of us to reflect on the negatives associated with colonisation. It is a date that signifies the resilience of Indigenous australians A date that we can choose to focus on the real issues facing the traditional owners of the land and to work hard to resolve these issues It is a date where we can all celebrate our great nation and be thankful that we live in a free and accepting society", "title": "The date of Australia day should be changed", "pid": "5d52ac69-2019-04-18T13:21:20Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.67214965820312}, {"text": "Oh, my opponent forfeited. I'd like to ask the voter who has read this debate so far to reconsider my side of the argument. Please vote on who's argument you think is more logical.", "title": "We Should Celebrate Colombus Day.", "pid": "481724c0-2019-04-18T17:05:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.65614318847656}, {"text": "Participatory democracy is great for those who participate. The electoral college promotes grass roots localized campaigns. Get involved.", "title": "The Electoral college should remain the method of electing presidents in the United states.", "pid": "e086b5a5-2019-04-18T20:02:13Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.64511108398438}, {"text": "1. \"I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor\". Response: with all the avenues available on a single day vote (Internet at library, shelters, could provide other government locations) voting would not only be available to all Americans but it could be convenient. 2. \"...Those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Response: currently all states have a form of absentee voting (vote via mail, early, etc...). Here is a link to every state\"s absentee voting policy: http://www.ncsl.org.... Additionally, if the single day voting were a national holiday, that modification would eliminate work issues. Either way, every state in the country currently allows citizens to provide their work excuse and vote early. 3. \"Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to.\" Response: with so much difficulty passing voter ID policies, logging fingerprints would prove implausible for two reasons. First, one argument against voter ID is that some have difficulty finding their birth certificate or other forms of ID. Second, many feel it is an invasion of their privacy and denies them their right to vote. Although I support voter ID laws, the fingerprint policy would be a step up in both categories. 4. \"Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well.\" Response: if the vote were done over a period of weeks, the spectacle and drama would be dragged out and exacerbated even more than it is now. For example, television shows such as The Bachelorette rely on this type of drama to generate ratings. Presidential elections that only occur once every four years would play right into this type of sensationalism. Additionally, the voting could not occur during the transition period between November and January. During this time, the president-elect needs to conduct business related to a smooth transition between leaders. Therefore, the vote needs to be finalized by early November, it cannot drag on for months. Although the Electoral College process does not officially elect the president until much later, there has never been a President-elect who was not officially elected by the Electoral College. 5. \"For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both.\" Response: displaying an ID in order to vote but maintaining total privacy on the actual person the voter selected is completely possible. The ID provides the voter the ballot, the voter then votes privately. 6. \"Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen.(I agree both are duties, but like I argued in Round 1, apathy is the problem)\" Response: The IRS is currently backlogged as it is (see link below), so involving them in the voting process would provide an even more significant delay. Additionally, the IRS experiences tax evasion fraud as well as their own surveillance scandals (see link below), so convincing Americans to provide fingerprints would be next to impossible. Lastly, you mentioned single day voting being a burden on the poor. Surely attaching a financial requirement to the vote (albeit a legally assessed tax) could provide a disincentive to conduct both actions (paying taxes and voting) and could also create discrimination similar to post-Civil War poll taxes used to deny African Americans their right to vote. It also could provide the undue burden on the poor that you refer to at the start of your argument. IRS backlog link: http://www.cchgroup.com... IRS scandal link: http://news.investors.com... 7. \"EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for\" Response: every state has a policy to allow citizens to vote on a day that is not the national voting day: http://www.ncsl.org.... I think our common ground is, however, to make voting day a national holiday. 8. \"Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less\" Response: As I stated in Round 1, the reasons people provide currently are many times just excuses since there are plenty of avenues for citizens to vote under our current system. It would also be easier for people to intimidate voters since the government would have a tough time manning polling locations for weeks or months instead of for just one day. I had fun with my first debate, thanks for posting, this is a great topic.", "title": "Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day", "pid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.6419677734375}, {"text": "Nothing new to add, will be happy to respond to arguments counter to Rd #1.", "title": "Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day", "pid": "fcff81a7-2019-04-18T17:19:43Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.62107849121094}, {"text": "I wish to debate whether or not Columbus Day should be celebrated. It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented and that his \"accomplishments\" was nothing more but a failed journey riddled with genocide and imperialism. Thus, Columbus shouldn't be honored with a national holiday. Before going into detail, I await an opponent to accept my debate and agree to only ONE term.... 1. If you accept this debate, as con you must make the argument why Columbus Day SHOULD/REMAIN celebrated. (THAT SIMPLE)", "title": "Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated.", "pid": "7068d2b9-2019-04-18T18:58:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.61404418945312}, {"text": "This debate will cover the discussion of whether or not the electoral college should or should not be abolished in favor of electing the President of the United States by a national popular vote.", "title": "The Electoral College Should be Abolished", "pid": "55c05f9b-2019-04-18T14:42:05Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.6079559326172}, {"text": "Derp.I won voters, by the way.", "title": "Should Monday be a school day", "pid": "495f145-2019-04-18T14:09:13Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.602294921875}, {"text": "Voters, I know this has not been much of a debate. In fact, it wasn't a debate at all. I just want to state my stance to the voters to garner their opinions. I believe that Columbus Day is a symbolic holiday in which we celebrate the peak of the renaissance, and the improvements of technology that came along with it - medicine, government, etc. I also believe that Columbus Day is an important part of our past - and shouldn't be eradicated from calendars. Famous songs, poems, and other forms of media were created to celebrate Columbus Day. The Pledge of Allegiance is an example. I would also like to state that my opponent's argument is inconsistent. If Columbus Day should not be celebrated because of the treatment of the Natives, should we rename cities like Columbus? Should we dismantle statutes of Columbus?No. Although Columbus did not discovered America, he was the leader of the voyage that put it into the limelight in Europe. He might not have spotted it first - but I believe that we need to remember his braveness, his stamina, his wanting to continue on. If he had been to afraid to cross the Atlantic, America would be much different. No one can deny this; Columbus made a dent in history, and we should remember this by celebrating Columbus Day. Voters, please vote for who's argument is more logical, who had better conduct. I participated in every round. My opponent forfeited two of the three rounds. I provided reasons for why I believe we need to celebrate Columbus Day. My opponent provided very little fact and cited few to no resources. Voters, vote for who won.", "title": "We Should Celebrate Colombus Day.", "pid": "481724c0-2019-04-18T17:05:27Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.590087890625}, {"text": "In conclusion Australia day should remain on the 26th of January as it is an iconic day for all Australians. Altho Australia had many hiccups along the way it is an amazing nation, home to over 24.3 million people and to change such an important date would be a mistake. Australia has apologised and made up to the Indigenous Australians losses, and have made sure that they are as much Australian as everyone else living in Australia.", "title": "The Date Of Australia Day Should Be Changed", "pid": "2db5fce7-2019-04-18T13:17:49Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.59002685546875}, {"text": "This topic is not going to go away. It is going to be brought up every single year until the date is changed. Every year there are marches, protests and conversations like this one. It will continue to drive Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians apart on the very day that we are meant to be brought together as a nation. The debate has especially begun raging after Kevin Rudd broke his promise - he promised he would change the date from the 26th to another day because he knew what a devastating day it was for Aboriginals, and then didn't see his promise through. Aboriginals are always going to mourn this day - and how could they not? They were invaded: they need to mourn and commemorate their ancestors who suffered. The 26th has always been their Day of Mourning, not just since Australia Day became official in 1994. As they said during a chant on Australia Day: \"We won\"t stop, we won\"t go away, we won\"t celebrate Invasion Day\". Australia Day won\"t truly be a day of national pride, a day that we can all celebrate as one, as many cultures, and recognise as having Aboriginal culture at our core, until it is no longer on the 26th.", "title": "Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date", "pid": "e8dd2df4-2019-04-18T13:19:43Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.5883331298828}, {"text": "International Waffle Day should be a federally recognized holiday? *** Yes it should http://www.youtube.com... 1) Tastiness deserves to be a nationally sanctified- Who doesn't remember going to waffle house at 2am to eat because nowhere else was open where you could sit down? It's a magical experience, wolfing down that tennis-racket looking goodness. If you're staying at a Hotel in the great state of Texas, the waffles even come in the shape of the state! It's not even an option thing where you *can* get them in that shape, the griddle is shaped like Texas. Why isn't this something we should recognize on a federal level? 2) It would unite a divided legislature- In order to become a federally recognized holiday, a piece of legislation would have to pass through both the house and Senate. Particularly during an election season, this would be non-contentious and provide a much-needed sense of unity to help restore the US population's faith in government. 3) Waffles are fun, and wildly underrated- While Eggo had it's heyday back in the day, we don't really give the waffle the proper credit it deserves today. If we were to federally recognize national waffle day, Eggo would be primed to come back into the spotlight swinging. That would mean we would see the return of Eggo's hilarious marketing team b) If Eggo would come back to prominence the way it was in the late 90s and Early 2000s, it would pave the way for other snacks that got left behind. Conclusion- Waffles are the bomb dot com, and there is absolutely no reason not to affirm. Federally recognizing National Waffle day would be good for our taste buds, government and soul.", "title": "You choose the topic", "pid": "b38b6b92-2019-04-18T13:11:31Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.5834197998047}, {"text": "Western countries are Christian societies, shaped over centuries by the Church. Some, such as the UK, still have an official state church and many others (e.g. Germany, France) support churches with money in some ways. In all Christmas Day is a public holiday. Even in the USA many people would argue that the courts have shut religion out of public life in a way that the Founding Fathers never intended. Such Christian countries should not turn their back upon their heritage and the faith background of the large majority of their citizens. This means Christmas (and other Christian festivals, such as Easter) should continue to be marked officially with public displays. The state can also mark other faith holidays in some way, but it is right that Christmas gets most official attention.", "title": "The state should not give one particular faith support through its actions. Nor should it spend tax...", "pid": "a6a12f7b-2019-04-19T12:44:10Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.582763671875}, {"text": "Australia day is arguably one of the most unique national days in the world. Rather the unite it seems to divide Australia into two different view points. It is celebrated on the 26th of January as it marks the specific event of the arrival of the First Fleet of 11 convict ships from Great Britain and the raising of the Union Jack at Sydney Cove by the commander Captain Arthur Phillip.", "title": "We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians", "pid": "4c34b206-2019-04-18T13:21:25Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 212.57191467285156}, {"text": "I accept your challenge in this debate. I stand to negate your resolution. I hold that democratic elections are MORE won than bought. An electoral victory is NOT a good or service to be exchanged for money. The election is ultimately decided by a plurality and or majority among the community of eligible voters, and each voter is free to decide whom she chooses to vote for. Regardless of how much money is spent on election campaigns, each voter stands alone in that booth on election day, and makes her own decision. Definitions: Democracy: forms of government, both direct and indirect, where representatives or policies are chosen through popular elections or referendums. Bought: Past tense of 'buy,' to obtain [something] in exchange for money or goods Won: (In this context) by achieving a plurality and or majority of votes among the community of eligible voters Majority: 50% +1 Plurality: a countable margin by which a number exceeds another number, especially of votes. Time: The time period under discussion is living memory, say approx. 1950-Present", "title": "This House Believes Elections are Bought Not Won.", "pid": "3b0e73c6-2019-04-18T16:44:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.57144165039062}, {"text": "I would like to start by refuting your case on my hypocrisy. My democracy far outweighs your democracy argument. You say that some voters don't have their vote count because they live in an area that is focused on the opposite party, but in total, the states have an equal amount of support for each candidate, please refer to this picture, which is of the states voting in the Romney, v Obama run. https://www.google.com... i would also like to refute that by saying that majority simply rules. If you are in a room, and asked to choose a candidate among 19 others, and 11 of those people choose democratic, but you chose republican, that isn't a failing in democracy but simply majority ruling. Also, the plan is to replace this electoral college system, as I will state in my third point, which is The U.S. needs this new system for voting. National primary is a new and good way of voting, and has proven to be much better than what we have now. National primary is even more popular with the public than our current system. A CBS News/NY Times poll in 2000 showed 75% of adults favoring a national primary and only 19% favoring the current system. And if that seems outdated, a more recent national telephone survey of respondents in 41 states voting on Super Tuesday or later found that 73% of Americans are in favor of a national primary. This proves that national primary is much, much more favored than what we currently have. A national primary may even bring in more voters because more people are content with the system and think that their vote is actually going to count. Speaking of, when people don\"t vote, it destroys democracy, especially when people aren\"t happy with the system and are voting because of that. This happens because people who would have had a vote instead don\"t vote because they know it won\"t count. As USC Professor Geoffrey Cowan in the Los Angeles Times points out that critics have identified countless problems with the current process including campaign finance laws that give inordinate influence to big donors; limits on voter registration and participation; and the power granted to Iowa and New Hampshire as the first states to cast votes. The rules, which differ from party to party, election to election and state to state, are dizzyingly confusing. Moreover, in a country where roughly 40% of the electorate is not affiliated with either party, does it really make sense for some states to have \"closed primaries\" where only party members can vote?", "title": "The United States should establish a national primary.", "pid": "7782d574-2019-04-18T13:53:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.5531005859375}, {"text": "On Australia Day we come together as a nation to celebrate what's great about Australia and being Australian. It's the day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation. It's the day for us to re-commit to making Australia an even better place for the future. We are not a country that discriminates and have moved on from our past. What happened over 228 years ago does not and should not reflect or represent that people we are as Australians, therefore, to say that we are not an equal country is not true or fair to Australians that eknowledge the wrongdoing of the British in the First Fleet, and have apologised for this, as we have as a nation. We are an equal country. Australia Day is much more than what most of us celebrate it for. It is more than another public holiday. It is more than the pride and excitement of new citizens who call themselves Australian for the first time on 26 January after being conferred citizenship. At its core, Australia Day is a day driven by communities, and the celebrations held in each town, suburb or city \" unified by the celebration of what\"s great about Australia and being Australian \" are the foundation of its ongoing success.", "title": "\"We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians\"", "pid": "3a618f08-2019-04-18T13:21:20Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 212.5463409423828}, {"text": "You're right, with only 54.2% of eligible voters voting - it's not a real say of the American people with who is elected. However, it would be undemocratic (ironically) in attempting to be more democratic, as forcing people to do something they don't want to do is a violation of the First Amendment. Someone, by not voting, can be saying or implying that the American political system sucks and voting is stupid, this is Freedom of Expression and their means of free-speech. By forcing them to vote, we then deprive them of that freedom and in turn become more authoritarian than we ought to be. It is not the government's role to force people to express themselves, merely to protect their right to do so, and by making voting compulsory the government no longer protects that right but infringes upon it by making people express something they don't inherently want to.", "title": "Voting Should Be Compulsory", "pid": "b291f03d-2019-04-18T13:32:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.5423583984375}, {"text": "Allowing recall elections will help to restore faith in politics and encourage active citizenship. ...", "title": "Recall elections", "pid": "dfd4164c-2019-04-19T12:44:12Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.53488159179688}, {"text": "I accept, Same rules as your other debate and Con goes first. May the best debater win.", "title": "Resolved: direct popular vote should replace electoral college in presidential elections", "pid": "196ff2c-2019-04-18T18:36:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.53115844726562}, {"text": "Good luck. I've been wanting to debate this for a while. Hopefully I get a chance here. The electoral system is more fair and a lot better than what most people actually think.", "title": "Presidential elections should be decided by a popularvote instead of the electoral college.", "pid": "7b7584cd-2019-04-18T13:10:25Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 212.5029296875}, {"text": "I believe that we shouldn't change Australia Day. Reconciliation means the restoration of friendly relationships. In Australia's case, the restoration of friendly relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. In the article \"Day of Shame\" by Andrew Bolt's it suggests that we non-indigenous have done a lot to make up for the wrongs we made towards the Aboriginals and made events to prove how sorry we such as: National Sorry Day (May 26), granted Aboriginal land rights, formal apology for the stolen generations, introduced Koori courts and spent billions to lift Aborigines out of poverty. Andrew makes a clear statement saying \"No to the race-baiters. No to laws dividing us by race. No to those who want to shut down debate on all this and let's say yes to judging each other not by the colour of our skin or the race of our ancestors, but by the content of our character. As individuals.\" This statement clearly states that we should not debate on changing Australia day and to stop labelling people as racists just because of this one National day but say yes to judging other by who we are not our background, race or religion.", "title": "Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date", "pid": "672a41c7-2019-04-18T13:21:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 212.49932861328125}, {"text": "There is no other date that best reflects both origins of our country. There is also no better day to celebrate the strong nation Australia has become. People say Australia Day is about the \"British Invasion and Occupation\" they are just words that reduce the significance and importance of this day as a nation we should all celebrate and it is a day many appreciate. Australians have done many things for the Aboriginal and Indigenous communities our nation. The 26th of January best represents the day we became one and as a country this consist conflict isn't going to help anything and we all need to come realisation that we are all in it together. Australia day should remain the same but out of respect their should be a day that highlights significance the of all of the Ingenious communities and people of our great nation 2015. Australia Day should remain on January 26, but move to a republic must begin. [ONLINE]. http://www.smh.com.au... . Accessed on the 18th of May", "title": "Change the date", "pid": "8a31ff75-2019-04-18T13:21:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 212.49386596679688}, {"text": "I am going to first establish the criterion and then bring up my own points. The criterion for this debate is democracy. Democracy is the best criterion for this debate because of topic relevancy, meaning that since this debate is about a presidential election system, and America's presidential system was built on democracy, democracy is the best criterion available. My first point is that implementing a national primary would make every voter count. We are a vast nation, and every voter deserves a chance to express his or her opinion on as many potential presidential candidates as possible, without an agenda being frozen in place by major, early victories in states that are only vaguely representative of the broad mass of the American people. Even the Washington Post has an article named \"13 states that matter\". If we implement national primary, we can fix this unfair voting system and make everyone's voice have an impact, not just a certain few. The New York Times states a problem with our current system, saying that the schedule has worked very nicely for early-voting states, which have had a steady stream of would-be presidents knocking on their doors, making commitments on issues like the Iowa full-employment program, also known as the ethanol subsidy. The losers have been states like New York and California, which have often gotten to vote only when the contests were all but decided. Issues that matter to them, like mass transportation, have suffered. This means that huge cities are getting tossed to the side because of our current system. Judge, we need everyone to have a chance at getting their problems fixed, instead of just a couple. With a new campaign season upon us, our presidential primaries don\"t seem to meet anyone\"s standards for popular rule. Tiny, unrepresentative states have outsized power. Billionaires and their money are often the most important factors in the contests. Media coverage rewards extremist rhetoric and partisanship, and only a tiny fraction of American voters end up having a say in the presidential nomination process. (Zocalo Public Square, an affiliate of the Arizona State University) My second point is that implementing a national primary would help the candidates as well. The way things are structured today, many candidates are forced out after losses in the small, earlier primaries, as their war chests dry up before they can ever reach the larger states on Super Tuesday (for those that don\"t know, Super Tuesday is the day of February and March where many states are allowed to vote). This means candidates can already be put out of the game, just because the states that are first allowed to vote don\"t vote for them (forbes). This can lead to candidates that could have been amazing losing the chance to get support from all people instead of just a few states at first -- a chance they need and deserve.", "title": "The United States should establish a national primary.", "pid": "7782d574-2019-04-18T13:53:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 212.49159240722656}, {"text": "Before I begin, I would like to state that the first round will be for opening statements and a numbered list of main points that will be expanded on in the second round. The third round will be for responding to the points from the second round. The fourth round will be responding to the responses and for concluding statements. If research is used to further arguments, links to articles should be posted. Columbus Day, an official federal holiday in the United States, celebrates Christopher Columbus' arrival in the Americas. It is celebrated on the second Monday of October, around the date of Columbus' historic voyage. I argue that Columbus Day should not be an official federal holiday because it celebrates a man who was not a hero but a villain, and who was a poor role model for Americans. 1. Columbus' actions led to events that destroyed Native American societies. 2. Columbus committed many human rights violations. 3. Columbus' actions led to events that destroyed African societies. 4. Columbus supported slavery. 5. Columbus never reached territory that is in modern-day United States. 6. Columbus was not the first European to reach the Americas. Although some might argue that Columbus was respectable, that opinion should not be imposed on every American. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.infoplease.com...", "title": "Columbus Day in the United States of America", "pid": "e3581e77-2019-04-18T17:20:48Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 212.48716735839844}]}
{"idx": 43, "qid": "45", "q_text": "Should the penny stay in circulation?", "qrels": {"89f40bd6-2019-04-18T13:04:31Z-00004-000": 0, "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00001-000": 2, "e3944735-2019-04-18T16:33:26Z-00002-000": 0, "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00005-000": 2, "7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00004-000": 0, "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00001-000": 2, "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00005-000": 2, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "6ad5ce3a-2019-04-18T16:46:38Z-00003-000": 0, "5cbe11b4-2019-04-18T17:56:10Z-00004-000": 0, "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00001-000": 2, "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00003-000": 2, "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00000-000": 1, "5b09f300-2019-04-18T11:54:53Z-00001-000": 0, "5986a25f-2019-04-18T14:37:08Z-00003-000": 0, "5986a25f-2019-04-18T14:37:08Z-00000-000": 0, "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00002-000": 2, "40be1cf0-2019-04-15T20:24:26Z-00004-000": 0, "40a68302-2019-04-18T14:17:57Z-00001-000": 0, "3a3f4e49-2019-04-18T15:16:14Z-00005-000": 0, "289d022a-2019-04-18T17:10:20Z-00002-000": 0, "3207095a-2019-04-18T16:54:39Z-00002-000": 2, "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00002-000": 2, "3207095a-2019-04-18T16:54:39Z-00000-000": 0, "4c68354c-2019-04-18T13:19:39Z-00000-000": 0, "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00002-000": 2, "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00007-000": 0, "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00003-000": 0, "ea99c80f-2019-04-18T14:24:14Z-00001-000": 0, "dfb55fa0-2019-04-18T16:49:37Z-00004-000": 0, "ba3c09de-2019-04-18T18:11:27Z-00003-000": 0, "ae0aada-2019-04-18T13:05:24Z-00002-000": 0, "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00005-000": 2, "ab7e692e-2019-04-18T19:08:57Z-00004-000": 0, "ab7e692e-2019-04-18T19:08:57Z-00003-000": 0, "953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00002-000": 0, "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00003-000": 0, "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00008-000": 0, "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00006-000": 2, "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00008-000": 0, "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00003-000": 2, "19444029-2019-04-18T16:04:23Z-00005-000": 2, "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00007-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "!! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! !! Vote con! !! ! !", "title": "The penny should be stopped from circulation", "pid": "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.11300659179688}, {"text": "I will be arguing in favor of the following plan: 1: All Pennies currently circulated as U. S Currency shall be no longer be accepted as commerce by the United States Treasury Department. A: The production of pennies will be halted immediately. B: Those pennies not in circulation, but already produced, shall be melted down. C: The remaining pennies shall not and will not be allowed to be held by any U. S citizen with any intention other than collecting 2: Pennies shall be no longer used as a form of debt payment in the United States or its respective territorial holdings, nor shall it be continued to be produced as a coin of regular commercial circulation. 3: The United States Mint shall be responsible for executing the contingencies of the aforementioned plan, in the interest of the U. S Treasury department. 4: All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby declared null and void.", "title": "The penny should be stopped from circulation", "pid": "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.13442993164062}, {"text": "I extend my arguments", "title": "The penny should be stopped from circulation", "pid": "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.96551513671875}, {"text": "Believe it or not, the nickel costs more than it is worth to make too. If you think you're on to something, we'll be increasing our currency by 10x, which usually leads to economical fails. As most people know, a failing economy is not a good sign, and we could be minting trillion dollar bills before we know it!", "title": "Should the penny be kept in US currency", "pid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.8826446533203}, {"text": "Let me make this clear. I said an economic breakdown HERE, meaning the U.S. The US is much more capable of recovering from a breakdown than the Soviet Union. Back on topic, my closing argument is that the penny is outdated. The time has come for it to be removed, naturally or by force. New forms of currency, like the $2 bill are becoming more and more widespread. A penny is just something that you throw on the ground, forget about. The making of the penny should be stopped, although to prevent an economic breakdown it should remain as a legitimate form of payment, usin the penny's already in circulation of the U.S.", "title": "Should the penny be kept in US currency", "pid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.87765502929688}, {"text": "This argument will be about whether or not we should take the penny out of circulation. I will be arguing that we should get rid of it while my opponent will be arguing that we should keep the penny. The debate will go like thisRound 1: Opening statementRound 2: RebuttalRound 3: Closing I look forward to debating with whom ever my opponent will be and I will now give my opening statement.We should get rid of the penny because they are useless. Each penny costs 1.7 cents to make meaning that we are wasting money every time we make money. By getting rid of the penny we could save millions of dollars each year that we could spend on more important things.", "title": "Should the U.S. keep the penny", "pid": "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.8670196533203}, {"text": "I think that pennies should stop being produced by the U. S. mint and taken out of circulation, similar to what Canada did. The penny costs more to make then it's worth, it's rarely actually used. It's a detriment to our economy.", "title": "Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S.", "pid": "42633cc5-2019-04-18T16:25:30Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.7861328125}, {"text": "You did not state why pennies should not be in circulation. Anyways, melting down pennies will cost a huge amount of money. Secondly, halting the production of pennies will discourage the use of pennies; and therefore, make it harder for future penny collectors to collect old pennies. I do not see any reason why pennies should be abandoned; it costs money and results in no benefits. I do not have much time; therefore, I will stop right here.", "title": "The penny should be stopped from circulation", "pid": "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.7500457763672}, {"text": "I will be arguing that the production of the penny should continue. I look forward to a fun and informative debate. Good luck!", "title": "The Penny", "pid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.50668334960938}, {"text": "The removal of the penny will cause an economic breakdown, sure. But so have many other things- and we got over it. The penny is soon going to be obselete, along with most other coins and even bills. Technology is growing by the minute. Credit cards are a more efficient way of payment, as compared to it.", "title": "Should the penny be kept in US currency", "pid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.40792846679688}, {"text": "The penny may have sounded like a good idea when It was invented, but except for certain transactions of \"$22.01\" it isn't necessary. The penny costs more than it is worth to make! Sure, it would cause a ripple in the world of money, but we can get over that!", "title": "Should the penny be kept in US currency", "pid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.36178588867188}, {"text": "I think that the production shouldn't be stopped because for one, in a way, it kinda makes things easier. And taking away the penny would make things more expensive change wise also. and EVERY store EVERYWHERE would have to change the price tag on everything so that the lowest change number was 5 cents", "title": "Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision.", "pid": "bb3f63e1-2019-04-18T16:27:45Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.11634826660156}, {"text": "If we take away the penny (and the nickel), we will be back at 1947. This was shortly after the Great Depression ended, and if we don't have smaller coins (the lack of small coins prevented us from getting out of this terrible event), a whole new Great Depression could appear. That's not just a ripple, that is throwing us seventy years behind the rest of the world, and it will be difficult to get out of that. We may have to devote to rounding. $2 bills are to $20 bills, as $1 bills are to $10 bills, same with $5 to $50, and $10 to $100. The two dollar bill helps our economy as much as a twenty dollar bill, which is why we are coming towards it. The two dollar bill will boost, and all taking away the penny can do is throw us behind the rest of the world. This will cause our taxes to be lowered, which means less money on international relationships, which means, debt that can't be paid off, lack of military. These things will make the US vulnerable to the outside forces. Good luck!", "title": "Should the penny be kept in US currency", "pid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.0291748046875}, {"text": "Many economic breakdowns have resulted in the collapse of countries. My opponent clearly said we could get over it however may I argue that the Soviet Union, one of the two superpowers in the world at that time, experienced an economic collapse. This crisis was one of the key factors to the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Russia. Next comes lack of military. Any \"ripple in the world of money\" can cause a serious impact on the military. As I speak the US is in war with ISIL, and having an economic crisis will not benefit us as all. The penny also should not be taken from the US currency because, as you said, we might have to resort to credit cards, but remember this. Many shops don't accept credit cards, the shops will experience a downfall in what they can do, and many places will go out of business, causing more and more to do the same.", "title": "Should the penny be kept in US currency", "pid": "141e3960-2019-04-18T15:20:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.99159240722656}, {"text": "Hah hah, good job Ether. I forfeit", "title": "The Penny Should Die.", "pid": "21311659-2019-04-18T12:07:50Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.9377899169922}, {"text": "I believe we should keep the penny around.", "title": "The US should abolish the penny", "pid": "7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.8556671142578}, {"text": "I think we should keep the penny, because if not then yo momma will have to raise her price to a nickel. And what yo momma gives me is only worth 3 cents. So yo momma would be getting a free 2 cents every time she services me.", "title": "Should the U.S. keep the penny", "pid": "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.84793090820312}, {"text": "When you think of America you think of things like the Statue of Liberty or the sunn beaches of Miami or LA. When it comes to symbols of america though, it is hard to beat the iconinc penny. it is the commenest coin in America and is therefore easy to recognize when you see a penny in the newsparer or ont the internet that it means haing to do with currency. We cannot simply get rid off the penny. That is like blowing up the Lincon Monument or toppling the Washington Monumet. It just simply isn't even thought of.", "title": "The penny should be immediately discontinued.", "pid": "64d27e41-2019-04-18T19:38:48Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.737548828125}, {"text": "Extend all arguments", "title": "Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision.", "pid": "bb3f63e1-2019-04-18T16:27:45Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.72244262695312}, {"text": "I have not debated on this website for a long time. Glad to be back! Moving on, this is the debate of the topic: \"The US Penny Should be Taken Out of Service.\" The first round is simply for acceptance. Rules: 1) No trolling/semantics. 2) No offensive content/swearing 3) Keep arguments within the spirit of debate/no personal attacks. In the event of a rule being broken by either side, it will result in an automatic loss. I eagerly await an opponent.", "title": "The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service", "pid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.69174194335938}, {"text": "Arguments, they hath been extended", "title": "Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision.", "pid": "bb3f63e1-2019-04-18T16:27:45Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.59210205078125}, {"text": "Today, pennies have become little more than a nuisance to our economy and therefore should be eliminated. In the Harris Poll, an online, nationwide poll that surveyed 2,136 adults, a total of 59% of those adults were opposed to the abolishing of the penny. The first of two main reasons people believed that the penny should remain in circulation was that the pennies served as a historical memorial to a particularly beloved president, Abraham Lincoln. In 21 December 2005, President Bush signed into law legislation directing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue newly designed reverse side images to mark the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. As Mark Bishop, the executive director of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, praised, many people believe that \"the penny is perhaps the most visible and tangible reminder of Lincoln's significance in American History.\" The second reason was, as claimed by Mark W. Weller, the Executive director of Americans for Common Cents, \"the fact that the penny remains popular with the public and important to our pricing system.\" He also claimed that the statement that the \"'U.S. is among the last industrialized nations to abolish' its low denomination coin runs counter to the facts. The European Union's adoption of the euro included a one-cent euro coin or 'euro penny. [...] And in the major industrialized countries, including Great Britain, Canada, Japan, and the U.S., the penny or penny-equivalent remains in production and shares similar percentages of total coins produced into those countries. However, they are wrong. The benefits of keeping pennies are overwhelmed by the consequences of keeping them. The claim that the penny is an important memorial to President Lincoln is clearly fallacious. The 16th president of the United States who maintained the Union and thereby abolished slavery by winning the Civil War, a war that made the ratification of the 13th Amendment immediately available, is memorialized enough as it is. He is already apparent on the five dollar bill (who would want to be remembered on a coin that according to William Saffire of the New York Times, \"two thirds of the time immediately drop out of circulation behind sofas, drawers, etc when he or she is already on a five dollar bill; how many of those have you seen lying on the ground). Also, he has an entire memorial of him in Washington. A 99 foot marble statue of him that cost $3 million to make. Why should we in our poor economic situation today print these pennies that obviously are trivial to the accolade of Lincoln when according to MIT graduate Jeff Gore in Ric Kahn's article \"Penny Pinchers\" for The Globe, \"the presence of pennies wastes (3 transactions/day) x (2.25 seconds/transaction) x (3 people per transaction) = 20 seconds per day. [...] it translates to 40 x 365 / 3600 - 4 hours per person per year. [...] each person is losing $60 per year, at a cost to the nation of over $15 billion per year.\" not to mention that the cost to making a penny costs approximately 1.6 cents? Moving on, the claim by Mark Weller, however, is not credible. In his unpublished letter to William Saffire to argue that the coin was valuable, he, as previously stated, believed the pennies to be \"important to our pricing system.\" Not only does the reader have to question his claim as he provides no factual evidence to support his claim but the reader has to realize that this man is speaking on bias. He is the Executive director of an organization that supports the coin. He is wealth is corner stoned on the fact that the penny exists. There is no escaping economic history: it takes nearly a dime to buy what a penny bought back in 1950. Pennies are losing value and face. The United States has no use for them. As William Saffire comically remarked, \" the Brits and the French - even the French! - who dumped their low-denomination coins 30 years ago, will be laughing at our senseless jingle\" The penny, hardly anything more than a inconsequential memorial to such a great president, should be eliminated. They are acting as a retardant to our American economy. On the flip side, \"Edmond Knowles figures he has saved an average of about 90 pennies a day for the last 38 years [...] that would be 1,308,459 pennies, or $13,084.59.\" (William Saffire) *shakes head*", "title": "The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated.", "pid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.56759643554688}, {"text": "me either", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.56039428710938}, {"text": "I highly disagree here I can get rid of old Abe I just can't no I wait for the arguments", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.55101013183594}, {"text": "I believe that the US should abolish the penny for multiple reasons. The person who accepts this is in support of keeping the pennies.", "title": "The US should abolish the penny", "pid": "7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.52285766601562}, {"text": "I will be debating for stopping the production of the penny. First round is for acceptance. Good Luck!", "title": "Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision.", "pid": "bb3f63e1-2019-04-18T16:27:45Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.46511840820312}, {"text": "Poll Shows Americans Concerned About Costly Price Rounding System If Penny Is Eliminated Washington, DC - A poll released today by Americans for Common Cents shows overwhelming support for the penny by the American public. The vast majority of those surveyed favored keeping the penny in circulation, a sentiment heightened when people were made aware of the penny's charitable importance, and most expressed significant concerns about higher consumer prices if the penny is eliminated. \"These results confirm the strong and unwavering support the penny continues to receive from America.\" said Weller. \"Americans understand that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding process and cost them hundreds of millions of dollars in higher prices. Current and future generations of Americans deserve to live in a country where a penny saved truly is a penny earned.\" The poll results showed that: * Three out of four adults (73%) favor keeping the penny in circulation; * A mere 12.6% agree the penny should be removed from circulation when people are told that millions of dollars in pennies are contributed to charities each year; * 76% were concerned that if the government implements a rounding system for cash purchases, businesses might raise prices; * 69% of Americans oppose eliminating the penny and establishing a price rounding system. An analysis by Raymond Lombra, PhD, Professor of Economics at Penn State University confirms these concerns. He found that eliminating the penny would lead to a rounding of prices in America that he estimates would cost consumers more than $600 million every year. Polling results over the last eight years demonstrate the widespread support the penny enjoys with the public. Opinion Research polls in 1995 and 1996 found 73% and 76% of Americans, respectively, support the penny. A 1992 CNN/Time survey and a 1990 Gallup poll produced similar favorable results. \"Keeping the penny in circulation will avoid an inflationary rounding process and is what the American people want,\" said Weller. \"It's just common cents.\" Americans for Common Cents is a broad-based coalition of business and charitable organizations dedicated to keeping the penny. The coalition was formed in 1990 in response to Congressional threats to eliminate the one-cent coin. Opinion Research Corporation International of Princeton, New Jersey, surveyed a national sample of 1,009 adults, comprised of 507 men and 502 women by phone. The margin of sampling error is +3%. <http://www.pennies.org...;", "title": "We should get rid of the penny", "pid": "3207095a-2019-04-18T16:54:39Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.46087646484375}, {"text": "I have nothing to say.", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.44699096679688}, {"text": "To start this debate, I'd like to define some of the key terms and state that I am con, firmly arguing why the US penny should not be taken out of service. Definitions: Penny Taken Out of Service: All pennies within the United States will neither be minted nor accepted as legal tender. Plan: As I am Con, it is not my job to address a plan, so the plan must be addressed by Pro. Burden of Proof: Here, I'd like to establish a 3-pronged burden of proof for Pro. In order for Pro to win this debate, he/she must prove the following three items: 1) The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market. 2) Taking the penny out of service will minimalistically harm the economy. 3) Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit. If any fragment of these three items is left unproved, then I, Con, will win this debate. Arguments: I would like to bring 2 major points into this debate. Argument 1: Economical Harm The US penny should not be taken out of service because it will harm the economy. Even though it is only one cent, the penny is extremely important in the way the US economic system works. How can we achieve the same amount of exactness in change and payments as we do with the penny? The only answer is rounding, but that is detrimental to the economy. According to pennies. org, propositions take the penny out of service and utilize the nickel as the coin of lowest value create public anxiety about higher prices and inflation. Over three-quarters of Americans (77%) are concerned that merchants would raise prices without the penny. And, most likely, they are correct. Professor of Economics at Penn State University Raymond Lombra, Ph. D. said to a Congressional committee that rounding cash sales up or down to the nearest nickel would cost consumers over $600 million annually. For example, you are a merchant who runs a clothing store. You charge $11 for a t-shirt, and the sales tax in California is 7.5%. You have a customer, and he/she pays in cash. The amount comes down to $11.86 with the sales tax. But, wait\" you have no pennies! How do you get the extra cent when there are no cents? The only answer is to round the price down to $11.85, but then you're losing a cent! When the penny is taken out of service, multiply this example by millions per day, and, as Raymond Lombra puts it, $600 million is now lost per year versus when the penny was still in service. $600 million dollars being lost just from taking a coin out of service is an extremely significant amount that cannot be ignored. A whopping majority of 77% of the general public is worried about taking the penny out of service. Without the penny, the the general public will lose money and the US economic situation will worsen. Argument 2: Charities The US penny should not be taken out of service because charities need pennies. There are a plethora of small charities that depend on penny drive to bring in donations. People think nothing of pouring out their old penny jars to support these drives, but they won't part with nickels so easily. Many corporations, national charities, schools, and local philanthropies have realized the worth of the penny. Through the use of point-of-sale collections, penny drives and competitive penny fundraisers, these groups have turned thousands of idle pennies into real dollars for everything from college scholarships to cancer research and housing for the homeless. One major example is Pennies for Patients, and without pennies, it would be nickels for patients, but that doesn't sound good! Pennies always have a worth to someone no matter who he/she may be. Pennies rescue people battling terrible diseases such as cancer. Pennies can save lives. College scholarships and cancer research rely on pennies. We, the opposition, want the best in the future, and the best is not to eliminate the penny.", "title": "The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service", "pid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.446044921875}, {"text": "Thanks for your suggestion I will be sure to try the pot roast next time", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.41500854492188}, {"text": "You make a good point but why should it be abolished Abe must stay here are some reason's first it would be disrespectful to deface a Hero of this proud country its like getting rid of the flag.... The penny might be the lowest form of currency you can have but its still currency getting rid of currency might not go so well what if you need exact change but that's not the point defacing a President is down right disrespect and a great one at that a true American hero but when it comes to the digital age where there are just credit cards and debit cards and bit coins I don't mean today I mean in 50 years where there is only digital things I still want to dig into my pocket and find a nice shinny Abe and remember how far we have come.", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.38990783691406}, {"text": "I do not agree with your terms as they where not originally outlined. As the instigator it is normally assumed that you have the burden of proving your point. It is up to the voters to decide who wins, not you. I will address your concerns to be a good sport:\" The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market.\"\" Taking the penny out of service will minimalist harm the economy.\"\"Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit.\"As of 2011, it costs 2.41¢ US (or $0.0241 US Dollars (USD)) to make a penny, making the coin's face value less than its actual value. http://www.wisegeek.org...This fact alone is sufficient enough to justify removing the penny from the market, or more correctly simply stop creating them as this is the more efficient plan. The reason that this is bad, other then the obvious, is that it increases the national debt in a pretty useless way. Removing the penny is only good for debt. Without the penny the government estimates it will save 7.6 TRILLION dollars in just ten years. http://www.enzi.senate.gov...Argument 1: Economical HarmI don't think you quite understand the \"penny plan\". As a Canadian (with a diploma in business) I have witnessed this plan first hand. The consumers worried that their $19.99 product will increased to $20.00 need not worry as it will stay at $19.99. The penny only effects Cash transactions, not electronic. all debit, gift card, credit card, cheque, etc. will be handled as if there is a penny.As for rounding of pennies the cost of using cash normally does not change. We use a complete rounding system, not a rounding up system as you implied. This means that $1.01 and $1.02 would be rounded down to $1, while $1.03 and $1.04 would be rounded up to $1.05. If you play close enough attention to your pennies you can actually save money by only using cash when it is time to round down, but not much. http://www.cbc.ca...Argument 2: CharitiesThe penny is the most donated coin, yet it can be quickly over shadowed by the nickel (5-1). There is no evidence that suggests people who donate will simply stop donating because there is no penny. In fact donations may rise because people \"have\" to give more then just a couple pennies. Furthermore Charities in Canada held drives to collect the \"worthless\" pennies once they where discontinued. http://theotherpress.ca...", "title": "The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service", "pid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.3870391845703}, {"text": "I. Forex/Stock ExchangeMy opponent still does not get it. Rounding up to the nearest 5 cents adds up. Lets say a investor buys 500,000 stocks worth 7.13$, and we decide to remove the penny. If the nickel is rounded up .02$, then the investor loses 100'000's of dollars. Likewise, if we decide to round the penny down, then the seller or company likewise loses 100'000's in equity.II. Inflation ControlYou can control inflation with any kind of currency. The difference between controlling it with a nickel and controlling it with a penny is vast though. Using a penny can round down a inflation percentage to the nearest 0.1. This can help the economy and the world market tremendously.You might as well just kill the banking industry if you're going to round to a nickel, not to mention the federal reserve will crash, and with it, billions of corporates. III. Just make the penny cheaper My opponent has not considered simply removing more silver, zinc, or copper from the penny. Instead of removing it and costing the nation about 100 billion dollars, we could just lower the materials we put in the penny as they leave the US mint. Actually, we do every few years. The penny gets cheaper and cheaper overtime, and the reason the mint is keeping it 2.00$ now, is because we have a inflating economy.Soon the value of the penny and its cost will equal each other. Come on people. Let's not pull a Canada here.", "title": "In the US, pennies should be abolished.", "pid": "19444029-2019-04-18T16:04:23Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.38475036621094}, {"text": "It's seems I have been routed by highly experienced debater your point was just as your cause to get rid of the copper Abe I rest my case and step down tooshay/touche my friend but if you want me to debate I will finish my statements but only at your respectable request", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.33155822753906}, {"text": "Mark119 is a virgin.", "title": "Should the U.S. keep the penny", "pid": "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.33123779296875}, {"text": "Once again, same order 1st cont: he seems to have failed to remember that the entire world used to run off the crops they themselves grew, not by other people. And when/if we start importing food, IT WILL COST MONEY, and lots of it, therefore outweighting any small amout we might be overpaying to make the iconic penny. 2nd Cont: Now onto the whole roundung situation. How many products do you see that are like 19.05 or 13.24..little, if any. Most produts are such prices like 19.95, or 14.99. in face maore then half of all products are that way, not exactly half, therefore NOT neutral. 3rd Cont: I did not drop it, i proved we would just switch our dependence from china to other countries, or possibly even stay on china. and if we get rid of all the pennies, then we are going to need to replace them with nickels and dimes. and whatabout when they get too expensive to make, do we get rid of coins until its all bills, then work our way thruogh all the bills until we are all using hundreds to buy a gallon of milk? 4th Cont: The germ issue applies even more to bills then to pennies, once again, bill are made of linen a very easy cloth to contaminate with batcteria. 5th Cont: If it cost BILLIONs of dollar to make pennies, then that must mean the same if not even more with nickels, dimes, quarters, ect. So, in conclusion, i beg you, don;t get rid of the penny, it would be just as unpatriotic as ripping up the Lincon monument, or toppling th eStatue of Liberty.", "title": "The penny should be immediately discontinued.", "pid": "64d27e41-2019-04-18T19:38:48Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.32391357421875}, {"text": "I agree with ceasing production of the penny in the United States for the following reasons. 1:The penny costs more than 1 cent to make As of 2011, it costs 2.41\" to make a 1\" penny. This is clearly unsustainable. With 2.4 billion pennies made in that year, that means that the US wastes around 3.5 billion dollars every year to attempt to keep this coin relevant. 3.5 billion dollars is a lot of money, and it can't even do anything because pennies have essentially zero buying power. 2:Pennies do not function as a coin. Although they are based on the same dollar system, cards, dollars and coins typically are used on separate products. Coins are typically used on cheap, high impulse spending. For example, vending machines or parking meters. Yet, the vast majority of these products do not accept pennies. Pennies get most of their circulation by a company called Coinstar, which is a company whose sole purpose is turning left over change into more useful dollars. This means that pennies cannot function as they are designed, and should be moved out of circulation. 3:Pennies have essentially zero buying power. Among coins, coins such as the dollar coin or the quarter are circulated quickly because of the high impulse nature of coins. Pennies; however, have no buying power. For example, it takes 100 pennies to buy one dollars worth of goods. By contrast, it takes 10 dimes. The pennies lack of buying power means that they are often unused, left in a jar or other coin stash. Whenever money is not being circulated, the economy slows. This is often more important with larger tender, such as dollars or half-dollars, but pennies left unattended can quickly add, especially with billions put into circulation every year. Pennies do not function in the current economy. 4: Federal Property does not accept the penny In US military bases, the penny is already banned. There were no repercussions that were not solved by simply rounding to the nearest 5 cents instead of the nearest 1 cent. Because of this, we can see that there are in fact no detriments to the economy caused by the penny. 5: The penny is a bipartisan issue. If this was to become a reality, the only way to create such legislation would be through Congress. In the current American system, partisanship reigns supreme. Issues are debated, but bills are hardly passed, and as such, something needs to be done. The penny is an issue with supporters on both sides of them spectrum, meaning that if the bill came to Congress, there would not be a blue-red split that occurs in so much legislation. This bill could be the bridge between the two parties, meaning that an effective Congress could actually occur, all the while solving a problem that is simple to fix. Pennies are a serious issue, and the United States government needs to take care of this important and simple issue by ceasing production of the penny.", "title": "The United States should cease production of the penny", "pid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.31736755371094}, {"text": "According to http://www.pennies.org... Penny keep high prices in check, not only that but many charities are fueled by the power of the penny. Realistically if the penny was gone companies would not round down to the nearest penny, but up costing the consumers money! Sure it costs about 2.2 pennys to make a penny, but really you would be paying about three cents extra for every time they rounded up when you bought something. We also honor Abraham Lincoln, so in a way its American tradition. The penny has value who honestly never tried to put pennys in a piggy bank you would be surprised!", "title": "Pennies should not be abolished and are necessary to stabilise the economy.", "pid": "c5a30943-2019-04-18T16:06:11Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.31179809570312}, {"text": "This debate will follow this pattern: Round 1: Opening Statements Only (No Arguments) Round 2: Opening Arguments Only (No Rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Arguments (No Rebuttals) Round 5: Rebuttals and Closing Statements I am for abolishing the U.S. penny. I believe it will do the U.S. good.", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 215.2611846923828}, {"text": "This debate is about wether or not the penny should countinue being made in the United States of America. As con I will argue that penny production should be ceased, as pro you will argue that penny production should countinue.", "title": "The Penny", "pid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.24716186523438}, {"text": "I will attack his case first then defend mine. 1st Cont:It is a waste of money. when you think about it food is a waste of money as well. Why should we pay thousands a year to other people/countries to grow food when we can grow it ourselves? So pennies are a small waste of money, but was it a waste, once again, to build the monuments? 2nd Cont:They are a waste if time. If they are a waste of time why do we continue to make them? We make them because they help to even our money transactions. We can't just round everything to to nearest nickel, because then half of the products would be MORE expensive then before, therefore wasting cash as well. We need the penny to help keep the current prices steadier then they would be otherwise. 3rd Cont:We would lessen dependence on China. Maybe we would but then we would relie more on the countries making the other ingredients for other coins, like steel(iron), nickel, and we would still need alot of zinc. 4th Cont:Penny has no value. The 58% of people who save them are saving them for a reason...to spend them! Therefore, more money into the economy in a bigger amount. and the whole germ situation, that WILL NEVER CHANGE. Dollar bills are made of linen, a very easy-to-contaminate cloth that holds even more germs then the penny, therefore if we went off hygiene, we hould eliminate currency altogether. O.k., now i will defend my case. Argument, the U.S. would be in danger of breaking apart. The penny will not be the reason for the destruction of the U.S. The trillions of dollars of national debt will do it. Those amount grow by THOUSANDS of DOLLARS, not by pennies.", "title": "The penny should be immediately discontinued.", "pid": "64d27e41-2019-04-18T19:38:48Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.2425994873047}, {"text": "The problem with pennies as stated in my first argument is that pennies are no longer convenient. Even after that penny in the $0.99 transaction is returned, the penny will most likely end up in a jar dead to the economy not fulfilling its role as currency. The fact that machines such as Coin Star exist that take advantage of the inconvenience and uselessness of pennies to make money off of people just proves my point. Many businesses and organizations recognize the cost of transporting and counting the pennies isn\"t worth it. One of these organizations includes a little organization known as the United States Military, where in overseas bases have banned the use of pennies. They also contradict your definition of consumerism as because those who use exact change to pay for items waste the time of those waiting and overall, the rate at which things are sold decreases. There is a simple answer as to what happens after the penny is abolished. There are many countries around the world including New Zealand, Canada, etc. that have gotten rid of their lowest unit of currency and ended up fine. None of these countries have saw high degrees of inflation or drop in charitable donation. The US could easily take after those countries. Also this sort of process isn\"t anything new to the US as we went through the same process when ditching the half-cent coin in the 1800\"s for the same reasons we should ditch the penny. Abolishing the penny would actually do it good. As the amount of pennies decrease as they are melted, lost, etc. their value begins to increase again. Take a look at the half-cent coin now and they have more buying power than the US dime. Sources: http://www.nytimes.com... http://factually.gizmodo.com...", "title": "The US should abolish the penny", "pid": "7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.23716735839844}, {"text": "Reasons why pennies should be eliminated. Other Countries Have Successfully Done without TheirsMany other countries have eliminated several small denominations from their currency with no major impact on commerce. New Zealand, for instance, dropped their one and two-cent coins over 20 years ago. They have, since then, eliminated their nickel as well.We\"ll Conserve Natural ResourcesWe\"re more aware today than ever that the minerals we mine aren\"t going to last forever. Ceasing production of pennies will lower our consumption of copper and zinc, as well as the fuel and energy required to mine and process it.It Will Increase in ValueHistorically, dropping any minted coin out of circulation immediately increases its value as a collectible. So, in 2020, all those pennies laying around the house will be worth more, and will continue to gain value as time passes. Many collectors are already starting to collect lots of pennies, taking more out of circulation.Nobody Misses the HalfpennyThese days, very few individuals realize that the US once had a half-cent coin. That\"s because it was taken out of circulation in 1857. Given that phasing out this denomination had virtually no impact on commerce, there\"s no reason to think that dropping the penny will have any serious side effects.", "title": "Gettin rid of pennie's", "pid": "8bcc4a46-2019-04-18T17:43:27Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.23538208007812}, {"text": "That's too bad that you stepped down. It's okay if you don't want to participate, but I would have liked to at least hear your arguments. Oh, well. I guess I don't have much to do here anymore.", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.2209014892578}, {"text": "\"With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. \" Sadly, my opponent misinterpreted this statement. I made this statement to convey the fact that the penny should be continued because it is a patriotic symbol. It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag. \"The fact that the penny is a medium of patriotism does not matter. Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies\" If this statement made by my opponent is true then using the train of taught. we should neglect the statue of liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the \"ULTIMATE\" goal of economic stability. The statue of liberty as we all know it, is a symbol of both patriotic as well as personal value. The same statue of liberty brings in approximately $40,000 - &70,000 annually, however we neglect the fact that the statue of liberty needs maintenance. $1000 for the statues torch/lighthouse, \"$10,000 for maintenance(annually)\"{2} a huffington post article recently reveled a plan for a $25.5million renovation. {3} The past renovation cost us approximately \"$15 million dollars\" {2} With all the fact giving, we can clearly see that the despite the fact that the statue of liberty isn't in proportion with our economic goals, we continue to renovate as well as maintain it because it serves as patriotic symbol to both our populations and our Great nation. In the same way, The reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue to manufacturing and circulation of the penny. . \"Furthermore, there are a lot of places that don't even accept pennies. Vending machines, toll booths, laundromats, and pay phones will spit them out or even sound an alarm. Many people simply place their pennies in a jar, or a 5-gallon water jug. \" This only concedes to the idea that the penny allows for charity organizations to make more money. Since few places do not take the penny, it now becomes easier for an individual to donate more penny than any other coin due to face value. \"I agree with my opponent that the penny does serve towards patriotism but the fact that our economy is losing more money than necessary in this poor economy is a sure indicator that money should be treated as money. If it is of no benefit or as Greg Mankiw stated, not facillitating exchange, which the penny is clearly, then we should eliminate it. \" My opponent contradicts himself by stating that he does accept the fact that the penny has sentimental value, but at the same time he states that we should eliminate anything with no benefit. This contradiction then translates to. .. Since the penny is of sentimental value, then the penny is of benefit to the public mind which then protects it from being eliminated. \"Many people believe that eliminating the penny would, in fact, harm the amount of money spent towards charities. This argument ignores that fact that the charitable organization could simply ask for a donation of a nickel. \" This might be seen as the logical thing to do, however, we must look into the fact that the like I mentioned in my first NC and this rebuttal, It is harder for people to give up there penny than to give up there nickel. If you were to eliminate every penny in the making, giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase (all item will now be rounded to the nearest 5 cents). \"ake a hundred people giving a donation of a penny. The charity would make $1.00. Now, take 84 people donating a nickel. That charity would be making $4.20 a $3.20 profit. If my calculations are correct, JC PENNY's Penny Drive would have made $2,753,135.87 asking for a nickel. \" If 84 people give a nickel to the charity organization, then it is also likely that 8400 people would give the penny. Since the penny has a lesser face value, more people are likely to give the penny than nickel. {please give me your evidence for the JC penny claim} \"Economics Professor Ray Lombra may have believed that most prices would have been rounded up but a Washington Post article says otherwise. \"Robert M. Whaples of Wake Forest University has analyzed 200,000 transactions across seven states, and he concluded that consumers would not actually suffer. Purchases at gas stations and convenience stores are just as likely to come to $7.02 as $6.98, so the rounding up and rounding down would cancel themselves out. On average, shoppers would lose nothing. \" Statistically, there would be no loss of money by rounding. \" If this was actually true, the the economy in general would suffer. The first scenario stated by my opponent says that an Item worth $7:02 would be rounded to %6.98. If this business normally makes 3,000 sales, that is a loss of $1,500. This hurts the owner as there business is now losing money and this also hurts the circle of selling and buying, which then hurts the economy in general. \"My question to weirdman would be why more production of the nickel be necessary. It would take four pennies to pay any $0. X4 (X representing any positive integer less than 10) but one would technically only need one nickel at most to to pay for any $0. X5. Also, utilizing the time to figure out the exact change of these prices would be worth it. \" A greater production of nickel will have to take place because with the penny gone, the nickel would have to become the lowest denomination and thus a greater need for the nickel to complete a pay would take place which means a greater production would need to take place to maintain stability. Sources: {1}. http://www.debate.org... {2}. http://www.lighthousefriends.com... {3}. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... {4}. http://www.nytimes.com...", "title": "The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated.", "pid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.17398071289062}, {"text": "1. My opponent argues that pennies stay in currency a long time, making it worth the 1.8 Pennies it costs. We'll just because it stays in currency longer does not make it more valuable. I honestly don't see how that would make anything more valuable. My argument last round (sorry for the confusion) was that even if we had to make five dollar bills 25 times more often it would still be more cost effective then the penny. Simply because It cost practically nothing to make paper but copper costs a decent amount of money, and to top it all off the five dollar bill is worth about 500 times more valuable then the penny. 2. The penny has no buying power but is used in currency quite a bit. But for what reason? Somebody might say to make exact change but eventually the money used to make this change is simply not worth it. My opponent has made no argument against this statement. 3. Our money system is cent based but for what reason? As I said there is almost no value at all to this coin, so why do we pay exact change? The reason is non-existent, the penny is such a small increment that it can't be efficiently used in a transaction requiring more then ten cents, which can't really be used to buy anything at all. The penny can have value if you take a redicolus time collecting them but so can any coin or any other increment of money. You cold still spend the pennies, there just simply wouldn't be any new ones coming in. Though company's will still round to the nearest 5\" eventually. My opponent argues that the penny might gain value but that that claim is 100% false. Inflation will occur until the government stops borrowing and lending money which pretty much means its never going to stop. And if it were it would happen in at least 20+ years, even if inflation stopped now the penny is still not worth it. 1. Many people including my opponent think that rounding to the nearest 5\" would hurt the econemy but its like a game of chance, since the money can be rounded up or down, the overall price over a year would be roughly the same, but again even it was rounded up every single time (which it won't) we would loose an extra 50$ tops in an entire year. 2. I think it's simply the fact that people are very greedy. I think you have conceded this argument but I'm not sure.... So just to recap theses charities won't loose money because people would have to give nickel which would actually probably boost charity income. 3. Well umm... Yeah not really an argument. Summary: Pennies are bad for the econemy because the government literally spends money to make less money and then people are taxed to make up for it. Pennies can't be used to buy anything and are practically useless. The only thing pennies are good for is making exact change but after a while the value the money represents becomes to small to buy anything or bother with. When peope take out pennies to make exact change it just wastes the people's time that are in the line, in is a just a plain out inconvenice we have to pay for with tax dollars. Sources: 1.coins.about.com/od/uscoins/i/penny_debate.htm 2.www.studymode.com/essays/Why-The-Penny-Should-Be-Elimanated-808466.html 3.richerbytheday.com/2008/03/should-the-penny-be-eliminated?.com I have had a lot of fun and thank my opponent for the interesting debate. May the best man win", "title": "The Penny", "pid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.16282653808594}, {"text": "If the U.S. greatly reduced the number of pennies manufactured, they might as well just cut production. In conclusion, I believe penny production should be cut because: a. They are practically worthless b. They are losing value c. Waste of time and space d. Cost more to produce then they are worth e. Pollution f. They cause money loss for citizens too Thank You", "title": "The U.S. should stop the production of pennies.", "pid": "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.1546630859375}, {"text": "Getting rid of the penny would actually be beneficial because prostitutes would lower their prices by a nickel to get exact change.", "title": "Should the U.S. keep the penny", "pid": "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.11473083496094}, {"text": "I. The Penny costs more than the mint makes it forMy opponent has wasted this round. Look very closely at everything he wrote. He restated his original contention, and I did not argue it, because it's true. The fact of the matter is, even though the US will save a couple million, it will lose 10's of billions.I will give my opponent one more round to not drop my points. The con's far outweigh the pro's in this debate, which are miniscule. I will address the point regardless. The Canadian strategy was to increase and keep inflation above the USD. As soon as they removed the penny, the inflation of the CD fell extremely far. It went from being .06$ more than the USD, to being .09$ below it.Canada is a perfect example of a nation who was hit hard by removing the penny.Do not waste my time in a debate, by droping all three of my contentions", "title": "In the US, pennies should be abolished.", "pid": "19444029-2019-04-18T16:04:23Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.10092163085938}, {"text": "Thanks for the great debate, Con! :) Pro Case --------------- Pro 1A: Consumer Confidence 1. I wasn't placing a \"definitely will\" burden of proof on said finance minister. However, the quotation itself shows little reason to believe that discarding the penny will lead to imminent downfall of the economy. Furthermore, most of the harms that the Minister cites have to do with not minting low denomination coins, not specifically one-cent coins. The minister's harms come from all coins. Counterplan: 1. My opponent seems to think that we don't spend money to mint anything but zinc. Any metal will cost us money to utilize, so we still spend more than the penny's elimination. 2. Cost stats still stand. See later responses. On Abuse: 1. This is still abusive. My opponent needed to detail the text of his counterplan in the first round, thereby giving us both enough time to properly discuss the merits and drawbacks of using such a metal. This is pretty critical to his counterplan, so claiming that it would be akin to \"picking a random metal\" is just a cop-out. 2. My opponent chose a metal that is actually more expensive, and will remain more expensive, than zinc. Over the last 15 years, aluminum has consistently been more expensive per pound than zinc. [1] Imagine how much worse the harms are at the point where we accept the counterplan. Though my opponent asserts he has a source stating otherwise, even his own source indicates that aluminum is more expensive than zinc (.9369 cash value to .9276 cash value right now). 3. The US aluminum market is incredibly unhealthy. Aluminum exports alone have tanked 43.8% in the last fiscal year. [2] Furthermore, since aluminum is so abundant, we don't have any sort of monopoly potential on it. Furthermore, guess who the number 1 producer of aluminum is? China. [3] Pro 1B: Cash Transactions Cheaper 1. Unless my opponent thinks that debit card, credit card, or check transactions are going away anytime soon, then I'm not obligated to compare the cost of cash transactions to the cost of any other transaction. I still cut spending out of the status quo, and that's all I'm obligated to do. 2. Until my opponent addresses my analysis on cost of using pennies in transactions, we can assume it's extended. Note that my opponent's initial response only states that cash transactions are cheaper than other types of transactions, which does not link at all to the affirmative advocacy. Cash transactions become more expensive when pennies are involved, which was the original argument. The wasted money still remains if you negate, even if you use aluminum. NACS: 1. Search where I told you to, please. First RD 1 source, CTRL F, \"Walgreens.\" It's there. I promise. 2. Call B.S. all you want, but that website is just as reliable as any other source in the debate, including your CATO Institute and the blog citations. The man who maintains this website, Jeff Gore, is a physicist at M.I.T. That does give him some sort of professional, academic credibility, don't you think? However, if it'll make my opponent happy, I will email Jeff and ask him for his citation. Pro Contention 2 Cross-Application of Counterplan: 1. Apply all three of my abuse responses to the aluminum counterplan. Fail plan. 2. I'm a she. 3. Doesn't matter how much time I had. This is like waiting until cross-examination to read plan text. It isn't my job to coax his full plan out of him. He made it—he should state it up front. Brightline: My argument is that we already aren't acting freely, but no, I can't fix a $ amount to this. Foreign politics doesn't boil down to solely mathematics, and to expect that of me is downright silly. I do, however, prove conclusively that we are greatly indebted to China, which will in turn affect our foreign policy decisions with regards to not only China, but a number of other key countries. This goes unrefuted. Human Rights: 1. As the CATO Institute author readily admits, \"Although market reforms do not guarantee greater respect for human rights, economic prosperity brought increased pressure for democracy in such countries as South Korea and Taiwan.\" South Korea and Taiwan cannot possibly be compared to China, who, as my opponent mentions, is responding to capitalist expansion into their markets poorly. If this gentleman from the CATO Institute was correct, then the Great Firewall should have been down by now. China has the manpower to lead production, and their economic ascendancy shows this. Encouraging freer trade with such a nation does nothing but entrench their buying and selling power, which in turn encourages the Chinese government to strengthen itself and shirk off the criticisms and actions laid down against it by the likes of the U.S., who are too tied to it to act. 2. My opponent's responses, and the CATO Institute article, conveniently ignore ethical concerns surrounding the issue. By funding such a country, in which the government routinely abuses human rights, we are implicitly compromising our own ideals as a nation by supporting these actions. ---------------- Neg Case ---------------- Neg Contention 1: All my opponent did was re-assert that I can't prove any of my cost stats. That's based on a lack of acknowledgement of most of the sources I used in RD 1 and a challenge of legitimacy to the first source in RD 1. Neg Contention 2: On #1: 1. I don't immediately eliminate the penny. They'd most likely remain in circulation for a while. Immediate harms cannot be accessed by my opponent, which I pointed out in my last response. 2. Extend what I said about inflation being a wash. It still is, no matter how many times my opponent repeats himself. On #2 1. This doesn't answer the response I gave. Lombra is very specific about inflationary impact of the rounding tax. What he says afterwards is that those impacts might cumulate over time, and then cites his \"$2 billion in spending by 2010\" estimate. He doesn't say anything about individual items…? Neg Contention 3: On #1: The price stays raised to cover your rounding tax each year. I don't get why this negates what I said, which is that the tax would only need to make up the 30% profit lost of a 6-7 cent net profit. Even if we assume the worst, an item will never go up more than 2 cents in cost. We only need to aim for the closest \"5\" or \"0\" in a price (i.e. $2.99 is rounded to $3.00, while $2.97 becomes $2.95). On #2: Though the financial implications still remain, I typo'd on cents vs. seconds. My bad. I won't concede the financial impacts of the rounding tax, but I will advocate that you disregard what I said about 2-2.5 cents in the last RD. On #3: My sources are perfectly adequate. On #4 (Theft): 1. My opponent's source only deals in credit cards, not debit cards. Moreover, food stamps are now entirely electronic, though I don't know how much of the transaction market they monopolize (I do know that 19 million people participate in food stamp programs in the US). Debit card transactions in the US are on the rise [4], so I still don't bite those harms to the point of voting against my position. 2. I also asserted that, because the likelihood of carrying all other change vs. the penny has not been properly established, and because I'm not eliminated the use of all coins, the harms won't come to fruition. I don't stop merchants from making totals that require exact change. My opponent hasn't warranted how pricing something at $2.47 is inherently less dangerous than pricing it at $2.45. [1]http://www.infomine.com... [2]http://www.aluminum.org... [3]http://www.aluminum.org... [4] http://www.jsnet.org...", "title": "The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney)", "pid": "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.09060668945312}, {"text": "The background provided by weirdman in undoubtably true. No denying history. However, he contended that \"With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. \" On the other hand, my point was that the penny possessed such negligible value today such that the economy is actually losing money manufacturing it and where a dime is worth a penny during 1970. One can imagine the value it may have possessed in the past but that is not the point of this debate. It is about the penny now. (Please correct me if I am getting your point about the penny being of personal value incorrect. )The fact that the penny is a medium of patriotism does not matter. Our economy is suffering with, as I stated above, at least $15 billion from time wasted with these pennies. Furthermore, there are a lot of places that don't even accept pennies. Vending machines, toll booths, laundromats, and pay phones will spit them out or even sound an alarm. Many people simply place their pennies in a jar, or a 5-gallon water jug. \"The purpose of the monetary system is to facilitate exchange, but I have to acknowledge that the penny no longer serves that purpose. When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, the unit is too small to be useful. \" Greg Mankiw, EconomistI agree with my opponent that the penny does serve towards patriotism but the fact that our economy is losing more money than necessary in this poor economy is a sure indicator that money should be treated as money. If it is of no benefit or as Greg Mankiw stated, not facillitating exchange, which the penny is clearly, then we should eliminate it. Another popular belief I forgot to mention is the one my opponent brings up. Many people believe that eliminating the penny would, in fact, harm the amount of money spent towards charities. This argument ignores that fact that the charitable organization could simply ask for a donation of a nickel. My opponent mentioned that 15.5% of the American population is of the lower class and therefore would have problems. However, that means that 84.5% of the population is of the middle or upper class. Take a hundred people giving a donation of a penny. The charity would make $1.00. Now, take 84 people donating a nickel. That charity would be making $4.20 a $3.20 profit. If my calculations are correct, JC PENNY's Penny Drive would have made $2,753,135.87 asking for a nickel. Economics Professor Ray Lombra may have believed that most prices would have been rounded up but a Washington Post article says otherwise. \"Robert M. Whaples of Wake Forest University has analyzed 200,000 transactions across seven states, and he concluded that consumers would not actually suffer. Purchases at gas stations and convenience stores are just as likely to come to $7.02 as $6.98, so the rounding up and rounding down would cancel themselves out. On average, shoppers would lose nothing. \" Statistically, there would be no loss of money by rounding. My question to weirdman would be why more production of the nickel be necessary. It would take four pennies to pay any $0. X4 (X representing any positive integer less than 10) but one would technically only need one nickel at most to to pay for any $0. X5. Also, utilizing the time to figure out the exact change of these prices would be worth it. I thank commentor \"Janus\" for bringing up a relevant question. No, we would not round to the nearest bill. My point was the we would eliminate the penny. Therefore, we would round up and down accordingly to mathematics and thus, prices would statistically cancel out. Sources used in the previous and current post:(1)KNS FINANCIAL 16 March 2011<. http://www.redeemingriches.com...;(2)Lewis, Mark. \"Ban the Penny. \" Forbes. com 5 July 2002. 8 February 2006<. http://www.forbes.com...;(3)Kahn, Ric. \"Penny Pinchers. \" Globe. com 9 October 2005. 10 February 2006<. http://www.boston.com...;(4)Saffire, William. \"Abolish the Penny. \" nytimes. com 2 June 2004. 3 November 2006<. http://select.nytimes.com...;(5)Weller, Mark W. Letter. Unpublished letter to the New York Times. Americans for Common Cents. 7 Nov. 2006 <www. pennies. org>(6)\"Abolish the Penny? A Majority of the Public Says 'No'\" The Harris Poll #51 15 July 2004. 8 March 2006<. http://www.harrisinteractice.com...;(7) \"President Bush signs Lincoln Penny Redesign Into Law. \" Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission. 22 December 2005. 8 March 2006<. http://www.lincolnbicentennial.gov...;", "title": "The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated.", "pid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.07293701171875}, {"text": "Alright, I was planning on presenting my advantages and arguments in my second speech after presenting my plan. Let's have a look at a few statistics revolving pennies: 1: Pennies in circulation: 200 billion, totaling 2 billion dollars 2: Cost to produce a penny: 1.99 cents 3: Pennies created in 2013: 7 billion, totaling 70 million dollars Doing some math we can see that if we make 7 billion pennies in 2013, and it costs 1.99 cents to make a penny then we spent 13,939,000,000\" (13 billion 930 million cents) to make our pennies in 2013. That's a total of 139,390,000$ (139 million 390 thousand dollars) to make our pennies. As a total, we are losing 69,390,000$ (69 million 3 hundred and 90 thousand dollars). Based on these statistics and the total losses provided by these pennies there is no reason to not pass this plan, we would also be making up for some of these losses by melting down these pennies and using the metal for other enterprises. An interesting thing to consider about this is that it has been done before, in 1857 the half penny was eliminated. There were no serious side affects and the value of the dollar was much higher. When no serious side effects came into play when the value of the dollar was higher, it is clear that it will have minimal side effects on the current economy. Sources: http://www.kokogiak.com... http://coincollectingenterprises.com... http://1.usa.gov...", "title": "The penny should be stopped from circulation", "pid": "8ce6be05-2019-04-18T16:30:30Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.0696258544922}, {"text": "Accept", "title": "The United States should cease production of the penny", "pid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.04330444335938}, {"text": "She is a comely woman.", "title": "Should the U.S. keep the penny", "pid": "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.0399627685547}, {"text": "Maybe instead of simply cutting the production, we greatly reduce the number of pennies manufactured each year, use a much more readily available (non-toxic) resource, and possibly offer to anyone who brings in their copper pennies (to be refined and used where it's more needed) an equivalent in U.S. currency with the new form of penny. It seems like a lot of work but I still believe all the changes to taxes and the effects on economy are much worse. With your stance on how they should be \"retired because they are practically worthless\" there are some problems as well. You said there is approximately 13 billion pennies produced each year which equals 130 million dollars worth of pennies. If they were retired then that would be 130 million dollars wasted on their production each year that they've been produced. So retiring them is not a very viable solution. With this I back my main two ideas of reducing the number produced and making them out of cheaper material (but still keep the old copper pennies in use).", "title": "The U.S. should stop the production of pennies.", "pid": "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.03082275390625}, {"text": "I can't even really remember the last time I was at a Steak and Shake. Everything Bob Evans makes is awesome. You should seriously try their pot roast.", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.0278778076172}, {"text": "Pennies, just like any unprofitable variation of currency. are a waste of time and money. For instance, according to http://www.usmint.gov... it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. Not only is the penny cost inefficient, it also should be noted you can't use pennies in parking meters, vending machines. and in some ATMs. Abolishing the production of the penny, just like how Canada did, will result in less taxpayer money spent on a pointless object. Therefore, the penny's production should be abolished in order to improve the country's GDP. Although the opponent may argue that pennies save citizens from taxes, the Canadian model shows that there is no net effect from rounding if the price is .01 or .02 the price is rounded down. If it is .03 or .04 it is rounded up. This only applies to cash transactions and not cheque, credit or debit transactions.", "title": "Pennies should not be abolished and are necessary to stabilise the economy.", "pid": "c5a30943-2019-04-18T16:06:11Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.01300048828125}, {"text": "You should not eliminate the U.S. penny! First of all If we eliminate the U.S. penny, everything will have to be rounded to the nickel. Merchants will probably round everything up in their favor! Costing us more for everything we buy. Last Charities need pennies, alot can add up from pennies and that helps people because most likely people going to give away their pennies because it's 'cost less' to them.", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.9817657470703}, {"text": "I believe that the American penny, for many reasons, serves no real purpose in our modern world, and we should cease minting it as soon as possible.First round is for acceptance only.Definitions:American Penny: the one cent coin currently used for the USD (United States Dollar, $).Mint: to make a coin.", "title": "Stop the Minting of the American Penny", "pid": "3a3f4e49-2019-04-18T15:16:14Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.95199584960938}, {"text": "Pennies should be retired because they are practically worthless and cost more to produce than they are actually worth. Over time, pennies have been losing value. Today, there is not much you can buy with a single penny. You may say that you can add them together to get worth, but that takes finding 100 pennies, which is a waste of space and time. A single penny costs 1.7 cents, while only being worth 1 cent, so every penny produced costs the U.S. government 0.7 cents. So about every 143 pennies, the government is losing a dollar. That is just a waste of money and is easily preventable.", "title": "The U.S. should stop the production of pennies.", "pid": "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.94180297851562}, {"text": "Before I begin, I'd like to point out that Pro lacks actual arguments, he/she simply posted refutations to what I said, which, in my opinion is not enough to win. Refutations to Refutations: Refutation 1: Minting Cost My esteemed colleague has stated that, as of 2011, it costs 2.41 cents to make a penny. However, I'd like to point out that they have cited a source from 2011. As of 2014, pennies only cost 1.7 cents to make, down 2.4 cents from 2011 (. http://blogs.wsj.com...). Therefore, the evidence shows that the amount it costs to make the penny is actually on the decline. Soon, it will not be much of a loss for the US to make it, meaning that there is not an adequate reason to abolish its use. Refutation 2: Debt \"Removing the penny is only good for debt\" is what Pro states. I strongly disagree as we will lose $600 million/year with the rounding system as earlier showed in my first argument. The United States' debt recently hit $18 trillion, and I believe Pro and I have a common interest in lowering that debt. However, the solution is not to take the penny out of service. Also, after this statement, Pro brings up a source and says that the US will save 7.6 trillion dollars/year without the penny, yet he/she fails to provide any reasoning behind this. It's just going to happen. .. somehow. .. I don't think so. Therefore, Pro's case has one more flaw. Refutation 3: Economical Harm Refutation My mistaken opponent stated that the penny will only affect cash transactions in response to my argument about economic harm. However, they have ignored a chunk of the argument in saying this since the source I stated about the $600 million a year being lost is talking about cash purchases. (Here's a link: . http://pennies.org...) Therefore, Pro simply danced around my argument instead of actually attacking it head-on. Refutation 4: Charities Refutation A contradictory statement made by Pro is \"The penny is the most donated coin,yet it can be quickly overshadowed by the nickel. \" This is like saying \"People like beef, but they'll like chicken better sooner or later. \" Therefore, It is a contradictory statement that cannot be proved. To expand on my charity point, pennies are better than nickels for donations since pennies are worth less, and, because of that, people donate more, which eventually becomes more money for the charities. If people donated nickels, they would be more stingy with how many they gave. Refutation 5: Canada \"We use\" and \"As a Canadian\" are two prime examples of phrases used by Pro that prove his/her misunderstanding of the topic. If I may reiterate, the topic is \"The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service,\" not \"The Canadian Penny Should be Taken out of Service. \" Pro fails to use any American examples and is under the delusion that the Canadian economy is exactly the same as the United States economy, proving another point for Con. Refutation 6: Burden I gave Pro a 3-pronged burden of proof and, so far, no prong has been fulfilled. Let's break them down individually. 1) The harm of the penny is sufficient enough to justify its removal from the market. Pro slightly dances around this by saying that it costs a lot to make a penny, but never follows through, and I have already taken this down earlier. 2) Taking the penny out of service will minimalistically harm the economy. Pro has not mentioned anything whatsoever about this prong. 3) Their plan is good enough to transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit. Pro never even brings up a clear-cut plan. Sure, they mention things like \"the penny plan\" and \"the plan,\" but what is this plan? The world may never know, or at least not myself and the voters since Pro has not mentioned this. Here is a statement made by Pro: \"I do not agree with your terms as they where not originally outlined. As the instigator it is normally assumed that you have the burden of proving your point. It is up to the voters to decide who wins, not you. I will address your concerns to be a good sport. \" If he/she does not agree with my terms (they actually were originally outlined since the first round was for acceptance), then why didn't Pro attempt at refuting them? As an Instigator, it is assumed that I have the burden of proving my point. I already have proved my point, yet Pro has not proved his/hers since he/she has failed to meet his/her burden. I completely agree that it is up to the voters to decide, this burden is a mere aid for the voters, saying that if Pro does not have these three things, they can't win because their case is not sufficient to prove their assertions. Conclusion: Because of Pro's ignoring of evidence, misunderstanding of the topic, outdated evidence, and inability to fulfill his/her burden, it is clear that Con is currently the front runner in this debate.", "title": "The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service", "pid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.88172912597656}, {"text": "Con, you did it again. You broke the format the first time, but I was willing to let that go because you messaged me an apology. But now, you did it again. I asked you to simply re-post your arguments, even letting you add new ones as long as they weren't rebuttals. But the only thing you posted was your rebuttals of my argument, which you shouldn't have added until round three. I was willing to let you off the hook the first time, but not this time. You have taken it too far. Con has broken the rules twice. Voters, vote pro for everything, except for the first two if you don't want to. Con, I am angry with you, but if you want, we can continue the debate, under the circumstances that you will still lose for breaking the rules.", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.8812255859375}, {"text": "I will follow my opponents order, and then give my conclusion. Contention 1: My opponent attempts to prove that the United States can grow all of its own food by saying it has been done before. Not only does he give no evidence of this, but this is not relevant to the debate. Within the last few decades, the population has exploded within the United States, creating not only a higher demand for food, but less space to grow it. As this portion of the attack falls (and as I have shown, this portion must hold up for the attack to hold up), this attack falls and my contention 1 stands through the final round. Contention 2: My opponent claims that since more than half of the prices are marked to be rounded up to the nearest nickel, people would have to pay more. However, as he ignores the three factors I mentioned that randomize rounding (multiple item purchases, sales tax, and stores changing pricing strategies), this attack fails and my second contention stands. Contention 3: My opponent attempts to prove that our dependencies would simply shift because the supply of other coins would increase. However, he gives no logical reasoning or proof that this would happen. In fact, this scenario seems very illogical. He then goes on to a red herring asking about a slippery slope leading to \"using 100 dollars to buy a gallon of milk.\" Hence all of this attack must be ignored and my 3rd contention stands. Contention 4: My opponent STILL misunderstands this attack. The point of the germs reference is simply showing that the penny has so little nostalgic value that people are worried about the germs. As this attack remains unblocked, it stands through the final round. Contention 5: My opponent assumes that since it costs billions extra to make pennies it must cost at least as much if not more to make other coins. However, this is only possible if there is a bigger difference in the price to make vs. actual value in the other coins. As he has given no proof of this, the assumption must be ignored. As all of my contentions and attacks stand at the end of this debate, I must strongly urge a vote in affirmation of today's resolution.", "title": "The penny should be immediately discontinued.", "pid": "64d27e41-2019-04-18T19:38:48Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.8543701171875}, {"text": "Rebuttal: 1. My point here was that pennies stay in currency a long time, and have much more usage potential than a dollar, and certainly more than the 1.8 cents they cost. As for printing extra pennies, thereby reducing the value, that does not support stopping the production of the penny. Pennies can be, and are, created at such an amount simply to make up for the pennies that were either destroyed or fell out of currency. 2. I did not mean to say I agree with you, I was actually trying to indicate that I was going to use the same argument later. While the penny does not have much buying power, it is used extensively in currency. One often gets more pennies back from a cash purchase than any other type of money. This leads into the third part of the next section. 3. I like your point here, but you forget that our money system is cent-based. And while the penny does not have much buying penny, it still has its value, whether you want to donate it or roll it up into a neat little parcel and exchange at the bank. Also, just because the penny doesn't have much value today because of inflation doesn't mean it will never have value again. If you eliminate it now, re-starting production would be even more fiscally infeasible than it is now. Other Rebuttal: 1. The system suggested would indeed work to price things without the penny, but would be difficult and unruly, and end of costing one a lot more a year. The more you break up earnings and values down, the more accurate something's cost can be, and the less it will end up costing. 2. While in theory this is correct, that these charities will not lose money, it is interesting that more nickels and dimes aren't given, since their worth so little, and that pennies make up such a large percentage. 3. Fair enough. The point here I was making, however, is that the same arguments could be made for nickels, and then possibly for dimes.", "title": "The Penny", "pid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.754150390625}, {"text": "When the Baby Boomers were young, a penny still had some value. Economist Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit research group, reminisces in a 2013 anti-penny screed about paying a nickel for an ice cream cone as a boy. Even during my childhood in the 1980s, there was a candy store not far from our house that sold \"penny candy\" in jars \" one penny for a mini Tootsie Roll, or two for a Mary Jane. Today, there\"s literally nothing you can buy with a single penny \" and you can\"t do much else with it either. Vending machines don\"t accept them, and neither do most parking meters. Even automatic toll booths won\"t take them \" except in Illinois, the home state of President Abraham Lincoln, whose face adorns the coin. And if a single penny is useless, a whole bunch of pennies isn\"t much better. If you try paying for something in a store with a fistful of pennies, you can expect dirty looks from both the clerk and the other customers \" if the store doesn\"t just flat-out refuse to take them. Pennies are so hard to spend that many people don\"t even bother \" they just store them all in jars, or even throw them away. Economist Greg Mankiw of Harvard University argues that pennies are simply no longer useful as a means of exchange: \"When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, the unit is too small to be useful.\" There are precedents for getting rid of coins that are too small to use. Back in 1857, the U.S. Mint stopped producing halfpenny coins \" which, according to the historical information calculator at MeasuringWorth.com, had a purchasing power of $0.14 in 2015 dollars. So at the time it was eliminated, the \"useless\" halfpenny could buy as much as 14 pennies can today. If consumers in 1857 could get along without halfpennies, then modern consumers can almost certainly manage without a coin that\"s worth less than one-tenth as much.", "title": "The USFG should eliminate the penny", "pid": "b59a9ba7-2019-04-18T11:38:43Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.70611572265625}, {"text": "Hello. My name is AppleAddict439, and i thank the challenger for accepting this debate. Let\"s start in 1792, with the first U.S mint. Back then, pennies were made out 100% copper. There was no zinc in the actual penny. But, the market changed. The value of copper went up, and, due to inflation, the value of the penny went down. After that, the penny became almost completely zinc. Then, in 2006, the old pennies were found to have a value above 1 cent, so people began to melt them down to make a nice, tidy profit. Then Congress decided that pennies were actually worth something (they\"re not) and passed a law against melting U.S currency. So, let me get to the data. Math time! Each second, the U.S mint produces 1,040 pennies a second, 30 million pennies a day, and (as of 2016) produce 13,000,000,000 pennies each year. 13,000,000,000!!! But, for each cent we make, we lose a little bit of money due to the fact it takes (as of 2016) 1.5 cents to make 1 cent. Now, you may be thinking: \"Wow. really makes a difference. 0.5 cents lost for each penny. That\"s so much.\" Actually, if you thought that, you are partly right. It is so much. After 13 billion pennies were made this year, with 0.5 cents lost for each penny, that means that in 2016 we lost 6,500,000,000 dollars to the penny making franchise. Now, we could be using that money to fix U.S debt and the U.S deficit, but no. We have to make pennies. Pennies are bad for us and bad for the U.S economy because: Say you want to pay for a 20$ toy. That\"s 2000 pennies you have to carry around\" Pennies add, on average, 2.2 seconds to each cash transaction, which causes a 1 billion dollar loss in money each year due to productivity costs. If you want to spend your precious pennies, it will be hard. For example, vending machines, laundromats, tollbooths, parking meters, newspaper machines, or telescopes. Pennies, essentially are DEAD WEIGHT in cash transactions. So, there are probably the penny diehards who are listening to me reading this that are thinking: But\" It\"s never been done before! We\"ve never removed the penny, nor have others!\" Well, that\"s wrong. New Zealand, Finland, Australia, the Netherlands and Canada have removed their one cent coins or pennies. They now round to the nearest 5 cent. But- others say-we\"ll remove Lincoln! That would be oh no: UNPATRIOTIC. Well, Lincoln is still on the 5 dollar bill, and- get this: some military bases round to the nearest 5 cent. To put it simply in the words of CGP Gray: Pennies waste money, waste time, are a money fail, and are worth less and less each year due to inflation. And that's it. I Look forward to the next round.", "title": "The Penny Should Die.", "pid": "21311659-2019-04-18T12:07:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.70208740234375}, {"text": "Rebuttal: 1. I am not sure why my point is not valid. Every time a penny is used, is further stimulates the economy, making it more and more useful and valuable, if not literally worth more. I am not sure I understand con's point. The dollar is worth a lot more than the penny, but it is also worth a lot more than the quarter. Would you eliminate everything worth less than the dollar, because the dollar is more valuable? This is not an argument. 2. The argument I clearly articulated here was that the penny is still used in purchases and exchanges, which my opponent claimed it did not. 3. As you said yourself, the penny is not valuable, so I would not say inflation is at all reliant on further creation of pennies. I looked it up and could not find out whether the Government actually creates more pennies than there are, or just makes up for the ones fallen out of currency. The latter is the way it should be, but does not make an argument for completely halting production. My point about the penny some day being worth more I assume is still valid, as there was no mention of it in my opponent's argument. Other Rebuttal :D: 1. I think we can agree that businesses would round up, not down. A business would definitely not want to lose money off the new system. Also, I think 50$ is low balling it a bit. Simply on groceries, a whole year's worth of rounding up would cost you more. Even so, 50$ is no small sum, especially in today's economy. 2. I did not intend to concede this point, if that's the impression I gave you. If people were wiling to part with nickles and dimes, and since they are worth far more than the penny, you would see a much larger percentage paid with nickels and dimes. But you don't, implying people are willing to donate pennies, but not nickels and dimes. To be fair, that might change if the penny was no longer produced, and this isn't much of an argument anyway. 3. Yeah, kinda pointless. In my defense, I brought it up to show there was no distinction is argument between eliminating pennies and eliminating other types of currency. Conclusion: As the penny is a current part of our currency, I feel it is fair to put the burden of proof on con. My opponent made no strong case for why the penny should be stopped altogether, with the one clear downside being the taxpayer money used to produce the pennies. However, you'll find the money per capita it takes to produce pennies is less than the extra money it would cost the average Joe per year with everything rounded to the nickel. Thank you for a great debate, and indeed, let the best man win!", "title": "The Penny", "pid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.70166015625}, {"text": "This debate is a redo of one of my previous debates. If you wish, you may view that one first to get the gist of my opinion. However, I am adding the rule that you may not quote anything I said in that debate for the duration of this one. This debate will follow this pattern: Round 1: Opening Statements Only (No Arguments) Round 2: Opening Arguments Only (No Rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Arguments (No Rebuttals) Round 5: Rebuttals and Closing Statements I am for abolishing the U.S. penny. I believe it will do the U.S. good", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.65309143066406}, {"text": "I feel as though you are just repeating your argument over and over instead of debating both of our views and opinions. Greatly reducing the amount manufactured has quite different outcomes as retiring a form of currency. With the reduction they will still be in use and all of our old pennies (literally billions of dollars worth) and not make them obsolete like they would be if the penny was retired. In rebuttal to your conclusion: a. They still do have a use however (keep costs at more of an exact number) b. Which is why we re-create the penny out of new materials. New materials = new value if done correctly c. Not necessarily, they are used in almost every single purchase we make. d. Like I've already stated, make them out of cheaper more abundant materials e. Another thing you never gave me a response to my response about... Find a less toxic material that can be used in the creation of a new penny f. Whatever money they are taking from us for pennies they could easily put into something else like the salary for those in government. I guarantee that if they cease production of pennies that they will not take less money from us, they will just find a new place to waste it. Yep.", "title": "The U.S. should stop the production of pennies.", "pid": "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.634521484375}, {"text": "Thanks to my opponent, and I apologize for my tardy response. Many balls in the air. :) ============= Pro Case: ============= Pro Contention 1A: Consumer Confidence 1. I actually never talk about any net benefit regarding consumer confidence. The only thing I mention in 1A is that it costs way too much to produce. 2. Even the German Finance Ministry can only say that confidence in the Euro \"might\" decline as a result of not producing a penny. Education could easily combat this, assuming the risk even exists. Furthermore, the movement to eliminate the penny in the U.S. is well-documented, as indicated in the sources cited in the Pro case. Introducing a penny piece and taking away a penny piece that has been accepted by a vast majority of a society as useless are two entirely different scenarios. Pro Contention 1A: Counterplan 1. Of course, the more sensible solution would be to eliminate such a useless coin entirely, which is the only way to actually save all that money I talk about in my 1st contention. I am the only side that can maximize effective usage of resources. 2. What the counterplan does not address at all is the cost of pennies within a transaction. If we keep pennies, we still waste $10 billion in the transaction process if we keep pennies of any material. 3. My opponent proposes a nebulous, abusive counterplan. What material does he propose we use? I can't adequately refute it if I don't know the text. For example, if he picks another metal that is similarly controlled by a foreign market, he bites every harm in my 2nd contention. Just replace \"China\" with the name of another country. If he picks a metal that is marketed primarily in the U.S. (good luck finding one of those that another foreign market can't beat us at in price, as this is the problem with zinc in the first place), then a whole other host of practicality concerns would surface. However, I can't address any of them because my opponent is being overly vague. Pro Contention 1B: Cash Transactions Are Actually Cheaper 1. Cheaper than what? 2. Though the cost of receiving a cash transaction is less expensive to store profit than checks, debit cards, or credit cards, it does not at all follow that the use of pennies isn't increasing this cost. Yes, your 1st source states that a single cash transaction costs a store around 7 cents per transaction. However, my analysis of 2-2.5 cents wasted is not contradicted anywhere in your source. This debate compares cash transactions with and without pennies, not cash transactions to other kinds of transactions. Pro Contention 1B: NACS \"Report\" 1. You should know the NACS website quite well by now, since you cited the statistic in the first place. 2. Never claimed it was a report. 3. The statistic I use is cited by my first source from RD 1. Front page. CTRL \"F\" Walgreen. Pro Contention 2: Cross-Apply Counterplan 1. Cross-apply my vagueness analysis on the counterplan. We could very easily have the exact same problem, but my opponent refused to name an alternative material. Pro Contention 2: Bright-line for China Dependency 1. Sure can. As of January 2009, China had bought more than $1 Trillion of U.S. total debt [1]. Considering total U.S. debt is around $12 Trillion [2], and considering that China is the world's third most powerful economy, they represent a gigantic piece of our power struggle pie. If this were Mexico or something, I wouldn't be raising as much of a fuss (at least, not in terms of sheer capital power), but China is already a top world superpower contender. Furthermore, China is the second largest foreign owner of the US Treasury. Though they are slightly behind Japan in terms of foreign investment, I'd say that China is a far greater risk to the US than Japan will ever be, especially considering that their economy is improving, while ours is, in comparison, stagnating. They've become leaders in the global economic recession. We haven't. Pro Contention 2: China & Human Rights 1. Of course we have no pull right now. We've been obligated to China for quite some time now, and what's the incentive for China to bend to US pressure when we have no foreign policy leverage? Reducing trade and debt commitments to China clearly gain benefits for the sole reason that we stop giving some amount of money to China. =============== Neg Case: =============== Neg Contention1: 1. Do some math with me. Lombra predicts a $600 million round tax per year. I am going to assume that my opponent made a grammatical error when he said \"paid by each consumer,\" as I doubt each individual will pay $600 million a piece. I estimate that $10 billion is wasted by the consumer each year in penny transactions alone, not including the $50 million lost by the consumer in the production process. $10 billion > $600 million. I save the consumers more money. Neg Contention 2: 1. Inflation will occur with or without the penny, so until my opponent can give decent analysis on actual inflation, and not just an increase in government spending which is not explained well at all, this is a wash. 2. The author of his source admits that \"the inflationary impact of rounding will probably be small.\" Furthermore, the $2 billion in spending my opponent refers to was a projection for 2010 in the even that the penny was eliminated at the time of publication. That number is in no way representative of consequences within the current economy. Neg Contention 3: 1. The NACS also suggested a slight raising of prices in order to off-set the 30% profit loss. Keep in mind that this is 30% of 6-7 cents. That's not much to off-set, now is it? 2. Furthermore, the elimination of the penny, which would save 2-2.5 cents per cash transaction, would make up for this 30% loss. 3. Cross-apply my response to Con's 1st contention. $10 billion > $600 million. Until he can prove that we will spend more as consumers, as business owners, and as a government eliminating pennies than keeping them, you are still gaining more net financial benefit by voting Pro. 4. Considering current societal trends, the theft argument is outdated and relatively unwarranted. First of all, card transactions are becoming exponentially more preferable for the consumer. Despite Lombra's assertions otherwise, firms are not discouraging card usage at all. Think about the last merchant you visited that refused to take debit, Visa, or Mastercard. Furthermore, merchants are not being stopped from using change all together—just the penny. The likelihood of carrying pennies vs. carrying any other change hasn't been established at this point, but if card transactions are becoming increasingly preferred, the likelihood of carrying any change is getting worse and worse, which means I probably won't even bite these harms. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://useconomy.about.com...", "title": "The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney)", "pid": "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.6239471435547}, {"text": "I understand your views and where you are coming from but I have to disagree. If we were to simply just stop the production of pennies just think of the changes that would have to be made to our country economically speaking. Taxation would have to be adjusted to a numerical value system based off of our remaining coins which are all multiples of fives, causing potential increases in how much and how we are taxed. Theoretically speaking, what would the cost for a cheap item with a tax of one cent be changed too? Would we just have no tax on it or would we just round up to five? It's a large amount of work to be done when there is another solution. Instead of simply \"stopping the production of pennies,\" I feel that we should change the materials of a penny or the size. Having different cheaper materials put into the penny would lower the costs of the penny and with the cessation of the current penny model we would see a very small increase in the value of the current penny. The copper penny as we know it now will become an older form of currency increasing it's value amongst collectors. Just like much other older forms of currency, after production is stopped and less of the currency is around, the more valuable it becomes. The other solution I stated before is making the penny smaller. By doing this we won't be putting as much material into it, and less material equals less cost.", "title": "The U.S. should stop the production of pennies.", "pid": "261deb04-2019-04-18T13:26:46Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.61456298828125}, {"text": "Full Resolution: The United States should cease production of the penny.", "title": "The United States should cease production of the penny", "pid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.6104278564453}, {"text": "Contrary to the original post, the penny does actually provide a real purpose in our modern world. And not only this, this debate has been won by the Con side throughout various times in our nation's history. There exist many jobs in the zinc and zinc-related industries that produce these pennies, as well as transportation jobs in relation to delivering pennies to various institutions. By ceasing the production and minting of the penny, we see many of these jobs that would be otherwise lost. These providers of zinc and copper would lose contracts worth tens of millions of dollars every year if such pennies ceased new production. In 1982, these pennies were made from brass, and were also engaging in a higher production cost. However, in this year, zinc was used to provide 97.5% of the composition of the penny, with the thin copper plating on the outside of the coin. Initially this saved the government millions of dollars, but we have seen recently the rising prices of zinc. It is true that such rising zinc prices have increased the price of the penny, but there is no reason why the composition of the penny cannot be revisited as a way to cut down on costs on production, without having to cut the coin all together. Hypothetically, if the cost of ink and paper exceeded $1, would we eliminate the dollar? If it exceeded $100, would we tell all the Benjamin Franklin enthusiasts that his likeness and portrait will be less commonplace? Of course not, as there are many materials that can be made to provide coins and currency, and the re-visitation of such denominations is a sufficient way to address such concerns. As another example, in 1943, the Mint produced pennies made of zinc-coated steel to conserve copper for military use, yet we still kept the penny as a valid denomination. So conclusively, the point is not to abandon the penny all together, but provide steps to reform the concentration and the composition of the material that we use in making such a denomination.", "title": "Stop the Minting of the American Penny", "pid": "3a3f4e49-2019-04-18T15:16:14Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.5929718017578}, {"text": "Shelden", "title": "Discontinuation of the Penny and Nickel", "pid": "5dbc32e9-2019-04-18T13:24:41Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.59237670898438}, {"text": "Before I begin refuting my opponent's claims, I would like to point out that he did not attack any of my arguments, merely defended his own. This means the arguments I made still apply, which means that my opponent tacitly agrees to the statements: 1:The penny costs more than 1 cent to make 2:Pennies do not function as a coin. 3:Pennies have essentially zero buying power. 4: Federal Property does not accept the penny 5: The penny is a bipartisan issue. (On my opponent's case): Their #5 argument is not proven correct. These issues by their own merit ceasing production of the penny, en though I will now move on to attack my opponent's case. This first part isn't an argument, and has no place 1:This argument makes no sense. My opponent claims that the penny is .0001% of a dollar, even though it is exactly 1% of a dollar. This argument also makes no claims as to why .0001% of a dollar is a good system for a coin. 2:My opponent claims that the money would be spent inappropriately elsewhere. First off, he supplies no reason why the money would go towards the wrong spending, so it is safe to assume that the money would be spent in equal percentiles of current tax distribution. Second off, the idea that money spent to produce spending would go to illegitimate spending is exactly wrong, because producing pennies is the exact illegitimate spending that my opponent warns against. This means that my opponent agrees spending money on the wrong things is bad, yet refuses to see he is arguing for one of those systems. 3:Yet again, my opponent claims pennies are better economic indicators than the Debt Clock without providing a source of evidence, merely asserting that this is true. Also, the Debt Clock was not a part of his original argument, which means that this is a new argument and not a defense for his older argument, showing that pennies are not good economic indicators. 4:My opponent claims that the nickel will be next, which is not his original argument here. On the contrary, his original argument was about increased cost in bulk purchases, which is false. Also, my opponent claims that nickels are .05 cents, even though they are 5 cents. My opponent finally claims that eventually the nickel will suffer the same fate, and at that point, it would be justified to remove it for the same reasons proven here today. This last statement is not an argument, and also has no evidence to back his claim. At last, I would like to show why the Pro won the debate 1)The Pro defended and attacked all issues presented, while the Con did not 2) The Pro consistently used evidence to prove their side of the debate, whereas the con did not 3) The Pro has shown a consistent understanding of what each coin is worth in relation to the dollar, whereas the Con and repeatedly shown that they do not know the percentiles and costs of each coin.", "title": "The United States should cease production of the penny", "pid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.56820678710938}, {"text": "Okay, man, it has been a while since I've done this. I thank Kleptin for organizing this tournament, and alto2osu for this debate challenge. Without further ado, let us begin (As a brief roadmap, I will go down my opponent's case before my own). Interpretation- This is a reasonable interpretation, and the one I intended when I originally made the debate. Thus, I agree and there is no clash here. 1a. I cannot deny the cost of zinc in the world. However, alto2osu makes it seem like the discontinuation of pennies is the only action to take, with the net benefit of public confidence in the economy through reform. However, we can see that the elimination of the one-cent piece would actually LOWER consumer confidence, as the German Finance Ministry stated for the introduction of the one-cent euro piece [1, page 8]: \"If a euro one-cent coin were not introduced, public opinion might regard this as a sign of weakness in the euro and confidence in the stability of the common European currency might suffer as a result\" Also, this is not the only option to solve this problem. At the point where the cause of this cost is from the metal it is made from, primarily zinc, we can see that it is much more beneficial to accept the following counter-plan: \"The United States should change the metal that pennies are made out of\". Not only does this solve my opponents first point, but it has the net benefit of avoiding the harms of the negative case that is to come. 1b. Again, while the case my seem to be against the penny, the actual cost of a cash transaction comparatively is not the wasteful picture my opponent paints. When stores calculated the cost of each transaction (in time, armored courier costs, etc.), they found that cash transactions, including those with pennies, were the cheapest by FAR, whether it be per item, or in total transactions [1, page 6] Also, I searched for this report by the NACS that you claimed, but I could not find it. I'm not saying you are lying, but could you please give the source? 2 First, cross-apply the counter-plan. If the penny is not made out of zinc, we don't have this \"problem\". Secondly, we must see that even if this sale happens, we do not become more \"indebted\" to China. This is simply one company selling itself off. Ok, we don't have the world's biggest deposits of zinc. Therefore it makes sense we are not the biggest producers; this is not apocalyptic , just common sense. \"We are already far too indebted to other nations, especially China, to be able to operate freely within the world economy.\" Can you prove this? Where is the bright-line between us being able to operate freely and not operate freely? On human rights, we already have NO influence on China in the issue of human rights, nor do private businesses as shown with the recent tiff between China and Google. In fact, China shot back at the US calling the US hypocrites for criticizing China.[2] Neg case (other than impact turns): 1 Direct Impact. If one were to get rid of the penny, obviously one would have to round prices to the nearest nickel. While seemingly insignificant, this causes a huge price to be paid. Due to the disproportionate amount of items ending with 9 and certain other numbers [1 page 3], a $600 million \"round tax\" as Lambra calls it, would be paid by each consumer yearly simply because of this rounding. If we are going to talk economic impacts, this forced extra spending that does not actually produce benefit is simply going to leave consumers with less disposable income, meaning less spending which means a slower recovery if not another recession. 2 Long-term-Inflation. Long term impacts do not look any better. The rounding that would occur would negatively affect governmental spending. Using data from the congressional budget office, Lambra calculates that government spending would be up by 2 billion JUST by this rounding. Note that this was is 2001, when the economy was actually good and our spending was not that high. With the higher spending we have today, the artificial rise would just be that much greater. 3 Stores- Finally, we can look to the affect on stores. After taking into account the fact that cash transaction is the cheapest transaction to make, we can see that this rounding would run stores out of buisness. At a 1998 convention, the NACS stated that the average profit per transaction is about 6-7 cents [1 page6] Thus, a two-three cent rounding would take about 30% of a store's profit basically kicking someone while they are down. Also we can look to the threat deterrence of pennies. Without pennies, exact change is more likely to be had. At that point, the register does not have to be opened to procure change and the employee can just pocket the money. With pennies, this is MUCH less likely to happen. For all these reasons, I urge a vote in negation. 1: http://college.holycross.edu... 2: http://www.reuters.com...", "title": "The penny should be immediately discontinued. (Kleptin Tourney)", "pid": "5c2fb364-2019-04-18T19:07:11Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.56576538085938}, {"text": "Resolved: The US government should stop minting the Jefferson nickel and assign the Lincoln penny a five cent value in its place. Due to the rising, and risen, costs of metal, minting change is more expensive than ever. A Jefferson nickel costs almost 8 cents to mint and the Lincoln penny about 1.25 cents. Normally, the government makes profit by minting money (seigniorage), paying production cost and recieving face value. But, in the case of nickels and pennies, the government lost almost $100 million dollars alone in 2007. So, a simple remedy is to stop minting the Jefferson nickel, and make the Lincoln penny worth five cents. This not only saves the 3 cent and .25 cent loss for every nickel and penny minted, but creates a profit gap where the new Lincoln nickel makes the government 3.75 cents per coin. This begs the question, how would we handle cash transactions without a cent piece for precise change? Following other countries like Australia, we would instiute a rounding system, where cash transactions are rounded to the nearest 5 cents. (1, 2, 6, & 7 round down; 3, 4, 8 & 9 up). So, not only would the American taxpayers save hundreds of millions of dollars, we wouldn't have to deal with those one cent nuisances anymore.", "title": "Get rid of pennies", "pid": "922d439b-2019-04-18T19:30:51Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.52894592285156}, {"text": "As this is the last round I will keep this as short and to the point as I can.RoundingMy opponent continually states that I am reaching wile clinging to an outdated argument that is not even factual. For the $600 million that my opponent said will be lost will also be gained by both citizens and merchants (Please see my previous statement on complete rounding). Yes I did admit that some would come out on top and some would come out on bottom, but by only a few cents each, nothing that would amount to 600 million in deficit even if people tried to save money this way. (see cbc link)Another issue we have bumped heads on is the use of outdated information. Any high school will tell you a report made by someone can be outdated if it is opinion based and if it is older then 10 years. My source from \"1992\" is not from 1992 as my opponent stated, It is from 2012 based off charity trends that existed since before 1992 till 2013. Their Source is an opinion based report published in 1990.Minting CostMy opponent brought up that the cost of a nickel is also higher then the cost of a penny. He/she assumes that if I say \"we should be getting rid of pennies\" I must make a case to get rid of nickels too. The simple fact is that nickels do not round the same as pennies, and we would have to do something about quarters too. It simply is not feasible to get rid of the nickel (yet). This does not undermine the savings that loosing the penny would would create. America would still be gaining back the cost of creating pennies wile not losing any more then planned on nickels. My opponent did not tackle the subject of a penny will never equal its cost to make, but simply said it decreased from 2011-2013. \"This money, this petty change, actually costs something to make\" The cost to make pennies each year is much, much more then petty change:\"This year, the Mint has spent more than $114 million to make pennies, compared with $83.7 million for nickels, $72.3 million for dimes and $133 million for quarters.\"It is an expensive coin! Overshadowing nickels and dimes all for what? To end up on the street. http://www.wsj.com...My opponents Forbes site does not say \"higher manufacturing value is actually a good thing\" it said it \"used\" to be a good thing. Today the government has standards and laws that prohibit the creation of money for no reason. We also have a harder time counterfeiting currency now then they used to during the original years of the country.Charities\"fails to back that statement as well as simply asserting that his/her quote is not contradictory without an explanation\". I did explain this one. Once again I said that a nickel will quickly over shadow a penny (5-1). Nickels are worth five times more, therefore the will overshadow a penny five times to one. My opponent then preceded to call me names (hypocrite) by saying my 2012 source was from 1992 and again forces the assumption that people will stop donating if there are no pennies.Canadian: we are in agreement.Waste of TimeCollecting: I am sure the mother and daughter, father and son who collect pennies will be much happier when their collection goes up in value due to the abolished of the penny in stores. Donations: The cancer patient has a good chance of survival due to other non penny donations. Your comparison is not correct, saying pennies are a waste of time is like saying a dog only has so many years, go play with him instead of rolling virtually useless coins. My opponent did not refute the actual dollar amount that every American will lose per year due to time wasted on pennies.Not Accepted for all Purchases. My opponent agrees with me but tries to make my point less valuable then a penny by saying it is a waste of time. I would like to explain with the example:wile you have to fumble in a change purse around 50 pennies (not accepted at a vending machine), you could have had two quarters in change (or ten nickels) and you could have gotten that bag of chips you wanted but now you are hungry and in a rush with pennies weighing you down. Vending machines are only getting better and more convenient, who knows when you will get your next snack craving.Bad for the Environment: \"Pennies are innocent.\" 18,000 metric tons of zinc are used per year to create pennies. Supply and demand dictates how much zinc they will dig up and therefore how much pollutants they will put out. Reducing the demand will reduce this environmental catastrophe that pennies are indeed guilty of helping to create.http://www.forbes.com...Thank you for reading. Thank you for debating. Please consider me for the win!", "title": "The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service", "pid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.51437377929688}, {"text": "In today's society, a penny has become more than a simple coin used to commemorate the great president Abraham Lincoln, it is now a coin of both sentimental value and economic value. This debate will open your eyes to the new and exciting world of the penny. .. Sentimental Value: When looking into the issue of sentimental value, we find that it is one of major concern to the American citizen. The best way to understand the value of the cent towards the American population, is to look at the penny or rather cent's history. BACKGROUND: \"When the United States Mint was created in 1792, one of the first coins it made the following year was the one-cent coin, and it looked very different from the modern version. � The image on the first cent was of a lady with flowing hair, who symbolized liberty. � The coin was larger and made of pure copper, while today's smaller cent is made of copper and zinc. In 1857, Congress authorized the United States Mint to strike the cent with 88 percent copper and 12 percent nickel. � The \"shape and size\" would be determined by the United States Mint Director, with the approval of the Treasury Secretary. � The new cents showed a flying eagle on the front and a wreath on the back. � The act of February 21, 1857, also mandated that people could no longer use coins from other countries, a practice that had been necessary because of a lack of domestic coinage. � However, people could bring their foreign coins to the United States Mint, where they could be exchanged for U. S. silver coins and the new cents. From 1909 to 1958, the Lincoln obverse was paired with a reverse that featured a wheat design in which two sheaves of wheat flanked the words�ONE CENT�and�UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. � It is commonly known as the \"wheat penny. \" From 1959 to 2008, the reverse featured an image of the Lincoln Memorial designed by Frank Gasparro. � It commemorated the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. In 2009, the United States Mint issued four different one-cent coins in recognition of the bicentennial of President Abraham Lincoln's birth and the 100th anniversary of the first issuance of the Lincoln cent. � The themes for the reverse designs represent the four major aspects of President Lincoln's life: birth and early childhood in Kentucky (1809-1816) formative years in Indiana (1816-1830) professional Life in Illinois (1830-1861) presidency in Washington, DC (1861-1865)\" {1} With this being said, we can clearly see that the penny seen as one of the first American formulated coins, possess a both patriotic as well as personal value. On to statistics: Results of the poll, conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC), show that: * 69% of Americans favor keeping the penny in circulation, which is virtually identical to what Americans reported (71%) to ORC in 2001; * 64% of respondents oppose eliminating the penny and establishing a price rounding system; and * 70% expressed concern that if the government implements rounding schemes for cash purchases, merchants might take the opportunity to raise prices rather than lose pennies when rounding down, with minority Americans expressing most concern. {2} A personal survey interviewing 50 of my school mates showed these results: 38--->Wanted to keep the penny 10---> Didn't care 2-----> Wanted the penny gone. We must also take in consideration that many charities use the penny to collect huge amount of donation. Take the JC PENNY Penny drive, the penny to many is far easier to donate than coins with a higher face value. Abolishing the penny will greatly affect these charity organizations as the are now unable to collect as much money as they previously did with the existence of the penny. \"Some charities use penny drives to raise money. Children in New York City collected more than 65 million pennies last year for a total of $655,508.54, according to organizer Common Cents. \"It is a very powerful symbol of the potential we have to turn our wasteful society into a caring and recycling and reciprocal society,\" Common Cents founder Teddy Gross says. \" {3} Both the statistic and the survey above shows that the penny is worth a lot when it comes to the American population. The American citizen not only see the sentimental worth of a penny, they also recognizes its. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Economic worth. My opponent makes a valuable point in stating that the penny is worth far more than its face value, however we must also take in consideration that the penny is also a major part of the economic circle. If the penny was abolished, every American goods as well as imported goods will have to be rinses to the nearest nickel. This might not seen like a lot, but to the lower class which makes up approximately 15.5% of the American population. \"And at least one economist says eliminating the penny would hurt the poor. When prices are rounded, most of the amounts will be rounded up, not down, argues Pennsylvania State University economics professor Ray Lombra, who has testified before Congress in support of the penny. For those who have little money, those pennies will add up. \"Certainly the working poor — many of them still do not have checking accounts, credit cards — they are conducting their transactions in cash. So they are the ones who are going to bear most of the burden,\" Lombra says. \" {3} We must also look into the fact that the nickel cost far more than the current penny. The nickel cost $7.55 approximately $2.55 over its face value. If the penny was to be eliminated, there would be an increase in the manufacturing of nickels which in turn would cost the united states more money than both the current penny and nickel production today. Following my opponents core reason to abolish the penny, we should also abolish the nickel as it cost more to produce than it is actually worth. SOURCES: {1}. http://www.usmint.gov... {2}. http://www.pennies.org... {3}. http://www.pennies.org... {4}. http://ohmygov.com...", "title": "The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated.", "pid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.50816345214844}, {"text": "The purpose of currency is to facilitate the exchange of goods and services by providing a good with an agreed upon value that can be traded for a multitude of other goods. As Pro in this debate I will argue that pennies are failing to fulfil this purpose. The context of this debate is present day United States. For this debate \"penny\" refers to the one-cent-coin. The model I am proposing is that the US mint simply stops producing any more pennies. All pennies currently in circulation are to remain as legal tender. However, after their expenditure shops are to send their pennies back to the US mint where they will be melted down. This means that the supply of pennies will gradually decrease. Price transactions are to be rounded to the nearest five cents. RulesThe opening round is for acceptance only. I will give the Pro case in the second round. Standard debating rules apply, they are as follows: 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.3. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 5. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R5.5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.", "title": "That Pennies Should Be Abolished", "pid": "ce686c60-2019-04-18T17:24:46Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.50131225585938}, {"text": "Much of this argument will be tied into convincing those who are reading, and can vote. But, like the penny those who cannot vote, still have a valued by opinion in this matter and can be counted by their comment. The penny\"s value is beyond its own self-evident worth it will be proved to be a reflection of our labor. The penny holds a liberty which serves and greater good and is worth in its added cost beyond face value. 1.The Penny is a part of an impartial system of measurement and as a part of the system it is expected to be held as part of its measurement and value. Not a just cost and value. When it shows a negative number by its own profit. It is a part of the overall machine showing wear or abuse in that system. The penny is simply just .0001% of a dollar. The measurement outside of its well-known value is a direct relationship to our method of keeping time. Its transposition is to the ten-thousands by volume. 2.The pricing of metal makes it profitable to harvest pennies out of an economy. The obligation behind all taxation is immediately to the United States Connotation Separation process. The removal of the penny means an instant pay raise for inappropriate spending. Spending which should have been going to safeguarding the harvesting of United States Private Property, its penny and the value by weight of metal. The pennies copper or metal is incapable of self-regulation. The Federal Reserve Note in line behind every penny most certainly has this ability. It only fails when squandered elsewhere. 3.The penny is an economic indicator to inflation it is part of a clock system. I have recently started argument that the national Debt Clock is indeed inaccurate. Part of the inaccuracy is how it aligns Debt spending by its lowest value. The mistake is in increments. The lower values in debt accurately run backwards as mentioned in my opening reason the penny has a negative transposition valued at Ten-Thousand. The hard thing to want to take is this measurement is for loss not profit. In the Axiom of GOD we TRUST, the reason for this somewhat obscure logic all people want to know about the possibility of loss first as an indication or warning. 4.The pennies worth for harvest was not always 1 cent it was driven by inflation. When the pennies is gone that means the nickel is next in the line of inflation driven harvesting. Instead of 1 cent it will be .05 cents which is taken. The Government has always operated by rounding up to the nearest .05 cents. To justify this action which can destabilizes an impartiality, how any-one can say this action of round up has improved cost is hiding the examples of its overall performance. After all the Governing body has been collecting four times more than the rest of the Nation and the rising spending provides us with a quarter or less in stability or progress.", "title": "The United States should cease production of the penny", "pid": "35161051-2019-04-18T12:33:43Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.49314880371094}, {"text": "Actually pennies aren't unless as you think and if you get rid of it the poor pay the most - the poor will be affected the most, because they are most likely to make more frequent, smaller purchases, thus suffering the rounding up more often. And Nickels cost even more to make, If we eliminate the penny, we will need more nickels. Nickels cost 7.7 cents to make, making each nickel costs 1.44 cents more than making each penny. Since the penny costs 0.26 more than face value to make, the Mint can make 5 pennies and still lose less money than making 1 nickel. And, of course, if we eliminate the penny, we'll need a lot more nickels, which will offset the savings of stopping penny manufacture.", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.48724365234375}, {"text": "The United States Government should stop produce current Jefferson nickels and replace them by making Lincoln pennies worth 5 cents and cease a $.01 piece of currency. Currently, it costs the government 1.3 cents to make a penny and over 7 cents to make a nickel. Seignoirage allows the government to profit off of minting currency, but only when the coin costs less to produce than its value. For instance, the $20 bill costs about 4 cents to make. Due to the negative seignoirage value, the creation of nickels and pennies adds to the federal deficit by a considerable amount. We produced over 7 billion pennies and 1 billion nickels, COSTING the government and taxpayers over $150 million. By stopping the production of Jefferson nickels and substituting them with Lincoln pennies, the cost of the new Lincoln nickels drops 6 cents and halts the production of approximately 6 billion coins, greatly reducing cost. I'm happy to address further concerns in the next round.", "title": "Get rid of the penny!!", "pid": "2fa2d5d5-2019-04-18T19:44:52Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.48104858398438}, {"text": "1. Well that's great, but I don't really care that you use pennies for garage sales. (Wait, garage sales are still a thing? Really?) Considering that we're thinking in terms of actual businesses and services. 2. It's just a 1 or 2 cent difference, I doubt that's much of a problem.3. Hey, I don't like the nickel either, but lets be real here; it's impossible to think we can actually get rid of the nickel.", "title": "Pennies should stop being produced in the U.S.", "pid": "42633cc5-2019-04-18T16:25:30Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.46795654296875}, {"text": "In this last round, I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify some major issues and prove why you should vote for me. Firstly, I will refute, weigh the significance of controversial arguments, address the burden, and, finally, conclude. Refutations to Refutations: Refutation 1: Rounding My opponent has brought up in their refutation to my argument about economic harm that she did not feel the need to formally reply to my argument because I \"did not cite where\" my \"facts are where from\" (This grammatically should be \"were from\") . That is a sorry excuse for what is truly a lack of a refutation for my argument. He/she moves on to saying that my source is from 1990, and then because of that completely rejects my argument. There are better ways to refute this than just pointing out an outdated source (which has no relevance whatsoever and doesn't disprove anything). He/she then moves on to give examples of a merchant saving and losing 2 pennies. However, the example that my opponent provides is what I like to call a utopian example. It's perfect, and it just seems to work out. However, not everything will perfectly balance out like this. Here's a counterexample: A merchant owns a store. The price, after tax, comes down to $11.88 and it gets rounded to $11.90 since it is a cash purchase; the merchant gains 2 pennies. However, the next person buys an item that totals to $11.91, and it gets rounded to $11.90; the merchant loses one penny. When simple math is done, it can be shown that, in this example, 1 penny is obviously lost. Not every transactions will perfectly counteract each other as my opponent suggestions, therefore, multiply this imperfect transaction by hundreds of thousands occurrences a day, and you will lose, more or less, $600 million a year, as Raymand Lombra puts it. Refutation 2: Minting Cost In this refutation, my opponent responds my point by stating that my point is invalid because the minting price is worth more than the face value, even though it is lower than what he/she originally said. I have 2 responses for this. 1) I strongly disagree as this does not disprove my point whatsoever since the manufacturing value has declined since 2011. It has been on the decline, and since it is 1.7 cents, it is only a loss of .7 cents per each penny. Why should we get rid of the penny if we lose 3 cents on each nickel as they cost 8 cents to mint (http://blogs.wsj.com...)? My opponent's logic is to get abolish its creation and circulation because it costs more to manufacture than its actual value, so why not get rid of the nickel as well since it is more of a loss than the penny? 2) \"Thus what we have with the penny and the nickel is the last, residual restraint that the government actually faces when it manufactures money. This money, this petty change, actually costs something to make. Which would be precisely why we should insist that the United States keep making it. It can remind the country of how properly to conduct monetary policy. When market signals say you are pushing too hard, stop it. The real economy will respond by getting back to what it does best, which is roaring.\" -http://www.forbes.com... If you don't want to read the article, it basically says that pennies are good for the economy, especially since they are made out of a semi-precious metal, because it will not get overproduced, thereby meaning that having a higher manufacturing value is actually a good thing, turning and capturing my opponent's point. Refutation 3: Charities Pro brings up that I am the actual one dancing on this one, however fails to back that statement as well as simply asserting that his/her quote is not contradictory without an explanation. He/she also misunderstood my logic. As I said, since pennies are worth less, people will donate more of them, totalling to a greater amount of money for charities. Sure, this is an assumption, but it's a logical one unlike the assumption made by Pro, who becomes a hypocrite by stating that I have no proof, hounding me for a source from 1990, and then using a source from 1992. Therefore, my charities point should get through. Refutation 4: Canadian Pro definitely does have the right to use international experience anywhere he/she pleases, however, as proved and agreed with by him/her, Canada and America definitely do have completely different economies (http://www.thestar.com...). The same goes for Australia. Therefore, Pro has conceded to this point. Refutations to Arguments: Refutation 1: Waste of Time Pennies are not a waste of time. No matter who, they always have a meaning, whether it is an emotional connection between father and son, mother and daughter, the ability to save someone's life from cancer when being donated to charity, or being lucky when picked up from the street. Also, see my refutation 2 above for a further refutation that applies to this as well. Saying that pennies are a waste of time is like saying that an abused dog is not worth saving. Refutation 2: Not Accepted for all Purchases My opponent's second argument is that pennies are not accepted for all purposes. I completely agree, in fact this is common sense. But this argument was just a waste of time in that it is not tied in and plays no role in the scheme of things. Refutation 3: Bad for the Environment Saying that pennies are bad for the environment is a bold, overreaching statement. Sure, pennies are bad for the environment when dropped, but the number of pennies laying around on someone's lawn is so insignificant that this portion of the argument does not help prove anything. I, as well, agree that zinc mines harm the environment, but don't take the penny out of service to fix this. They're still going to make zinc for other purposes, it is not the penny that is causing the harm, it is the zinc mines. Pennies are innocent. Weighing: Economical Harm vs. Waste of Time (Con 1 vs. Pro 1): In this situation, my argument is clearly stronger do to the fallacious logic and overarching bold statements presented by Pro. The impact of losing ~$600 million/year and the other chaos that will potentially break loose is more significant than a few cents being wasted here and there. To put this in simpler terms, $600,000,000 > $3.65. Charities vs. Environment (Con 2 vs. Pro 3): With Pro's argument focusing on such an insignificant scope/area and my argument logically demonstrating harm to charities, it's no wonder my point is stronger in this instance as well. The Burden: Pro had three prongs to prove, yet he/she said that it does not have to be proved as I am the instigator. I strongly disagree as Pro is the side trying to change the status quo, and with that, you need to prove how your plan is going to be effective, which has not been done. These are the three unproved prongs: 1) I have clearly refuted this, disproving what my opponent attempted to say, therefore leaving this prong unproved. 2) Somewhat proved, but not all the way. 3) Once again, there has been no clear explanation as to how Pro's plan will \"transition into this change smoothly with minimal harm and maximum benefit.\" As the burden is left unproved, Pro does not have a case sufficient to win this debate, therefore resulting in a clear reason to vote for me, Con. The decision is up to the voters now. Conclusion: I'd like to thank my opponent for this great debate from which I have learned a lot and all future voters for exercising judgment as to who won. As a 13 year-old, it is hard to debate an economic topic against someone with a business diploma. I wish luck to my opponent as the debate comes to a close. As I like to say, e verbis victoria.", "title": "The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service", "pid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.4676513671875}, {"text": "I will be taking pro for this argument, I think wer should abolish pennies, con takes the point of view as if we shouldn't.", "title": "We should get rid of the penny", "pid": "3207095a-2019-04-18T16:54:39Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.45623779296875}, {"text": "Sorry about the late response, to my arguments.1. It costs more to produce it than it is worth.2. Other countries have done it with success.3. We've gotten rid of coins before.1. It costs more to produce it than it is worth. The cost to produce a penny is approximately 1.83 cents to make, and it is only worth 1 cent. This being so the government loses $55,000,000 doing this transaction. [1] Although this is basically zero compared to the current national debt, it would be a good start in lowering the debt.2. Other countries have done it before.Finland, New Zealand, and Canada have all ceased making one cent pieces for transaction [2]. They have all done this without harm to their economy, and it has gotten easier to make transactions with cash, as prices are rounded to the nearest 5 cents for cash users. (credit users still use one cent numbers, but they don't need pennies). [4]3. We've gotten rid of coins before. We used to have a half-cent piece, but that had lost all of it's value. The dime even is now worth about as much as the half cent was, so it is time to change. [3] [4]Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_coin) [2] http://coincollectingenterprises.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States_coin) [4] Video http://www.youtube.com...", "title": "Stopping production of the penny in the United States would be a good decision.", "pid": "bb3f63e1-2019-04-18T16:27:45Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.43821716308594}, {"text": "At least your mom is free", "title": "Should the U.S. keep the penny", "pid": "87bd157b-2019-04-18T13:37:52Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.43426513671875}, {"text": "If you continue to refuse to go first I can wait tell round 4 to post an argument and thus be the only one who argued and by default my argument would be the best. Its your turn, go first.", "title": "a penny is worth more then a dime", "pid": "ab7e692e-2019-04-18T19:08:57Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.421142578125}, {"text": "Oh, so you say getting rid of currency won't go so well? I was going to use this as one of my concluding arguments but I'll use it now. The U.S. has already gotten rid of old currency. A long time ago, there was a coin called the half-cent, worth half a penny. The U.S. got rid of it because it was worth too little. The crazy part is that the half-cent was worth more then than the dime is now. In fact, other countries like Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, and Canada have already gotten rid of their one-cent pieces. They automatically round up to the nearest five cents (except for New Zealand, which rounds up to the nearest ten cents). These countries have not reported any problems with the money change. Not only that, but the U.S. Military has already gotten rid of the penny in some offshore bases, and they are doing just fine. Con says it is disrespectful to \"deface\" the face of a president. deface (verb): to ruin the surface of (something) especially with writing or pictures That was taken from Webster's online dictionary. Clearly, getting rid of the penny will not \"deface\" Abraham Lincoln. Besides, he and his monument are still on the 5-dollar bill. Con says that when money goes completely digital, he wants to see a penny and remember how far we've come. If that ever does happen, the U.S. will undoubtedly save the coins we are using now for us to look at in, say, the Smithsonian. Also, getting rid of a coin is not the same as getting rid of the American flag. That's all for now.", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebef5-2019-04-18T15:39:05Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.41165161132812}, {"text": "Although Con did defy my rules, Con messaged me in a friend request his/her apologies. Voters, please do not take off points as long as Con does not do it again. Con, if you would, please repost your arguments when it is your turn. I don't care if you copy and paste what you had written, as long as you stay with the format. Anyway, onto my arguments. I have two main arguments for my case, both of which are comprised of smaller points. My first main argument is that U.S. pennies are just a drag on not only the economy, but all of us in general. My first proof is that pennies just aren't worth the time to earn them. The average hourly wage for workers was $22.33 in 2013 (Source: http://www.bls.gov...). That means more than a cent every two seconds, and five cents every ten seconds. Even if you use the median wage, the calculations are still very close. It takes such a little time to earn pennies that it wouldn't affect finances if it was removed. As further proof that pennies aren't worth the time, look to the grocery store. In the U.S., unlike other countries, the tax isn't included on the price tag. The vast majority of people just can't do the math in their head without a calculator, and most just wait until the checkout to find the true price. This means it takes time to count out the pennies, wasting time. It may not seem very important, but it could make a huge difference if pennies were removed. As a matter of fact, there's relatively little that pennies are used for now. No modern vending machine accepts pennies. The only one that does is Coinstar, which is a machine that takes your coins and gives you them back, with a slight amount taken away. Essentially, it is an ATM for solely coins. Lastly, it would benefit the U.S. economy to get rid of pennies. Pennies cost more to make than their face value (no pun intended) (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...). There is potential of saving money by getting rid of the penny. Con, if you would, please re-post your arguments. I will even allow you to add new ones as long as they are not rebuttals.", "title": "The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished", "pid": "953ebf14-2019-04-18T15:12:14Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.40484619140625}, {"text": "The United States Government should stop produce current Jefferson nickels and replace them by making Lincoln pennies worth 5 cents and cease a $.01 piece of currency. Currently, it costs the government 1.3 cents to make a penny and over 7 cents to make a nickel. Seignoirage allows the government to profit off of minting currency, but only when the coin costs less to produce than its value. For instance, the $20 bill costs about 4 cents to make. Due to the negative seignoirage value, the creation of nickels and pennies adds to the federal deficit by a considerable amount. We produced over 7 billion pennies and 1 billion nickels, COSTING the government and taxpayers over $150 million. By stopping the production of Jefferson nickels and substituting them with Lincoln pennies, the cost of the new Lincoln nickels drops 6 cents and halts the production of approximately 6 billion coins, greatly reducing cost. I'm happy to address further concerns in the next round.", "title": "Convert the penny!!!", "pid": "f143e2ae-2019-04-18T19:44:22Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.35760498046875}, {"text": "I would like to thank Forthelulz for accepting this debate On to my arguments: Argument 1: Pennies are a waste of money As of now it takes 1.7 cents to make a penny when a penny is only worth 1 cent. Because the US makes billions of these per year the costs add up. In 2014, around 8,146,400,000 new pennies were made that year. Take the cost and multiply it by the amount of new pennies circulated in 2014 and you get 57 million dollars wasted every year to keep alive this dead currency. That is money that could be used for better things. Even if the cost of pennies were reduced if they were made of something that represents their true nature like plastic, this does not solve the fundamental problem with pennies. Argument 2: Pennies fail as currency Let me build a scenario, you want stuff from a shop keeper. Rather than bartering like savages, you use money as a means of exchange. That is what money is meant to do. Money is used as means to facilitate the transaction of goods. Pennies fail to meet this function that because they are very inconvenient to use. For example, try to pay for $10 worth of groceries with 1000 pennies in your pocket. Even if you just pay in exact change pennies still prove an inconvenience. When you get to the counter and fumble with getting the right amount of pennies, you waste other people\"s time. Pennies not only make transaction of goods more frustrating and inconvenient but in many cases, they also fail as a mean of transacting goods. Say you rather not waste people\"s time and go to a machine to take your pennies and return a good or service. However such machines are virtually nonexistent. Toll booths don\"t accept them, vending machines don\"t accept them, parking meters, laundry machines, or anything else because they aren\"t worth the time and effort to count, transport, and store them. The only machine that exists today that accepts pennies is Coin Star. It is but a leech on the economy that takes 10% of your hard earned cash and returns 90% of money that you should already be able to use. Back then, pennies could actually buy things, but the rising cost of pennies and inflation ultimately makes pennies a useless currency and the reason why most pennies end up in jars. Conclusion: Because of the cost of the US penny and the fact that it fails to facilitate the transaction of goods, we should move on and abandon the penny. Sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...", "title": "The US should abolish the penny", "pid": "7c26af48-2019-04-18T14:43:09Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.34170532226562}, {"text": "Another reason I didn't feel the need to formally reply is you did not cite where your facts where from (in round two), or in this case when! You scrutinize me for using estimates from 2011, but your source here was from 1990. . http://www.pennies.org...This is why consumers and merchants, one average, wouldn't lose money let alone $600 million:A merchant owns a store, A person wants to buy a few items where the total comes to $11.05 the sales tax is 7.5%. After sales tax The amount due is $11.88, making the cash due $11.90. With this scenario the merchant gains 2 pennies wow! The same merchant owns the same store. a person buys a few items totalling $11.93 the sales tax is 7.5%. This makes the total $12.82, or cash due $12.80. Oh no, the merchant lost 2 pennies, glad he gained two before so it equals out! Minting CostSorry about the outdated info, that was my bad. I will point out that it is still costing more to make a penny then it is worth, my point is still valid. No it is not on the decline as you have assumed your own source you deemed viable said:\"A new report shows the cost to produce a penny was 1.7 cents in the 2014 fiscal year. That’s down from 2.4 cents in 2011 but still more than face value. And that won’t change\" . http://blogs.wsj.com... The stock on zinc (not copper as pennies are primarily zinc) has risen in the last five years and is currently rising. . https://www.google.com... How do you think that the pennies usefulness outweighs its cost? Charities It looks like you are the one dancing to this one. First my statement can be proved and is not contradictory. The quote was: \"The penny is the most donated coin,yet it can be quickly overshadowed by the nickel (5-1)\" The meaning was clear, a nickel is worth five pennies, a donation of one nickel will always beat a donation of four pennies. (proof) You on the other hand have no proof, You again assume that people will not donate nickel's or will be stingy. As I outlined in round two assumptions like this make charitable people look bad. Australia is another country who abolished the penny way back in 1992. The charitable donations still rose even though they has no pennies to give. . http://www.jbwere.com.au... I am Canadian I believe that I have the right to use the international experiences of the loss of the penny in a debate. Using countries comparable to the USA is is a great way to estimate what will happen to the economy after the abolishing. I do know that the Canadian economy is not the exact same. I also know my fair share about the American economy. The reason I do not compare America to America is because no matter which America you compare it to they still have their penny. Furthermore I have only given examples of my own experiences with the penny being abolished effect on commerce (I can use other Canadian or Australian examples if you wish) and gave an idea for charities. I did use other arguments outside of Canada. Burden As stated I believe this burden is the instigators. You have only given ONE clear argument which was refuted twice. In reply to your points they can be tackled quite easy to what I have said earlier and what is assumed when starting a debate: 1) Removing the penny is justified: It costs too much to make and is not worth it. What other follow through do you need? 2) Will not harm the economy: I have stated that it will help the economy by decreasing debt and will not do any harm with a complete rounding system. 3) The plan to phase out pennies: oh I assumed you knew, it is your argument. Getting rid of pennies will be done the only way that makes sense, phasing them out from circulation. Here is the normal process used by Australia and Canada (Yes, most likely USA): Stop minting the penny (the process of making the penny), merchants will stop giving out pennies as change but will accept them for a period of time, (if you have exact change as a customer you don't round up or down), the banks end up with the pennies and then they are re-purposed by the government. The only other way to take pennies out of the system is to make pennies worthless, not legal tender. This wont happen for obvious reasons. Other arguments to refute: Pennies are a waste of time and time is money. Many people don't bother to take their pennies as change let alone spend them in stores. The people that do spend pennies end up wasting everyone time. \"National Association of Convenience Stores and the Walgreen's drugstore chain have estimated that handling pennies adds 2 to 2.5 seconds per cash transaction. Assume that the average citizen makes one such transaction every day, and so wastes (to be conservative) 730 seconds a year. The median worker earns just over $36,000 a year, or about 0.5 cents per second, so futzing with pennies costs him $3.65 annually. \" . http://www.washingtonpost.com... This estimate does not include the time wasted from picking up found pennies, the cashier or business time wasted by customers counting pennies, the cashiers time wasted by counting pennies at end of shift, rolling your pennies because you have so many, and taking pennies to the bank to be changed. Pennies are not accepted for all purchases. Electronic transactions are becoming more and more common and the penny is becoming less useful in that respect. Vending machines, phone booths, toll booths, and parking meters are some examples of electronic merchants that do not accept pennies. Pennies are bad for the environment. It is no secret that many pennies end up just dropped, you can find them on the streets and in the sewers. Unlike that banana peel rotting on someone's lawn pennies do not biodegrade efficiently. What is worse for the environment are the mines, Specifically zinc mines (Pennies are made of very little copper) \"Red Dog Mine, which is the largest zinc mine in the U. S. is by far the #1 polluter on the EPA's list, because of large quantities of heavy-metal and lead rich mining tailing's. The process of refining both metals can release sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead and zinc into the environment. \" . http://www.treehugger.com... In conclusion, It is obvious that taking out the penny will result in a better future for the USA, financial and otherwise. Because of Con's constant assumptions, a single outdated, uneducated argument, and inability to create a rebuttal it is clear that Pro is the front runner in this debate. Thank you for reading this and Con, Good Luck.", "title": "The US Penny Should be Taken out of Service", "pid": "540788cc-2019-04-18T15:19:54Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.331298828125}, {"text": "The first one cent coin was made in 1792, theses pennies were made of 100% pure copper. The value of copper went up and inflation made the Penny worth less. So the mint was forced to make penny with less and less copper, until only 5% of it was made of copper. In 2006 the value of older pennies rose over one cent, so pennies were worth more dead then alive. People started melting pennies to sell there copper for profit. In a better efficient, rational world that would have been it for the penny, the american government would have realized there not worth minting and would have been happy there citizens were making profits. Instead copper melting became illegal and we kept making pennies. .. Argument 1 (bad for the economy)We manufacture 4 million Pennies each year even though it cost more to make the penny then the penny is worth. It costs 1.8 pennies to make one Pennie. So 1.8cents = 1 penny. Pennies are bad for the economy and add debt every year. Argument 2 (Pennies are impractical and unneeded) the whole point of paper money is that it's easier to buy things with. Imagine buying twenty dollars worth of stuff with 2000 pennies. The penny's worthlessness will continue to get worse, meaning that it will just continue to get more impractical to buy things with pennies. Back in the olden day pennies could by things, not anymore the penny is not capable of buying anything anymore. Argument3 (Pennies are a waste of time) not a single machine accepts pennies not soda machines, news paper dispensers, vending machines, laundry machines, toll booths or parking meters because there just not worth the time to add and collect them. Since sales tax is not included in the price of items, you don't know the exact change you have to pay until looking at the register. Exact change is not enough to even bother for, because its not worth anything and you just end up wasting everyone else's time who waiting in line. Now I now there's concern about prices increasing once the Pennie is removed. I will prove why that misconception is false next round if my opponent doesn't mention it first.", "title": "The Penny", "pid": "652f23f4-2019-04-18T17:28:19Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.3137664794922}, {"text": "Pro seems to have forfeited this debate. That's unfortunate, and I hope that he's able to come back soon.", "title": "That Pennies Should Be Abolished", "pid": "ce686c60-2019-04-18T17:24:46Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.30316162109375}, {"text": "http://www.usmint.gov... Cost of Producing the Penny, Nickel, Dime, Quarter, and Golden Dollar Coins. $1 Coin Quarter Dime Nickel Penny 18.03 cents 11.14 cents 5.65 cents 11.18 cents 2.41 cents (United States Mint, 2011 Annual Report, pg. 11) 1. PENNIES COST MORE TO MAKE THAN THEY ARE WORTH This will send the US economy down the drain in the future, with inflation. Pennies are worth less than nothing, because of the cost to make one. 2. IT WOULD NOT INCREASE COSTS BY AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT The cost of anything would be rounded to the nearest 5/10 cents. EXAMPLE: $1.01 would be rounded to $1.", "title": "In the US, pennies should be abolished.", "pid": "19444029-2019-04-18T16:04:23Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.29833984375}, {"text": "I hope you vote fro me because my opponent plagarised and forfeited, I also hope you learned something from this debate.", "title": "We should get rid of the penny", "pid": "3207095a-2019-04-18T16:54:39Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.263427734375}, {"text": "ChosenWolff for president", "title": "In the US, pennies should be abolished.", "pid": "19444029-2019-04-18T16:04:23Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.2591552734375}, {"text": "\"It means that abolishing the penny is virtually equivalent to abolishing the American flag. \"I did not think my opponent was attempting to make this inference. Of course, eliminating the penny would not be the same a abolishing the American Flag. Let me explain further. \"In the same way, The reason that the penny serves as a patriotic value should not be irrelevant when it comes to this debate. This reason should be enough to continue to manufacturing and circulation of the penny. \" \"My opponent contradicts himself by stating that he does accept the fact that the penny has sentimental value, but at the same time he states that we should eliminate anything with no benefit. This contradiction then translates to. .. Since the penny is of sentimental value, then the penny is of benefit to the public mind which then protects it from being eliminated. \" Sadly, my opponent misunderstood me. I do not contradict myself. Yes, I do believe the penny holds a sentimental value. However it should be eliminated because it does not have a benefit towards its purpose of facilitating exchange. My opponent forgot to mention the part where I stated, \"If it is of no benefit. .. not facilitating exchange. \" Now, as I said I would explain further above, eliminating the penny is not equivalent to abolishing the American Flag because whereas the American Flag's purpose is to serve as a \"symbolic of nationhood and identity,\"[1] the true purpose of the penny or any money in general is to \"function as a medium of exchange when it is used to intermediate the exchange of goods and services. This function facilitates and eliminates the inefficiencies of a barter system, where goods and services are directly exchange for other goods and services. With the use of money, now you can just conveniently pay for the things you want to buy. \"[2] My opponent's comparison between the eliminating of the penny with abolishing the American Flag is a non-sequitar comparison and should not be considered. All in all, the sentimental value of a coin does not matter because that has nothing to do with the true value of a coin. So therefore no, my statement was not contradictory. \"If this statement made by my opponent is true then using the train of taught. we should neglect the statue of liberty simply because it isn't proportional to the \"ULTIMATE\" goal of economic stability. The statue of liberty as we all know it, is a symbol of both patriotic as well as personal value. The same statue of liberty brings in approximately $40,000 - &70,000 annually, however we neglect the fact that the statue of liberty needs maintenance. \"Again, this is a non-sequitar comparison and therefore should not be considered. The purpose of a penny is not the same as the purpose of the Statue of Liberty. My opponent is saying that anything that does not contribute to the good of the economy whilst I am saying that monetary mediums such as pennies should be eliminated is they do not contribute to the good. \"This might be seen as the logical thing to do, however, we must look into the fact that the like I mentioned in my first NC and this rebuttal, It is harder for people to give up their(sic) penny than to give up their(sic) nickel. If you were to eliminate every penny in the making, giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase (all item will now be rounded to the nearest 5 cents). \" >\"giving up the nickel would be even harder because the nickel can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase\"My opponent does not realize that keeping the penny would make \"giving up the [penny] harder because the [penny] can now be seen as the only way to complete a purchase. \" However, as my opponent mentioned the success of the Penny Drive, obviously that claim is false and the nickel would be just as easily given up. \"If 84 people give a nickel to the charity organization, then it is also likely that 8400 people would give the penny. \"Sadly, my opponent misunderstood my calculations. My opponent has no justification as to why 8400 people donating a penny could be as likely as 84 people donating a nickel but I do for my calculations. Take situation A where donors only donate pennies and situation B where donors only donate nickels. As previously stated by my opponent himself, 15.5% of American people are of the lower class and would have trouble donating a single nickel (which I personally find difficult to believe unless those individuals had absolutely no idea of the severity of poverty around the world. Most of America's homeless are better off thank some average people of third world countries. ) and so mathematically speaking, 100% - 15.5% = 84.5% would be able to donate a nickel. For the sake of easy math, let's say that situation A has 1000 donors all capable of donating a penny. However, since situation B donors are donating nickels, we must take into consideration the lower class who are reluctant to give that nickel. Therefore, situation A would have 1000 people whereas situation B would only have 845 people. Situation A would make 1000 x $0.01 = $10. Yet, Situation B would make 845 x $0.05 = $42.25. So mathematically, asking for a nickel would not only be more profitable but also it would help the mission of the charities which my opponent was concerned about. Evidence for the JC PENNY claim: >($655508.54 asking for pennies) x (84.5% of people rather than the complete 100%) x (5 as that is the amount of times a nickel is worth over a penny) = $2,769,523.58 The price here comes out to be more because above, I approximated 84.5% to 84 in favor of my opponent because there is no such thing as .5 of a person. However, this time I took into consideration 1000 people providing a more accurate result. My opponent misunderstood my claim that \"$7.02 as $6.98\" would be just as likely. It is saying that the probability of an item costing $7.02 would be the same as an item costing $6.98 and therefore would both round to $7.00 cancelling each other out. Nowhere did I mention a percentage of 6.98% or if my opponent made a mistake typing the dollar sign, if he read more carefully, he would see that I never stated that an item would round down to $6.98. The fact that a business normally makes 3,000 sales makes the statistical probability of rounded prices cancelling each other greater and more ideal. My opponent misunderstood my question to him. The only way you could pay for something worth $0.04 or $0.07 (two of four prices that would round up or down to $0.05) would be with 4 pennies or 1 nickel and 2 pennies whereas $0.05 would only take one nickel. There would be more hassle. Similarly, that can be said about any value whether it be $0.84 or $0.87 compared to $0.85. My claim is that, paying for any price would only require at most, 1 nickel (because of the existence of dimes and quarters) whereas a with pennies, the most would be 4. Also, as I mentioned above, taking the time to add up the correct change with these coins would be worth it because of their larger face value. So I ask again, why would production of the nickel be necessary? Ultimately, I believe the penny should be eliminated because it does not serve its purpose as a monetary medium. If you had a Engineer who was bad at engineering but a great artist, wouldn't you move him to the art department? Similarly, if a penny is a poor monetary system, it should go where it belongs: in a museum. I thank my opponent for willing to debate with me in my first debate. I thank every one of you who took time to read through our debate. And have a very merry Christmas. Sources:[1] . http://www.tpk.govt.nz... [2] . http://moneyrelease.com...", "title": "The use of pennies in the US pricing system should be eliminated.", "pid": "1a13d72d-2019-04-18T18:34:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.24044799804688}]}
{"idx": 44, "qid": "46", "q_text": "Should net neutrality be restored?", "qrels": {"fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00010-000": 0, "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00035-000": 0, "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00024-000": 1, "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00020-000": 2, "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00025-000": 1, "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00007-000": 1, "e635989e-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00003-000": 0, "e635989e-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00022-000": 1, "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00002-000": 2, "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00000-000": 2, "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00001-000": 2, "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00004-000": 2, "f55b3008-2019-04-19T12:46:59Z-00003-000": 0, "e98fe508-2019-04-18T14:13:32Z-00005-000": 0, "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00003-000": 2, "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00007-000": 2, "bbae4f1c-2019-04-18T12:51:49Z-00001-000": 0, "d3e2690b-2019-04-17T11:47:35Z-00014-000": 0, "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00002-000": 2, "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00006-000": 2, "38441d06-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00018-000": 1, "877a9d97-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00003-000": 0, "6345307-2019-04-18T11:53:59Z-00001-000": 0, "5b09f31f-2019-04-18T11:54:28Z-00000-000": 0, "5b09f246-2019-04-18T16:17:57Z-00001-000": 0, "38441d06-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00002-000": 0, "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00001-000": 1, "877a9d97-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00002-000": 0, "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00003-000": 0, "69218ee9-2019-04-18T16:36:12Z-00005-000": 0, "6b50fd3c-2019-04-15T20:24:30Z-00024-000": 0, "1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00001-000": 2, "877a9d97-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00004-000": 0, "1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00003-000": 2, "13140d00-2019-04-18T18:00:31Z-00004-000": 0, "8873a43b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00015-000": 0, "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00002-000": 2, "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00004-000": 2, "9896d40f-2019-04-17T11:47:21Z-00016-000": 0, "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00004-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Round 3: 1st rebuttal Round 4: 2nd rebuttal Round 5: Closing statements I believe net neutrality should be repealed. Change my mind. I hope to have a good debate.", "title": "Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed", "pid": "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.3449249267578}, {"text": "I have accepted your debate. I recently was debating over this same thing- on the other side- and the other debater changed my mind. I wish to spread on what I have learned through this debate. Let the debate begin!", "title": "Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed", "pid": "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.3389434814453}, {"text": "ISPs have a right to recover costs from heavy bandwidth users", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 215.88552856445312}, {"text": "We may see an Internet future not quite as bright as we need, with less investment, less innovation and more congestion.", "title": "Net neutrality \"replaces technological solutions with bureaucratic oversight.", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00057-000", "bm25_score": 215.51397705078125}, {"text": "Since the Progressive Era, the United States has not harbored a true capitalism. For some weird reason a laissez-faire market leads to massive wealth inequality, exploitation of lower class workers, and gives unbridled power to the super wealthy. While we haven't exactly succeeded in solving that problem, we have introduced regulations to help even the playing field and create conditions such that businesses of any size have an improved chance of getting off the ground. Internet business is no different. Before any website loomed large, it was just a small, struggling startup. Remove net neutrality, and you will remove the even playing field that allows new companies to get a foothold.", "title": "Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 215.265625}, {"text": "should be a good debate.", "title": "Net neutrality", "pid": "2b6ac2c3-2019-04-18T15:10:44Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 215.162353515625}, {"text": "Net neutrality is the concept that the internet should remain neutral and not be dictasted by content or money.", "title": "Net neutrality.", "pid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 215.13116455078125}, {"text": "Recently, the FCC voted for net neutrality to be repealed, and I support this decision wholeheartedly. My reasons for this are as follows: 1. The repeal of net neutrality eliminates regulations on ISPs, helping that sector of the economy grow. 2. A lot of the worries advocates of net neutrality have are rather unrealistic or void of any economic sense. REASON NUMBER ONE: Getting rid of net neutrality will get rid of a slew of harmful regulations on ISPs and help the free market take care of the internet, as it should. To see the effects this will have, we must examine what regulations occur under title II (AKA net neutrality). Under net neutrality, ISPs must submit any ideas for a \"new technology or business model\" to the FCC. This regulation greatly hampers any upcoming innovation, harming the internet economy. This isn't even the least of it though. The FCC also has the power to \"partially regulate the capital investment of existing companies\" and decide what companies can enter the ISP market. Yes, the FCC can decide what companies can become ISPs, which means that this \"monopoly\" problem constantly brought up by opponents of the repeal is more likely to happen under net neutrality, considering that business-stifling regulation blocks potential new ISPs from entering the market. The American Action Forum states that this puts a trillion dollars of GDP and 2.5 million jobs under a \"regulatory regime\". Repealing net neutrality will get rid of these harmful restrictions and bring freedom back into the free market. This will take away barriers against innovation, barriers against investment, barriers against entry into the ISP market (which limits consumer choice), and to top it all off, by getting rid of excessive government regulation, we will be triggering authoritarians in the process. That is a win-win-win-win, and to reference Donald Trump, I am starting to get tired of all the winning. Other regulations that will be destroyed under this repeal include the prohibition of paid priority. Paid priority is when ISPs \"pay to have certain bits sent to computer screens at a faster rate than others\" (Daily Wire). Smaller ISPs used to use this, giving them an advantage considering they had less materials but could pay money for better speeds. Net neutrality comes into play, preventing paid priority from happening, and keeping smaller ISPs (who ironically enough, are who net neutrality advocates claim to help) from having that fighting chance in the marketplace. Because of this, consumers are placed in a lose-lose situation, in which they must choose between higher costs, or slower internet. Getting rid of net neutrality will bring paid priority back into play, giving smaller ISPs the advantage they once had. Considering that title II means the internet is a public telecommunications utility, the FCC also has power to levy taxes against ISPs. A 2014 study made the estimation that net neutrality regulations could result in as much as $45.4 billion lost in new ISP investments over the next 5 years. Tunku Varadarajan interviewed Ajit Pai, commissioner of the FCC, and gathered this: \"Among our nation\"s 12 largest internet service providers,\" he told the audience, \"domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6%, or $3.6 billion, between 2014 and 2016.\" I ask him to elaborate. \"As I\"ve seen it and heard it,\" he says, \"Title II regulations have stood in the way of investment. Just last week, for instance, we heard from 19 municipal broadband providers. These are small, government-owned ISPs who told us that \"even though we lack a profit motive, Title II has affected the way we do business.\" \" By keeping net neutrality in place, we aren\"t sticking it to the man. We aren\"t attacking those greedy corporations. We are hurting the small ISPs by levying taxes against them and taking away their special advantages and no amount of Jimmy Kimmel tyrades can change that. Repealing net neutrality can bring the good changes these smaller ISPs need. REASON NUMBER TWO: The worries of advocates for net neutrality are rather unrealistic. There are two main causes of concerns: ISPs will make you pay for certain websites, and ISPs will block access to certain websites or throttle speeds to certain websites. A tweet from \"Banksy\" states the typical worries: Twitter: $14.99 per month Snapchat: $9.99 per month Youtube: $19.99 per month Netflix: $9.99 per movie Google: $1.99 per search \"If you don't want to pay extra for your favorite sites you need to be supporting #netneutrality\". However, these claims are all false. Now if it wasn\"t for the fact that there is a 99.99% chance those numbers are made up, that might just be a convincing argument. The only problem is that it is completely lacking of any economic sense. If an ISP actually made people pay two dollars for every google search, then people would be leaving that ISP in droves in favor of a ISP with better prices. This is due to the principle of competition, a great factor in capitalist economies when it comes to keeping prices low without government intervention. Of course, there is the argument that some people only have access to one ISP, meaning they have a monopoly and can do whatever they want. This is also false. If an ISP charged prices for access to certain sites, another ISP could go into the area offering better prices, meaning a great profit for them, and horrible losses for the other ISP. The first ISP then lowers their prices to compete, resulting in a win-win for consumers, who not only have multiple choices, but lower prices. People also like to cite Portugal as an example for what the U.S. could be like without net neutrality, as they have you pay for certain packages like the social media package, the games package, or the music package. But what advocates of net neutrality don't know is that using Portugal as an argument for net neutrality is actually a pretty harmful idea, almost on the same tier as shooting yourself in the foot. Snopes put it best when stating: \"The European Union\"s Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) established net neutrality guidelines in 2015. Portugal is a member of the European Union, so its internet providers must comply.\" In other words, this apocalyptic, prepackaged, pay-to-play world we are told we are about to live in apparently happens under a country with net neutrality regulations. Besides having to pay to access certain websites, another main worry of Net Neutrality advocates is that ISPs will \"throttle\" speeds to certain websites or block access to others. The only issue with this distressed vision is that these worries have no factual or historical backing. Ian Tuttle from the National Review makes notice of the fact that when the FCC first considered net neutrality in 2010, they could only name four instances of anticompetitive behavior, all of those being relatively minor. Not only that, but cell phone networks are not subject to net neutrality-esque regulations of any kind, and they don\"t engage in such anticompetitive behavior. About a decade ago, Comcast attempted to \"throttle\" speeds (slowing down access) to certain data packets but were \"pilloried in the court of public opinion\" and quickly relented. There goes that concern! To finish my arguments, I shall make an allusion to the past. In February 2015, Net Neutrality was enacted. I do not remember having to pay for certain websites and I do not remember hearing any stories about ISPs raising the prices of entry to certain websites. I have no worries about the future of the U.S. under a net neutrality-free market economy and because of that I can see of no reason but to vote in affirmation to this resolution. SOURCES: https://www.snopes.com... https://www.dailywire.com... http://www.nationalreview.com...", "title": "Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed", "pid": "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.12359619140625}, {"text": "Let's begin.", "title": "Net Neutrality", "pid": "5b09f246-2019-04-18T16:17:57Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.07199096679688}, {"text": "Rules: No ad hominem fallacy Keep the debate civil Definitions: Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.", "title": "Net Neutrality Is a Horrible Idea", "pid": "fd4a422a-2019-04-18T11:54:51Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.0661163330078}, {"text": "Net neutrality impairs development of broadband infrastructure:", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 215.02783203125}, {"text": "Thank you for your acceptance. Playing Devil's Advocate isn't quite something I'm ready to do yet, so I applaud you. The problem with repealing Net Neutrality is that the internet is now an important utility for many people in industrialized nations, including the US. Repealing this would be like if you were charged different rates on what you use your water for. Your pipe to the internet shouldn't be watered down by corporation who historically, have ripped people off again and again. If you're a start up business, like an e-commerce makeup company, or a social media platform, crippling Net Neutrality cripples your ability to grow as a business. You'll be locked behind a pay wall, at the mercy of larger corporations. Your competition is either stamped out along with you, or unbeatable. As a business owner, is that what you want? No, of course not. Then there's repression of freedom of speech. At the snap of their fingers, depending on your telecom company's CEO, your news sites, blogs, or any high profile political entities could be locked - simply for being too liberal, or too conservative. As a liberal, would you want to be restricted to the dumpster fire that is Fox News? No, you want what you feel is the most reliable source at your disposal. Then there's the nickeling and dimeing of consumers. Imagine this: you're watching some YouTube, and you get this message. \"Your free trial of YouTube has ended. Upgrade to our premium plan at [insane price] per month! Have a nice day!\" Who the hell wants to pay extra for something they're already paying for? Nobody, they already get more than enough money to keep the servers 100% open with the lowest level plan! I get that you need to make a profit, but part of that is having consumers like you. If you throttle websites, expect yourself to be despised. That's the opposite of what you want as a company.", "title": "Should The US Keep Net Neutrality", "pid": "81d4eb96-2019-04-18T11:26:08Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.93417358398438}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.", "pid": "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 214.90821838378906}, {"text": "Net neutrality saves Internet as ideal marketplace", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00035-000", "bm25_score": 214.8699188232422}, {"text": "I'm not asking for a government takeover, but there should be some reugulation to ensure equality for all parties, including conservatives. Everyone benefits from an open internet. What do you think net neutrality is?", "title": "Net neutrality.", "pid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.869873046875}, {"text": "\"Openness is a Fundamental Principle of the Internet.\" Open Internet Coalition: \"Legal safeguards protected network neutrality during the Internet's first three decades, promoting the dramatic expansion of Internet services, apps, and websites which generated billions in investment and many thousands of new jobs. In 2005, these protections were stripped away, and some Internet access providers have already started discriminating against certain applications. For example, in 2007 Comcast was caught blocking Bittorrent, which is used by competing video providers, and AT&T has restricted Internet telephony and video services on its wireless network.\"", "title": "Net neutrality was effectively the law until 2005", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00069-000", "bm25_score": 214.84725952148438}, {"text": "Actually, you have changed my mind. Now I gotta figure out how to concede. Good job!", "title": "Net Neutrality", "pid": "5b09f31f-2019-04-18T11:54:28Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.82809448242188}, {"text": "Net neutrality \"is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.\" http://en.wikipedia.org... The first round is for acceptance. The second is for arguments. The third is for rebuttals.", "title": "The US shouldn't require net neutrality.", "pid": "1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.81272888183594}, {"text": "Net neutrality adds no new regs, only preserves Internet neutrality", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 214.7081298828125}, {"text": "Businesses should be allowed to control their products as they please, since they created and invested in them. Instead of creating more problems for the economy and businesses by regulating it, the government should give these companies freedom and allow them to make their own decisions. “Telecommunications companies, having invested billions of dollars from consumers and government subsidies in new network infrastructure, claim the right under U.S. law to operate the network with minimal government interference.” [[http://www.imprintmagazine.org/life_and_style/digital_divide_issue_net_neutrality?page=0,1]]", "title": "Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business.", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00021-000", "bm25_score": 214.67752075195312}, {"text": "Net neutrality \"replaces technological solutions with bureaucratic oversight.", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 214.65769958496094}, {"text": "By setting out clear rules about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behavior, ISPs will avoid getting into trouble like Comcast did when it blocked BitTorrent users in early 2010. This would help network owners avoid getting into trouble both with anti-competitive laws as well as their customers who get angry when they discover that the company crossed the line in blocking content, discriminating between content, or charged extra for data from one site versus another.", "title": "Net neutrality provides legal consistency that is good for ISPs.", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00059-000", "bm25_score": 214.64752197265625}, {"text": "This argument is more speculative, it is true. No one really knows what will happen if net neutrality falls.", "title": "Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet.", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 214.6062774658203}, {"text": "I accept.I will provide one clarification and then post my first arguments and rebuttals in round 2.Net neutrality: this is the idea that ISP's (internet service providers) like Comcast should not give preferential treatment to any specific traffic on their network.", "title": "net neutrality", "pid": "40a68302-2019-04-18T14:17:57Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.47650146484375}, {"text": "Doc Searls. \"Net Neutrality vs. Net Neutrering.\" Linux Journal. March 3, 2006: \"By framing the Net as a neutral place, we assure that it will continue to serve as what it has already been for more than ten years: a public marketplace where private enterprise of all forms can not only grow and thrive, but can do both better than it ever has anywhere, ever, before.\"", "title": "Net neutrality saves Internet as ideal marketplace", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00038-000", "bm25_score": 214.45248413085938}, {"text": "\"Net Neutrality is the Internet's First Amendment.\" Save the Internet on Opposing Views.com.: \"Advocates of Net Neutrality are not promoting new regulations. We are attempting to restore tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that made the Internet a great engine for free speech and innovation. By passing Net Neutrality legislation we're restoring under law the open Internet's most fundamental principle.\"", "title": "Net neutrality adds no new regs, only preserves Internet neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00063-000", "bm25_score": 214.43685913085938}, {"text": "Conservative lobbyists who would abolish net neutrality are quick to brand the Open Internet Order as a regulative measure. Regulation to conservatives is like sunlight to a vampire. Somehow, allowing huge internet service-providing corporations to exercise any kind of profit-seeking behavior they can come up with is better for business than giving new sites a chance to grow. In a Forbes article titled \"Net Neutrality Is a Bad Idea Supported by Poor Analogies,\" Jeffrey Dorfman writes \"[Net neutrality] is a bad idea for the same reason that only having vanilla ice cream for sale is a bad idea: some people want, and are willing to pay for, something different.\" That would be a rich analogy, right? Response: Broadband service is not ice cream and, categorically, it comes in one flavor anyway. What varies is its quantity. Conservatives who trumpet the anti-regulation cause have no ground to stand on. They do not argue for anti-regulation, they hope to take the power of regulation from the government and give it to the private corporations.", "title": "Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 214.42727661132812}, {"text": "Allow ISPs to monitor and remove illegal or unwanted data", "title": "net neutrality legislation", "pid": "1fe78336-2019-04-15T20:24:22Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.3911590576172}, {"text": "Network Service Providers need money to expand the critical broadband infrastructure that enables streaming data over the Internet. Many argue that the need for this expansion will rise exponentially as the demand for multimedia and streaming video grows dramatically (such media involves more bits of data, and thus takes up more broadband space). Network Service Providers envision a tier system for charging different content-providers for varying levels of broadband use. It is claimed that the revenue from this would be used to help expand the broadband infrastructure. Without such funding, network providers argue that the infrastructure will be insufficient and that consumers will suffer from slower Internet speeds. Because Network Neutrality blocks such a tiered system from emerging, many believe it prevents network owners from raising the revenue needed to make the investments that will build the robust Internet of the future.", "title": "Net neutrality impairs development of broadband infrastructure:", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00053-000", "bm25_score": 214.38671875}, {"text": "Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Extremism does not deserve its day in court, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and moderation. Besides, the nature of extremists is that they are not amenable to being convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, and that is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and validate themselves to a wider audience.", "title": "ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality", "pid": "e635989e-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 214.37603759765625}, {"text": "In 1860, a US federal law subsidizing a coast-to-coast telegraph line stated that “...messages received from any individual, company, or corporation, or from any telegraph lines connecting with this line at either of its termini, shall be impartially transmitted in the order of their reception, excepting that the dispatches of the government shall have priority.\"[3]", "title": "Net neutrality has historical precedent", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00070-000", "bm25_score": 214.3480682373047}, {"text": "Here are the rules. 1. Remain professional 2. Forfeiting a round means forfeiting the debate. You have three days to make an argument, you can take out 20 minutes to type up a paragraph. 3. Please use reliable sources. 4. Don't bring further politics into this, please. This is a debate about Net Neutrality, not about whether or not we should or shouldn't impeach your weird president. 5. Just. .. don't be cancerous.", "title": "Should The US Keep Net Neutrality", "pid": "81d4eb96-2019-04-18T11:26:08Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.3461151123047}, {"text": "Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Holocaust denial does not deserve its day in the sun, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and truth. Besides, the Holocaust deniers are not convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, which is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and legitimize themselves in the marketplace of ideas.", "title": "The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality", "pid": "38441d06-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 214.34132385253906}, {"text": "Net neutrality protects freedoms and openness of the Internet:", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 214.32272338867188}, {"text": "Google docs are not a violation of conduct", "title": "The Gold Standard should be reestablished", "pid": "64e0a0a6-2019-04-18T12:59:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.30502319335938}, {"text": "Net Neutrality is the freedom of the Internet. For my argument I have three reasons: 1. ISPs will have more control over the Internet without Net Neutrality. 2. Net Neutrality is the freedom of speech. 3. Without Net Neutrality, the Internet will be more expensive. REASON ONE With Net Neutrality in place, ISPs can't control who goes in the fast lane or not. This makes certain that everyone surfs at the same speeds and nobody goes slower than anyone else. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs can control you and how fast your browser loads, which sites you can go to, how you operate... Without Net Neutrality, ISPs control everything. The worst part is that you don't even know if your ISP is slowing you down. All ISPs can do anything and hide it. \"A widely cited example of a violation of net neutrality principles was the Internet service provider Comcast's secret slowing (\"throttling\") of uploads from peer-to-peer file sharing (P2P) applications by using forged packets. Comcast did not stop blocking these protocols, like BitTorrent, until the Federal Communications Commission ordered them to stop. In another minor example, The Madison River Communications company was fined US$15,000 by the FCC, in 2004, for restricting their customers' access to Vonage, which was rivaling their own services. AT&T was also caught limiting access to FaceTime, so only those users who paid for AT&T's new shared data plans could access the application. In July 2017, Verizon Wireless was accused of throttling after users noticed that videos played on Netflix and YouTube were slower than usual, though Verizon commented that it was conducting \"network testing\" and that net neutrality rules permit \"reasonable network management practices\"\" (Wikipedia). ISPs blocking websites brings me to my second argument... REASON TWO Repealing Net Neutrality violates the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\" This should have forced the government to keep Net Neutrality in place, noting that repealing Net Neutrality is respecting that these ISPs can prevent many from reading the news, articles, forums, and statements made on the internet. Not only does repealing Net Neutrality go against freedom of speech, it goes against all of Amendment I. Stopping freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right for people to assemble, and petitioning the government for a redress. This goes directly against the amendment, so even if there was any good to repealing Net Neutrality, our government can't do it. REASON THREE With Net Neutrality replaced, ISPs can make you pay more for absolutely anything. For instance, an ISP could slow down everyone's traffic, resulting in hundreds of people paying more for a faster internet. With a slower internet, people using a browser for \"quick awnsers\" would come to an end. The internet would be greatly affected in ways nobody wants. Another way for the internet to become more expensive is if an ISP forced you to pay to enter sites. \"Americans' average wealth tops $301,000 per adult, enough to rank us fourth on the latest Credit Suisse Global Wealth report. But that figure doesn't tell you how the middle class American is doing. Americans' median wealth is a mere $44,900 per adult -- half have more, half have less\" (CNN). If ISPs started forcing you to pay, many Americans would have to stop using the internet. Not to mention ISPs could start attempting to DDoS each other, fighting for a way to hack into an opponent's system. There, they could slow down all of their customer's internet traffic and block sites they go to. Hackers could also try to do this too, and create fraud ISPs to control others. Repealing Net Neutrality would open the doors to more internet crime, and affect how the internet works from now on. Therefore, I still stand by my argument that repealing Net Neutrality is a negative.", "title": "Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed", "pid": "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.30125427246094}, {"text": "I believe that the con side does bring forth a plethora of convincing points, but within these points are flaws birthed by a lack of economic understanding. My opponent brought up the subject of ISPs making customers pay for anything. If an ISP, say Comcast (for example), decided to make you pay money to access certain websites, people would be ditching Comcast in droves in favor of an ISP that doesn't charge money for entry to certain websites. In my opponents third contention there are a lot of ifs, ands, buts, and whats but all of these worries are made invalidated by the free market. Basic economic theory states that consumers want the best quality product for the lowest price. Slow internet is a low quality product. If companies slow down internet, consumers leave them. If they raise prices, consumers leave them. They have these market incentives to keep good speeds and low prices so other ISPs don't beat them in the marketplace. This worry of ISPs making you pay for anything is completely unrealistic. We also must think about the point made by my opponent stating that ISPs could DDoS each other. However, there is something keeping ISPs from DDoS'ing each other, and it isn't net neutrality. It is the free market. Nobody has a reason to support an ISP that launches cyber attacks on other ISPs, so they will leave that ISP. Therefore, the ISP has an incentive to not engage in such anticompetitive behavior. These fears are ridiculous. Not only that, but repealing net neutrality won't violate freedom of speech. If ISPs prevent people from reading the news, articles, forums, etc, then people will ditch that ISP. I hate repeating myself like a broken record but it is basic economic theory. Another thing we must consider is constitutionality. In that case, why aren't phone networks, who don't have net neutrality regulations being tried in the supreme court for unconstitutionality? Because they don't engage in anti competitive behavior, and the reason they don't engage in that speech-stifling behavior even though they don't have net neutrality regulations is because of basic economics (notice a theme?). From the time the internet was created to January 2015, the U.S. did not have net neutrality regulations, and no ISP made such free-speech-violating moves without being destroyed in the court of public opinion. They will always relent, so why do we need our government watchdogs constantly trailing these ISPs? My opponent's first contention is that ISPs will gain control over the internet. This is false, and my reasoning for this is... the free market! Not surprising, eh? If anything, my opponents example of Verizon conducting \"network testing\" shows another flaw with net neutrality instead of helping his case. Net neutrality does permit \"reasonable network management practices\" and this story shows that certain ISPs could find loopholes through this flimsy law. Overall, there is no reason to keep net neutrality. By keeping it, we are hampering innovation, unfairly levying taxes against ISPs, keeping new companies from joining the market, and stripping smaller ISPs of a valuable advantage. By getting rid of it, we won't be handing control of the internet to ISPs, violating the first amendment, or giving ISPs the ability to make you pay for internet services. We have no reason to keep net neutrality and a ton of reasons to repeal it. Because of this I urge you to vote in affirmation to the resolution.", "title": "Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed", "pid": "1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.29574584960938}, {"text": "Network owners or Internet Service Providers are considered the gatekeepers of the Internet. They control access. And, this access should be differentiated from the actual content on the web, so that network owners stick to providing fees for access at a flat rate, without regulating and/or pricing (differentially) content.", "title": "Net neutrality properly separates Internet access and content.", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00046-000", "bm25_score": 214.28553771972656}, {"text": "Internet-goers will not tolerate slower connections", "title": "Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.28060913085938}, {"text": "With a neutral Internet, anyone can spread the information of anything. Democracy Now can provide their alternative liberal \"War and Peace Report,\" and the Ku Klutz Klan can spread their racism and hatred. Senator Al Franken of Minnesota has spoken out about net neutrality, saying it is \"the first amendment issue of our time.\" With a controlled Internet, cable service providers would have the power to turn the Internet into a North Korean-esque media zone. They would have the power to become masters of propaganda, blocking any negative news concerning themselves or their interests and promoting whatever they would. \"With great power,\" says Peter Parker's Uncle Ben, \"comes great responsibility.\" That doctrine stands up in the world of superheroes. In a world controlled by individuals responsible for the financial welfare of themselves and their companies, however, we have doubts about how responsible they will be.", "title": "Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 214.26467895507812}, {"text": "Net neutrality was effectively the law until 2005", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.26229858398438}, {"text": "The Internet is founded upon principles of the free market - people are allowed to publish content and the content's success is based upon whether or not people like it. Instead of interfering with the free market, the government should allow businesses to direct themselves. Otherwise, the system veers dangerously towards socialism. [[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/_Net-Neutrality_-Is-Socialism_-Not-Freedom-8410175.html]]", "title": "A government that ensures net neutrality is one that violates principles of freedom.", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 214.2361297607422}, {"text": "Net neutrality regulates service providers, not Internet", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 214.1973876953125}, {"text": "I enjoyed it. I hope you did as well.", "title": "Net Neutrality", "pid": "5b09f246-2019-04-18T16:17:57Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.1920166015625}, {"text": "Sorry for bad english in advance.", "title": "Net Neutrality Is a Horrible Idea", "pid": "fd4a422a-2019-04-18T11:54:51Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.18191528320312}, {"text": "Enjoyed this quite a bit myself. Thanks for the challenge, bigwigaustin!", "title": "Net Neutrality", "pid": "6345307-2019-04-18T11:53:59Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.18069458007812}, {"text": "1) The government is allowed to regulate certain products, even if a company creates them. Government regulation of business is a way to ensure that consumers are protected, and companies should not be given complete free rein over their products - there are always rules and regulations. 2) Internet providers created the ability to access the Internet, but not the content on the Internet itself. There is no reason that these large companies should be given the power to dictate who can access what content.", "title": "Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business.", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00020-000", "bm25_score": 214.17869567871094}, {"text": "A government that ensures net neutrality is one that violates principles of freedom.", "title": "Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.17611694335938}, {"text": "Net neutrality is required to preserve the existing structure of the internet.", "title": "Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.17510986328125}, {"text": "Ensuring net neutrality represents excessive government regulation and control over business.", "title": "Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.17335510253906}, {"text": "This debate boils down to one item in particular, whether you, the voter, are going to support the established business or the young upstart. The young business may seem like the right or honest thing to do, but the established has done its time and carved its name. The established had to deal with the hurdles of their time and now times have changed. Young business will have to face new hurdles that they must leap if they want to join the ranks and reap the benefits of being supported.", "title": "Net Neutrality", "pid": "5b09f227-2019-04-18T20:01:38Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.17076110839844}, {"text": "Robert Pepper -- Robert Pepper is senior managing director, global advanced technology policy, at Cisco Systems, and is the former FCC chief of policy development. Bob Kahn. Dave Farber, Michael Katz, Chris Yoo, and Gerald Faulhaber.", "title": "Leading Internet experts opposing net neutrality:", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00073-000", "bm25_score": 214.17002868652344}, {"text": "Internet has been successful w/o govt regs like net neutrality", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.16323852539062}, {"text": "Today, anyone can create a website for very little money and fill it with whatever they want. For a lucky few, their website provides information or services that the public generally likes. They share their website with friends and over social media, word catches on, they place some key advertisements with GoogleAds and elsewhere on the internet, they create some solid SEO content and, before long, they're rolling in internet gold and glory. Striking down net neutrality will cut the fanfare short. Writing to Congress in 2005, Vice President of Google and inventor of the Internet Protocol, Vint Cerf argued that: \"The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control … a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online.\" This kind of freedom that the anti-net neutrality crowd is after has not existed in any industry in the U.S. since the Gilded Age, when the likes of John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan exercised monopolistic control over their respective industries to keep the playing field stacked in their favor. Mark Fiore describes this with a Dr. Seuss-esque cartoon.", "title": "Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services.", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 214.14601135253906}, {"text": "Hey, I'm really interested in this topic so I'm gonna be playing devil's advocate. Framing: There has been massive hysteria around net neutrality, but it really isn't that bad, and the repeal would do more good than harm. -Ajit Pai says it best: \"the sky isn\"t falling, consumers will stay protected, internet will continue to thrive.\" >>Contentions<< 1. Federal Control of the Internet is Dangerous: -Wired Magazine: The govt, through FCC, now has the vast power to regulate what is essential info. Govt overreach is being done in the name of net neutrality -Tech Law & Policy Attorney David O\"Neil: The FCC can forbid or allow one thing after anotherU94; shaping what you can/can\"t see on the internet -the problem of, \"blocking and slowing down certain info is bad,\" is possible in the hands of gov. too! -Appeals Court Judge Judy Silberman: Now the gov. can do whatever it wants as long as it is, \"making the Internet better.\" Gov. really has no filter now. Ex: 2 years ago, in San Fransisco, the local police department shut down all of the internet to stop a protest. The government had the power to suppress free speech because they had access to the internet. THE INTERNET WOULD BE BETTER IN THE HANDS ON INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS. -Also, according to NPR(and proven from page 249 in the official net neutrality rulebook): ISPs must disclose when they are slowing down certain traffic, thus showing customer when it is happening. Thus the customer is always informed, and very little harm can come from the repeal of Net Neutrality 2. Net Neutrality is a Red Herring that Hurts Innovation: -FCC plan (pg 249.): businesses need legal/financial freedom in order to spur innovation and creativity. By encouraging network investment, consumersU94; benefit. -basically, ISPs have more power to create better service when the gov. isn\"t breathing down their necks. -to simplify this: if we repeal net neutrality, then ISPs will be able to make faster internet for everyone -a world w/out NN would actually provide better service b/c companies would have more leeway to create faster content -Fox News: no internet provider wants to be known for \"slow service,\" or being, \"anti-free speech,\" so the consumer has nothing 2 worry about. -also, why is NN so important when before it was implemented, the internet was fine with none of these, \"dire problems?\" 3. Fairness and Desirability: -lets think super logically: services that require high amounts of reliability like hospitals would do much better w/out NN -I am talking to my dr. online about a serious heart condition that I have. That deserves faster internet connection than someone downloading music. ISPs should have the ability to speed up more important things -w/out Net Neutrality ISPs would be able to block harmful content like viruses & scams -the common thought is that ISPs will ruin free speech and block certain websites that they don\"t agree w/ but, really they will block undesirable things that no one wants to run into while online All these factors make repealing NN beneficial & desirable Thanks, Love to hear your response", "title": "Should The US Keep Net Neutrality", "pid": "81d4eb96-2019-04-18T11:26:08Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.14401245117188}, {"text": "Govt regs like Net Neutrality have unintended consequences", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.13821411132812}, {"text": "\"Consumers Deserve Protection\". Open Internet Coalition on Opposing Views.com: \"In a more perfect network, the telephone and cable companies would be investing in more capacity in order to render these issues moot. In a more perfect marketplace, there would be 4 or 5 high-speed broadband competitors offering consumers ample choice and providing a market-based check on violations of Net Neutrality – so consumers could pick a provider that respected the open Internet and didn’t interfere with open access. [...] But we all live in an imperfect world with a gross lack of capacity and competition. As a result, we need a referee to ensure networks remain open and the incentives to innovate and invest will continue to exist. Ceding this role completely to the network operators to decide will result in a different, more closed, and less useful kind of Internet.\"", "title": "Net neutrality protects consumers under near monopolies", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00051-000", "bm25_score": 214.13487243652344}, {"text": "I pick resolution 2, \"Net Neutrality should be made into law and enforced\". You are PRO, I am CON. If you would like to go first, go ahead; if not, I will next round.", "title": "Insert topic here.", "pid": "29a6de52-2019-04-18T19:37:33Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.10227966308594}, {"text": "My Argument:First, I would like to mention what Net Neutrality means once again. -Net Neutrality (n) : the principle that basic Internet protocols should be non-discriminatory, esp. thatcontent providers should get equal treatment from Internet operators SOURCE: (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)Secondly, I want to say that the FCC's decision to put restrictions on streaming services via the IPSs would impede on the success of newer start-ups. This would make the start-ups, who barely has enough money to pay the ISPs to stream their content faster. This would most likely slow down their success or stop it completely in its tracks. Thirdly, this is a violation of the first amendment. That right there is enough to throw this decision away.", "title": "Net Neutrality", "pid": "5b09f246-2019-04-18T16:17:57Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.0950164794922}, {"text": "I believe that Net Neutrality is important for the internet because it makes sure that the internet stays a free market. Corporations should not dictate how we use the internet and should not be able to choose the winners on the internet. Thanks for being respectful and a great person to do my first debate with you. I wish you best of luck on your future endeavors. December 17 2017 7:35 PM", "title": "Net Neutrality", "pid": "5b09f300-2019-04-18T11:54:53Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.09165954589844}, {"text": "Net neutrality may not be good for ISPs, but good overall.", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 214.08294677734375}, {"text": "Net neutrality provides legal consistency that is good for ISPs.", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 214.06973266601562}, {"text": "The internet is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted to the whole of the online community and then put to criticism and judgment. In the same way irrational beliefs like Creationism first found purchase on the internet only to be undermined and discredited by the efforts of online activists, so too have Holocaust deniers been forced by their presence on the web to justify their beliefs and submit evidence for scrutiny. In so doing the online community has systematically discredited the deniers and undermined their efforts at recruitment. By taking on a stance of net neutrality in the provision of internet and the blocking of sites, governments allow this process to play out and for the free exchange of ideas on which liberal democratic society is built upon to show its strength.[1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the state, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided. [1] Seythal, T. “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years”. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501283.html", "title": "The internet should operate on the basis of net neutrality", "pid": "38441d06-2019-04-15T20:24:35Z-00019-000", "bm25_score": 214.0357208251953}, {"text": "Net neutrality helps preserve democracy and free speech", "title": "Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.0137176513672}, {"text": "My opponent will be going first, so just for this argument, I will outline the basics of what net neutrality is for my opponent and the audience: \"Net Neutrality\": A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams (wikipedia/google) Basically, with net neutrality, a company cannot charge extra for access to certain parts parts of the internet, and they can't intentionally slow down the access to the net, only to charge more for the freer speed. However, this net neutrality only causes more government restrictions on the system, and may lower competition and capitalism, the basis for our national economy. My opponent will be going first, good luck.", "title": "Insert topic here.", "pid": "29a6de52-2019-04-18T19:37:33Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.99887084960938}, {"text": "With a society that is becoming more and more connected to, and reliant on, the Internet, there is an increasing need to address the issue of net neutrality. Net neutrality is a broad term, but for this debate I propose it be limited to this definition: Net neutrality: ISPs who charge for internet access must provide a service that enables users to send and receive packets using the Internet in a way that is indifferent to the contents, source or destination of the packets. The Internet has allowed for a truly impressive growth in interconnectivity of the world, it has provided a platform for massive innovations, and has allowed for a previously unprecedented method to share and access knowledge. A fundamental part of this network is it's flexibility, openness, and standardization. Failing to protect the open nature of the Internet is to allow the slow destruction of the Internet as a platform for the innovation that has so shaped our culture. We need to protect this free transfer of information. Implementing a net neutrality policy will protect innovation, maintain the standards that have allowed the internet to become what it is today, and protect the free exchange of ideas and knowledge. 1) Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition: So many of the great stories surrounding the Internet start in garages. So many of the business that are the giants of the tech industry started with a good idea, and that's about it. The ability of an idea to grow through the Internet with little capitol is what allowed companies like Amazon, eBay and Google to survive. Ensuring the continuity of this atmosphere is vital; Without it the Internet may devolve into something like the TV industry is now, a service provided by a few giant corporations who control access and distribution of information. Maintaining the equality of the Internet is maintaining the innovation at has so driven its development. 2) Internet Protocol Standards: Certain standards maintained across the Internet are what make it such a flexible platform for innovation and discussion. Regardless of the application using it, or the infrastructure that carries it the Internet maintains certain standards of how to treat packets of information. Among these are: (http://www.dpsproject.com...) a)Transmissions are broken down into small pieces referred to as \"packets,\" comprised of small portions of the overall information useful to the users at each transmission's endpoints. A small set of data is prefixed to these packets, describing the source and destination of each packet and how it is to be treated. b)Internet routers transmit these packets to various other routers, changing routers freely as a means of managing network flow. c)Internet routers transmit packets independently of each other and independently of the applications that the packets are supporting. The prioritization or discrimination of packets implicitly favors certain designs, and damage others. The Internet depends on a neutral platform to maintain the features so central to it. 3) Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer: By ensuring the indifferent treatment of content and destinations of connections we ensure the ability to freely share and discuss ideas. By allowing packets to be treated differently based on content or destination we open the door for massive invasions of privacy, for robbing consumers of their fair use, and for a biased view of what should be a free environment. Do you really want your ISP to be able to look at every piece of information you send and receive on the internet? Do you want what your viewing in your home to be collected, packaged, and sold to any company that wants to more effectively shove advertisements down you throat? Net neutrality will protect the privacy of the consumer and the anonymity of the Web. When you look at the actual plans we buy for internet access, you'll see something like \"15Mbps plan\", buying you this plan is buying access to up to 15Mbps of information. Practices of throttling downloads or torrents of heavy users is robbing you of what you purchased. Let's say you buy a 20Mbps plan from Comcast. You have access to 20Mbps, but let's say Comcast starts throttling bittorrent (again), so your 20Mbps becomes 5Mbps if you're using bittorrent. Allowing ISPs to throttle consumers, beyond capping their speed at what they purchased, is equivalent to theft. What if ISPs start making deals with certain companies? What if Comcast made a deal with Facebook to slowdown packets that were headed for Myspace, or Disapora, or other social networking sites? What if Microsoft had downloads of openoffice, or linux distributions slowed? This would crush the nature of the internet (not to mention the open source movement), and provide a distorted view of what should be a open environment. Net neutrality is a policy essential to the future of the Internet. We need to to foster innovation and competition. We need to maintain the standards and flexibility of the Internet that made it what it is today. We need to protect the rights, and the privacy, of American citizens. We need net neutrality.", "title": "The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy.", "pid": "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.99026489257812}, {"text": "Innovation would slow.", "title": "Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.98025512695312}, {"text": "As co-inventor of the Internet Protocol Vint Cerf has stated, \"The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. A lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive.\"[2]", "title": "Net neutrality protects freedoms and openness of the Internet:", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00050-000", "bm25_score": 213.9707489013672}, {"text": "Insufficient broadband market choice to deter bad behavior", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00033-000", "bm25_score": 213.96090698242188}, {"text": "Network Neutrality -Network neutrality, or net neutrality as it is more commonly known, is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or modes of communication. Essentially, the stance that ISP’s (Internet Service Providers, such as Comcast, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc.) shouldn’t be able to charge users based on what sites they want access to, what type of content they view, whether or not they play online games that use high amounts of content, etc. One of the foremost arguments proponents of net neutrality present is that of an open internet. - Open Internet-where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party. -Closed Internet-where established corporations or governments favor certain uses; may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content. [1, 2, 3] In this debate, I am going to clearly show that net neutrality does not, in fact, result in a more open internet, but actually takes steps towards a closed internet. 1. Net Neutrality Stifles Innovation -Net neutrality proponents rally to phrases like “equal treatment” and “ending discrimination in transmitting content,” all of which sound positive, but in reality threaten innovation, efficiency, and the expansion of Internet access. -First, is simply isn’t accurate to treat all Internet content equally. An online calculator, a funny home video, and an e-Book all use similar amounts of Internet space comparably, yet are obviously not equal in importance, and should not be treated as such. Second, what precisely does it mean to ‘end discrimination in transmitting content?’ Net neutrality proponents would argue that to be able to charge more for one type of content than another is discrimination. Once again, it is often the case that the contents ARE different, and thus rightfully treated so. Playing PTP (peer-to-peer) games online use massively greater amounts of content than does, say, a simply Google search; net neutrality would treat the two of these equally. So, for example, let’s say we have a house with six people, all of whom share the same Internet. Four of them love playing PTP games, to the point where the other two house members cannot even complete a simple Google search without their Internet being obscenely slow because of the other four members. Now let’s expand this example to an entire community. ISP’s being able to charge based on the amount of content users consume simply means that consumers are paying proportional to what they want, instead of everyone paying the same amount but using disproportionate amounts of content. -In fact, similar regulations are in place in Europe. The result can be clearly seen: they have raised prices and limited consumer access to the Internet. And make no mistake, this isn’t because the service is better over there; broadband services are significantly cheaper in the US despite the fact that we already provide high-speed service at more than double the rate of European countries [4]. Quite simply, regulations stifle the market and economy. What net neutrality is pushing for will result in regulation levels on technology companies on par with that on water and telephone companies, eliminating their ability to innovate in the market. 2. Net Neutrality Actually Stifles Freedom of Speech -Another argument presented by defenders of net neutrality is that it ‘protects freedom of speech’ through unrestricted Internet access. This is patently false; first off, a lack of net neutrality hasn’t caused a restriction of freedom of speech. Allowing ISP’s to charge differing amounts for different amounts of usage is not going to restrict the freedom of speech of users; you don’t have to pay for content levels for PTP games in order to post online or send an email (the ‘freedom of speech’ claimed to be violated without net neutrality). -Second, anyone claiming that new net neutrality regulations through the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) will result in ‘greater freedom of speech’ is frankly either lying or greatly deluded. The FCC isn’t exactly in the business of promoting freedom of speech. In fact, they do quite the opposite-the FCC censors content it feels inappropriate, harmful, and virtually anything else it decides it doesn’t want available. The FCC has never and will never stand for freedom of speech. Net neutrality regulations simply give the FCC, and subsequently the government, more control over the Internet and what exactly is available to us. In the pursuit of a freer Internet, we would actually be creating a less free one. An extreme example of this is China’s strict regulation of communication companies, which has choked off many citizen’s Internet access and significantly reformed the Internet available to the rest. Swiss analyst Gianluigi Negro argues that “under the guise of allegedly ensuring a free and open Internet, some Americans may unwittingly be on the road to ceding power to forces that can use the Internet against them, as is seen in China every day” [5]. Don’t misunderstand, this is not to suggest that the institution of network neutrality laws will have the immediate or definite result of turning America into a communistic nation. However, each new network neutrality law creates an even stronger precedent for government control and regulation of the Internet and subsequent available content. 3. Net Neutrality Infringes On Competition -Advocates of net neutrality such as Lawrence Lessig have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors [6]. A common example of this is Comcast’s blocking of torrenting sites which sport pirated content [7]. It is also argued that by allowing ISP’s to block out competitors from their users, we are promoting monopolies. -First, it is the prerogative of ISP’s to block illegal and pirated content. In fact, arguing this as a supporting factor for net neutrality is quite ludicrous, as the FCC and government at large is greatly engaged in the prevention of piracy. Thus, ISP’s pursuing this on their own independent of government regulation is rather beneficial to the FCC and society. -Second, in terms of promoting monopolies, it really doesn’t. Net neutrality laws are not going to eliminate monopolies such as Comcast; anti-trust regulations would be required for that. Really all net neutrality does is make it harder for startup communication companies just entering the market to become successful, actually hardening monopolies in the long run. Further, it is entirely within the scope of a company/ISP to restrict access to competitor’s content or specific sites it doesn’t want to give access to. In fact, it’s good business, and common in the marketplace. Further, such restrictions by monopolies or large ISP’s actually makes the dissolution of monopolies more likely, as smaller startup companies would receive more subscribers and users as they became more restricted by the larger providers. In the end, the market regulates itself better than the FCC can possibly hope to. -It is important to note that a lack of net neutrality laws doesn’t infringe on the consumers access to Internet. It simply means they pay for the access they want. Whatever access they don’t have, they aren’t paying for. Sources: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://www.savetheinternet.com... [3] - http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu... [4] - https://ec.europa.eu... [5] - http://www.nationalreview.com...= [6] - http://www.technologyreview.com... [7] - https://torrentfreak.com...", "title": "The USFG should reject Net Neutrality.", "pid": "f5b3410d-2019-04-18T15:41:50Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.9534912109375}, {"text": "\"The internet is far too vast to be properly regulated. The money required to promote neutrality is far too large amount to be feasible.\" Net Neutrality enforcement isn't like police enforcement in that one is regulating innumerable potentially morally unrestrained individuals. There are a finite number of telecoms in the US, and that number is getting smaller as the giants swallow up the smaller ones. Considering that Net Neutrality has been to this point the de facto standard, the telecoms would not have a mandate to implement; rather a restriction to avoid. The only expense would come when the principle is violated, which could be settled easily enough by a class action lawsuit. \"a successful business in the real world should also reap the benefits of advertisement on the web.\" Such is the nature of the internet right now. Are you saying the field should be tilted further in favor of established businesses in the interest of fairness by allowing an internet tax paid to the service providers? If that is your argument, then it essentially boils down to which side we compensate towards: the landed and established businesses, or the smaller, potentially successful startups. While one could make the argument that the former is \"fairer\", it is only so when regarding the present independently. Most large companies today had the benefit of being one of the first to corner a market. Simply by virtue of temporal advantage, and not necessarily by virtue of inherent product quality (though this is often the case as well), they were able to succeed. It follows then that in the interest of fairness, barriers to entry be removed as much as is reasonable in order to allow at least a similar opportunity as was afforded to the currently dominant business. This leads to more consistently multipolar markets, which are nearly always more productive than unipolar monopolistic markets.", "title": "Net Neutrality", "pid": "5b09f227-2019-04-18T20:01:38Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.94876098632812}, {"text": "I think the Internet would still remain neutral. Why? The Internet is capitalist more so without government control on how people charge you for services. The only thing net neutrality really did was prevent a provider from charging you for certain apps or other services like debate.org. Just like with cable or DirectTV you must pay more for better quality content or shows like NFL Sunday Ticket you pay more for more. So, if Sprint charges more for services like YouTube why not go to Verizon where YouTube is free.", "title": "Net neutrality.", "pid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 213.93807983398438}, {"text": "Where is your rebuttal in that? We cannot have a debate when someone just throws an opinion out without any evidence, I just showed you how it is not fair and all you have is \"I am a moderate therefore net neutrality is fair.\" I do not know if you took the time to do some research but I am a moderate as well but I still believe it harms small business and conservatives, so please give me something to work off of next time.", "title": "Net neutrality.", "pid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.92056274414062}, {"text": "https://docs.google.com...", "title": "The Gold Standard should be reestablished", "pid": "64e0a0a6-2019-04-18T12:59:55Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.89427185058594}, {"text": "The internet is such a great thing because it is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted for the scrutiny of the global online community. Debate online and rational argument serves as a major check on the extreme views of the political fringe. By maintaining net neutrality in the provision of internet and not blocking websites, ISPs allow this process of the exchange and scrutinizing of ideas on which liberal democratic society relies.[1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the freedom, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided, and unafraid of artificially constructed bias. [1] Seythal, T. “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years”. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501283.html", "title": "ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality", "pid": "e635989e-2019-04-15T20:24:14Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 213.87506103515625}, {"text": "Net neutrality has historical precedent", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.8730926513672}, {"text": "Net neutrality protects consumers under near monopolies", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 213.865234375}, {"text": "Many net neutrality activists would have you believe the internet is a green pasture of freedom in which information disseminates freely. This is not exactly true. Like Cerf said, innovation is welcome at any and all levels of the internet, and yet, in recent years, it has become dominated by single oligarchic rulers. Google is the main search engine, YouTube is the main video hosting platform, Amazon is the main retailer, Netflix is the main film and television hosting site. The list goes on. For almost any information or service you could want from the internet, one company usually dominates the field.", "title": "Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services.", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 213.8609161376953}, {"text": "Well let's go ahead and get this going... First: The loss of net neutrality is not something that the government or big business can do anything about. The internet is far too vast to be properly regulated. The money required to promote neutrality is far too large amount to be feasible. Second: My opponent states that the internet is a level playing field, and that is so true. Much like our society, success gains you a higher place in society so why not extend that to the internet. The web is nothing but a reflection of the real world so a successful business in the real world should also reap the benefits of advertisement on the web. This is how America works. You succeed, you gain the benefits.", "title": "Net Neutrality", "pid": "5b09f227-2019-04-18T20:01:38Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.84820556640625}, {"text": "Net neutrality maintains a free market and even playing field", "title": "Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.84747314453125}, {"text": "The government should not require ISPs to provide access to all websites equally, because internet access is a service provided to websites and consumers, and servicer providers have the right to decide what service they provide exactly, and to whom they provide it. The government should not dictate how we use the internet. Very fun, short, debate. Glad to make your first one a good one. P. S. R. V. V. V.", "title": "Net Neutrality", "pid": "5b09f300-2019-04-18T11:54:53Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.83377075195312}, {"text": "Net neutrality prevents anti-competitive acts by network owners", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00036-000", "bm25_score": 213.81716918945312}, {"text": "This should be impossible to accept. Please comment if you're interested. Voting is only open to members with at least 2500 Elo.", "title": "Net neutrality laws.", "pid": "877a9d97-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.81707763671875}, {"text": "Leading Internet experts opposing net neutrality:", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.8137664794922}, {"text": "No It does not, I have spoon fed you reasons to why it is not, but you do not make a rebuttal to my claims. Therefore it is obvious you could not make a rebuttal to my argument in any of the rounds. I recommend you learn how debating works, rather than just saying what you think without any supporting evidence.", "title": "Net neutrality.", "pid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.80140686035156}, {"text": "\"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such \"network neutrality\" obligations on broadband providers.\" http://www.msnbc.msn.com... == Net neutrality is the idea that access to content from the Internet should be of level playing to all consumers. That is, there is no means nor possibility for tiered speeds of access. Essentially the debate boils down to what is ISP property when dealing with the Internet and should these property owners have a say in how their property is used. While most of the code and communication protocols used to develop web pages are open sourced, i.e., free for use by the release into public domain, the physical components are decidedly not free. Servers, the specialised hardware that allows content to be available must be bought, owned and maintained. Likewise the infrastructure used by ISPs to allow access, the cables, satellites, wireless transmitters must be bought, owned, serviced and maintained. The servers, the ISPs, the end user at home, all use property, property that is rightfully owned, to cumulate in the experience of being able to access the Internet. It is decidedly not a free enterprise. The Internet is decidedly not a public domain, despite rhetoric to the opposite attempting to assert as such. ISPs build and maintain networks because they are profitable. It's why access speeds have increased through the use of new technology. Verizon, for example, is laying new fiber optic components at an estimated cost of 18 billion. http://seekingalpha.com... ISPs profit by charging Web content providers and Web surfers for access to their lines. These profits then go towards the increased infrastructure of the ISP, whether by expanding the reach or the upgrading of the infrastructure in place. It is precisely this system that allows the type of access and reach available now. Net neutrality seeks to undermine this. An ISPs infrastructure, their property, is theirs to use and profit from as they like. Net neutrality is quite simply, a call for private property violation. The Internet is not public property; the Internet is a system of privately owned personal computers, servers, cable and satellites. Because data is transmitted through private property, the call for net neutrality is an attack on the rightful ability of an ISP to use the property it owns as it sees fit. Under threat of government force, an ISP under net neutrality, must remain passive with regard to how data flows through the networks and lines they own. This includes web content providers who under FCC proposed legislation would not be charged differentially, regardless of the volume they bring. http://www.fee.org... http://www.netcompetition.org... ISPs are profit motivated. That is, they seek to formulate the best user experience for as many of its consumers as possible. By forcing an ISP to treat all data neutrally, the FCC and net neutrality advocates desire to prevent that ISP from enacting policies, offering services, and using technology in regards to its own judgements and business models. As such an ISP would be unable to offer services, or formulate policies that would be tailored to and beneficial for consumers (and from that beneficial to the ISP which in turn funnels back into consumer end usage). Certain real time applications benefit from smooth data flow e.g., streaming video, on-line gaming, VoIP or applications such as Skype. Under net neutrality such requirements from users cannot be tailored to consumers, that is, if net neutrality is in place, then all data is treated equal in terms of priority, which includes data that does not require streaming e.g., email (for example a hospital wishing to invest in a package that allows high quality video streaming for operations would be disallowed under most models of net neutrality - at best at non discriminatory policy based FCC approved rates i.e., not tailored). An unregulated ISP has the ability to offer tailored services to those who need it. Net neutrality says nay and that an ISP must treat all users as equal regardless of usage or consumer desire; in other words, all data must be treated equally regardless of content. It really is no different than paying for premium cable TV services, express mail delivery and the like. The fears that net neutrality advocates bring are unfounded. The call for net neutrality is nothing more than the call for ISPs to be public servants of the population they sought to provide value for. Let's say you have a website which you just bought called debate.org. It is very important to you, and you are willing to pay a premium price to your ISP to get a prioritised connection which makes the site load faster. Should you be able to purchase such priority service from an ISP? Net neutrality of course says no. Net neutrality simply stifles the idea of a consumer base of contractual arrangements between those seeking value for value. == 1. Net neutrality will encourage and protect innovation and competition That unregulated Internet will stifle competition is found false simply through the rise of Internet use itself i.e., an unregulated Internet is what brought such ventures mentioned to the fore to begin with. The ability for an ISP to tailor access to consumer bases is irrelevant to any one enterprising idea. Servers are not ISPs, servers must likewise rent to ISPs to allow access to their content - no process that invokes suppression of services there. The fear mongering completely ignores that ISPs must run as a business under competing enterprises and that supplying services to customer bases is in their best interest. Providing for mass end users is simply good business practice and nothing about a deregulated Internet changes that. What net neutrality will do however is stifle those services that require or show preference to high quality streaming - streaming that many services use, streaming that many people are probably willing to pay premium access for. Claims of flexibility are likewise false, since the FCC policies are precisely designed to enforce static methods. 2. Internet Protocol Standards Such protocols are open for use, design and improvement by anyone. It is unrelated to ISP management of data transfer. Enforcing a static system is anathema to network advancement, explicitly contrary to your prior point. Many protocol standards are already inherently error prone, net neutrality will not change this. It will stifle the ability of ISPs to invest in for example, CO-mode. http://www.netcompetition.org... 3. Free exchange of information, and rights of the consumer Nothing about deregulated Internet implies ISPs will act like China. They have no reason to censor information. The FCC under net neutrality however can. As for ISPs that monitor traffic, that is irrelevant to net neutrality. It is simply a contractual issue between end user and service provider. Comcast throttled torrents because the video downloads took up a large % of bandwidth which affected non bittorrent users. AT&T reports 5% of users using > 50% of bandwidth capability. ISPs property the traffic is being sent through, so their right to prioritise data. Doing so allowed them to not increase fees to cover otherwise resulting costs. http://www.infoworld.com...", "title": "The US government should implement a Net Neutrality policy.", "pid": "91bf368f-2019-04-18T18:58:56Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.79580688476562}, {"text": "i will", "title": "Net neutrality laws.", "pid": "877a9d97-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.78497314453125}, {"text": "Existing laws check unfair practices by broadband owners", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00031-000", "bm25_score": 213.77182006835938}, {"text": "Net neutrality allows some sites to hog bandwidth", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00026-000", "bm25_score": 213.76583862304688}, {"text": "Whoever joins this debate, lets make this a civilized debate. My first argument is simple, the definition of net neutrality Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application", "title": "Net Neutrality", "pid": "5b09f300-2019-04-18T11:54:53Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 213.76553344726562}, {"text": "Internet providers have a right to control their networks", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.76162719726562}, {"text": "Thanks to my opponent, WhiteFlame, for participating in this debate with me. I really enjoyed it! http://www.youtube.com...", "title": "Net Neutrality", "pid": "6345307-2019-04-18T11:53:59Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.7272491455078}, {"text": "I'll give you a real debate. invite me to a new one and then I'll get serious", "title": "Net neutrality laws.", "pid": "877a9d97-2019-04-18T15:11:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.7271270751953}, {"text": "Net neutrality properly separates Internet access and content.", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00027-000", "bm25_score": 213.71444702148438}, {"text": "\"Protect Net neutrality.\" St. Petersburg Times Editorial. April 10, 2010: \"Without Net neutrality rules, the big telecommunications and cable providers could decide to start charging Web sites for faster delivery or prefer content providers associated with their own conglomerates. This would crush innovation and competition by giving the biggest companies the ability to nudge smaller start-ups out of view.\"", "title": "Net neutrality prevents anti-competitive acts by network owners", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00037-000", "bm25_score": 213.71441650390625}, {"text": "One thing I have noticed since net neutrality began in 2015 was that conservatives were ostracized in a lot of social media platforms, which is why they have turned to sights that they pay for where they are not interfered with at all. In a way net neutrality has opened it up for large social media sites were able to almost block conservative content without anyone having a say in it. Which is why they support it so much as well as why they show the negative to net neutrality so often. Finally, net neutrality just prevents companies from charging you for certain items like giving YouTube unlimited power to ISPs without having to pay.", "title": "Net neutrality.", "pid": "41ed0b25-2019-04-18T11:53:25Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 213.71119689941406}, {"text": "Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00025-000", "bm25_score": 213.70428466796875}, {"text": "Telecoms can't be relied on to make best decisions for public.", "title": "Network neutrality", "pid": "fca1d19b-2019-04-17T11:47:27Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 213.66920471191406}, {"text": "I accept the Con side of the debate that the U.S. shouldn't require net neutrality. I am looking forward to Pro posting their first arguments.", "title": "The US shouldn't require net neutrality.", "pid": "1ae9f84e-2019-04-18T15:25:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.63441467285156}, {"text": "Net neutrality provides for the free circulation of data and services.", "title": "Net Neutrality – All Internet Traffic Should Be Treated Equally", "pid": "92c80a0a-2019-04-19T12:47:33Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.62770080566406}]}
{"idx": 45, "qid": "47", "q_text": "Is homework beneficial?", "qrels": {"1773efe4-2019-04-18T18:03:42Z-00005-000": 0, "48cd3dfc-2019-04-18T13:56:49Z-00004-000": 2, "76730ea3-2019-04-18T16:17:04Z-00005-000": 0, "76896774-2019-04-18T18:35:56Z-00001-000": 0, "78228fa3-2019-04-18T19:32:37Z-00005-000": 0, "7de56526-2019-04-18T15:10:01Z-00008-000": 2, "82c5bb4f-2019-04-18T17:27:44Z-00002-000": 2, "82c5bbac-2019-04-18T17:04:06Z-00004-000": 0, "8f7d5736-2019-04-18T18:41:18Z-00004-000": 0, "2156fcd3-2019-04-18T19:08:18Z-00003-000": 0, "1733c2bc-2019-04-18T13:51:19Z-00006-000": 1, "1733bf39-2019-04-18T15:25:58Z-00001-000": 0, "73bbff9c-2019-04-18T15:03:29Z-00005-000": 0, "1733bebd-2019-04-18T15:40:44Z-00001-000": 0, "68a4d029-2019-04-18T16:39:32Z-00001-000": 2, "4cda64c0-2019-04-18T16:11:16Z-00001-000": 0, "4f4d73ec-2019-04-18T16:13:26Z-00000-000": 2, "562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00001-000": 0, "6013441c-2019-04-18T16:58:33Z-00007-000": 2, "68a4cf8e-2019-04-18T17:19:01Z-00003-000": 2, "68a4cf8e-2019-04-18T17:19:01Z-00002-000": 2, "68a4d00a-2019-04-18T16:43:31Z-00000-000": 0, "68aff0ce-2019-04-18T19:19:59Z-00004-000": 0, "1733befb-2019-04-18T15:36:46Z-00003-000": 2, "2705e985-2019-04-18T12:49:50Z-00001-000": 2, "d23d9ea5-2019-04-15T20:24:12Z-00008-000": 1, "ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00001-000": 1, "d15e57c3-2019-04-18T11:59:31Z-00001-000": 1, "4c68354c-2019-04-18T13:19:39Z-00000-000": 0, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "f6e16c0b-2019-04-18T12:39:51Z-00005-000": 2, "eed2b582-2019-04-18T13:36:29Z-00003-000": 0, "ee865dc8-2019-04-18T12:36:05Z-00001-000": 1, "ed89f195-2019-04-18T15:14:40Z-00005-000": 2, "eb25c6a2-2019-04-18T11:20:36Z-00000-000": 0, "e9afb1c6-2019-04-18T15:19:00Z-00004-000": 1, "abf49c16-2019-04-18T11:37:52Z-00001-000": 2, "ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00002-000": 1, "ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00000-000": 1, "e00c6428-2019-04-18T11:40:07Z-00001-000": 2, "ed89f195-2019-04-18T15:14:40Z-00001-000": 2, "bc04d69b-2019-04-18T11:55:35Z-00001-000": 0, "ccb2cd3b-2019-04-19T12:44:47Z-00031-000": 0, "ae7c3aca-2019-04-18T13:14:06Z-00003-000": 2, "cf3337ae-2019-04-18T18:36:24Z-00001-000": 2, "e9afb1c6-2019-04-18T15:19:00Z-00002-000": 1, "c6512081-2019-04-18T16:44:37Z-00004-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Homework is beneficial because: =It makes students learn how to juggle their workload and time. =Pushes students to work hard. =Making sure students understand what they have learned so far. = Repeating is the mother of perfection. =Prevents someone from forgetting what they have learned. =students learn to de disciplined and balance the amount of homework and their time. =Makes students think. I mean critical thinking skills.", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733bf1a-2019-04-18T15:28:10Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.4299774169922}, {"text": "Homework, or a homework assignment, is a set of tasks assigned to students by their teachers to be completed outside the class. Common homework assignments may include a quantity or period of reading to be performed, writing or typing to be completed, problems to be solved, a school project to be built (such as a diorama or display), or other skills to be practiced.", "title": "Homework is beneficial for school students", "pid": "bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 218.14505004882812}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "Homework is beneficial for school students", "pid": "bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.33273315429688}, {"text": "I don't think homework is really beneficial to the school students. Teachers in the school have already given assignments or lessons to the students. The most crucial thing is that the students learn or gain something fruitful from the schools.Some research indicates no direct relationship between learning and homework, whereas other studies state that homework can cause stress in young students and that students from lower-income homes may not have access to the same amount of parental assistance and resources as students from higher-income homes. We just have to ensure the students score with flying colors in their exams and understanding towards all the subjects. As you can seen in above statement, homework causes stress to students. Especially in Asia region, parents like to sign up extra-classes after school for students to brush up their studies. They have to do the homework which is assigned by the teachers from school and extra-classes. If we remain in this state-quo, students will just get too stresses out and give up their studies. Is this the outcome you speculate?", "title": "Homework is beneficial for school students", "pid": "bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.06768798828125}, {"text": "The majority of my opponents contention contains information about the basis of homework. Yes homework is beneficial, but the contention goes against the resolution which states, \"Large amounts of homework,\" therefore, any argument against the basis of homework should be disregarded. Furthermore, Finland, a country that succeeds in the education without the burden of homework. has a 93% high school graduation rate, against the United States which has less than 75%. 2 in 3 students go to college in Finland and test scores dominate all other competing countries. This is proof that homework is not essential to a student's success. My opponent did not properly respond to my question as test scores base a students future in college (college being the determining factor for jobs). Why else would grades matter? Definitely not just for self gratification.", "title": "Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student.", "pid": "c6512081-2019-04-18T16:44:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.80592346191406}, {"text": "I do know their brains will work more efficient if they do more homwork. Nowadays, teenagers don't like to do homework, either they are stressed out or have inadequate time to do. We must stand on their side and think, we have no idea what they have been through. Moreover, they are still many alternatives ways to cause your brains work efficently. For instance, doing some IQ quiz which requires less effort and time compare to homework. The purpose of education is think. The most crucial thing is that they fully understood the contents that learn in school.", "title": "Homework is beneficial for school students", "pid": "bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.45785522460938}, {"text": "I invite you to quote your sources about the research you are talking about. First I would like to come back on what you said. If students are given extra-classes in Asia, or in any other country, that is in order to help those students who might have difficulties but still want to progress. Therefore, teachers giving those extra-classes will be there only to help the students, for instance with doing his homework. I doubt they also give extra-homework, unless if the students are really looking forward to delving into courses. Even in that case, I think that if a student gives up his studies it is because courses are too difficult for him or because he is not motivated enough but not because of homework he sometimes can't manage to do. Then, I would like to point out that homework such as exercises are great for the student because it gives him the possibility to put what he learnt into practice and to be sure he has understood the concepts seen in class. For example homework in mathematics or physics allow the student to move from abstract ideas and formulas to concrete examples. Afterwards when the homework get corrected, he will know whether he was right or wrong. In both cases it is beneficial as he can either be sure he understood or understand the mistake he made, not to make it again. Finally, it is generally agreed that working regularly leads to better results, the brain being able to memorize information easier if they are constantly repeated. That is one of the reasons why homework is beneficial to students, indeed it obliges the student to work when he is at home. Doing so, he will review what he learnt early on and it amounts to the same thing, that is to say to work in a constant way in order to better succeed. Last but not least, doing homework allows the student to develop skills such as a better organization, efficiency or memorising abilities. By way of conclusion, I can't see why would homework be something bad or useless, as its main goal is to help students getting better by raising the difficulties they could be facing and by consolidating what they are good at. Your rhymes, now.", "title": "Homework is beneficial for school students", "pid": "bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.39883422851562}, {"text": "I think that homework reinforces information taught at school, which is extremely valuable when it comes to exams, and even later life. I had enormous amounts of homework at school, and so did well in my exams, and I'm very grateful for the knowledge I now possess because it was hammered into me through homework. It does increase stress, but think that really is just an excuse to be lazy, as homework nowadays takes so little time that I doubt it prevents people playing video games or watching TV etc. Homework is valuable for forging a productive, clever, society from our younger generation that in turn improves the lives of everyone who benefits from cars, computers, medicine, and various other things that are only accessible because of their creation by people who know what they're talking about i.e those who learnt from their studies by consolidating the facts outside of the classroom.", "title": "homework brings more good than harm", "pid": "546112c3-2019-04-18T13:30:38Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.33245849609375}, {"text": "Hello, my name is dtien and I will be arguing that homework is not a waste of time. Homework isn't simply \"busy work\" teachers give to students: 5 studies show a positive correlation between completing homework and excelling in school. Besides helping children understand the assignments given in class, homework teaches students how to be responsible and to manage their time wisely. If a child is falling behind one day in class, that child is given the ability to catch up before the next class by doing homework. Homework also gives students questions to study for their tests. http://education.cu-portland.edu... I apologize for being so brief but this is really all the proof I need to show that homework is beneficial. Hopefully I can expand on my ideas next round once I know what Pro has to say. Have a good day and good luck to my opponent!", "title": "Homework is horrible", "pid": "59460e7f-2019-04-18T13:41:43Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.2379608154297}, {"text": "I would like to start off by stating that homework is generally for beneficial for the student than it is wrong. Homework is a part of the simple assessment process that teachers use to determine what areas their students need help in, and can help the student improve from that point. Often times (and almost all of the time), teachers don't have the sufficient time they need in a day to teach material and ensure that the students fully understand; and teachers will use homework for the students to take home and bring back the next day. Even if the student gets the gist of a subject, the teacher would still send home homework in order to prepare the student for any future tests;which is essentially required studying and practice at home. Outside of the educational ideals, homework teaches students in a simple way about an important aspect in life for the future-- responsibility, that is. With the responsibility and accountability of being required to take time to finish school work at home, they develop much needed life skills for the future.", "title": "homework", "pid": "d686e01-2019-04-18T14:47:36Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.22930908203125}, {"text": "I accept this challenge.", "title": "Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student.", "pid": "c6512081-2019-04-18T16:44:37Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.1588134765625}, {"text": "I will be arguing that homework is not only beneficial but imperative for students success. The best way to put something to memory is repetition, and this is one of the things homework does. Let's say student A is in a math class and is having trouble with factoring of quadratics, the best way for the student to learn is to do examples and learn the different ways that they can factor and as they do more and more problems it will become faster and faster until they eventually master it. The other big thing that homework does is that it forces you to think about class outside of class time so the information is not forgotten. Let us use student A for an example again. If he learns the method to factor the quadratic in class and then he spends 24 hours away from class what are the chances he learns it? The homework is reinforcing the information. It also fosters independance and improves study skills (1) source will be in comments as con has limited me to 1000 character and wont fit.", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733c338-2019-04-18T12:35:44Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.1422576904297}, {"text": "I am not just talking about brain efficiency. That would include among others, the logical and memory aspects, but what about the notions you get at school ? IQ quiz are definitely not going to teach anyone mathematics or history. It is done to measure somehow the intelligence quotient and to rank people based on logicial abilities, but it does neither take knowledge into consideration nor teach it. Besides, even if it did, I think students would be bored if they had to do IQ tests every single day. It is not related to what they are learning at school and doesn't help them to understand they lessons.Quite the opposite, homework do. Homework make students think and in that way, it gives them better chances to understand classroom learning, to reinforce it. They are able to doing it by themselves which is a chance for them if they get a constructive return on their work. It also improves their brain's abilities as they are thinking about how they could solve a problem, or looking for ideas which develop their creativites, or also learning concepts which is good for their memory and to gain in working methods, while IQ tests are just something they would be getting tired of and they wouldn't do it seriously.", "title": "Homework is beneficial for school students", "pid": "bd7013ea-2019-04-18T14:03:21Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.14047241210938}, {"text": "Homework is waste of time. And children are forced to do loads of it each year, what's your opinion?", "title": "Does homework have any benefits", "pid": "d15e57c3-2019-04-18T11:59:31Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.07374572753906}, {"text": "homework causes stress that is very unhealthy and dangerous to the health of students", "title": "homework brings more good than harm", "pid": "546112c3-2019-04-18T13:30:38Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.05303955078125}, {"text": "Good luck for the next round.", "title": "Homework does more good than harm.", "pid": "93909ee1-2019-04-18T17:40:32Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.02337646484375}, {"text": "The first benefit of homework is that it allows students and teachers to work more closely together. They can discuss their assignments or any problems that they are having with parts of their textbooks, before or after classes. The second benefit is that it can bring families closer together as students may ask their parents or siblings for help on their homework. Not only will this help the students get a better understanding of their work with any parts they are stuck on, it will also allow parents to get more involved in their child's educational life. Thirdly, doing homework will prepare students for the big end tests. If a child does poorly on an assignment then they will learn what is necessary to do well on the next test without being punished. It also provides students with the opportunity to practice at what it takes to be successful in school. Like they say, practice makes perfect. Doing homework is also a great way to develop responsibilities. By being assigned work one day and knowing that it has to be done by the next day, they will develop a sense of punctuality by turning their work in on time. And finally it allows parents to see how their children are being educated and they can develop a better idea of how they can help their child.", "title": "Homework is a Good Thing.", "pid": "b3c9295e-2019-04-18T15:39:39Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.97776794433594}, {"text": "Homework creates a bridge between school and home. Parents rarely get to spend much time with you while you're at school. Homework allows them to keep up with what you're doing in your classes on a daily basis. But you don't have homework purely for your parents' benefit. It's good for you, too! Homework can help you become a better student in several different ways. First of all, homework given in advance of a particular subject can help you make the most of your classroom discussion time. For example, before beginning a discussion of a complex period in history, it can be very helpful to read background information as homework the night before. Homework also gives you valuable practice with what you've learned in the classroom. Often, the brief period of time you have during class to learn something new is simply not enough. Repeating classroom concepts at home helps to cement in your mind the things you learned. For example, you've probably experienced the value of homework when it comes to mathematics. A new concept explained in class might seem foreign at first. With repetition via homework, however, you reinforce what you learned in class and it sticks with you. Without homework, a lot of classroom time would be wasted with repetition that could more easily be done outside the classroom. In these ways, homework expands upon what is done during the day in the classroom. Your overall educational experience is better, because homework helps you to gain and retain more knowledge than would be possible with only classroom work. As you learn more, you know more and you achieve more\"and you have homework to thank! Homework teaches lessons beyond just what's taught in the classroom, too. Bringing homework home, completing it correctly, and turning it in promptly teaches a host of other important life skills, from time management and responsibility to organization and prioritization. Despite these benefits found by researchers, the topics of who should receive homework and how much homework are hotly debated among educators and researchers. In one study, researchers found that academic gains from homework increased as grade level increased, suggesting homework is more beneficial for older students. Some researchers have found that too much homework can lower or cancel its benefits and become counterproductive, because students become burned out.", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733c6bb-2019-04-18T11:28:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.96075439453125}, {"text": "I will be arguing that it would be more likely beneficial for the students and the educators if homework was given out on the weekend. My argument is not stating that there is a direct causation of success and homework as that is currently still being debated [1]. However I am stating that homework in general is more likely a beneficial component in education rather than harmful. A. Homework is an important instructional tool. 1. Purpose of homework. There are two types of homework, instructional and noninstructional. In the case of instructional it is: preparation, practice, extension, and integration [1]. The purpose of instructional homework is to further improve on skills, knowledge that was or will be covered, and allow students to utilize their multiple skills to complete a complex project. Noninstructional homework is used to develop social interactions and behavioral skills. 2. Homework is correlated to be a benefiting factor with more positive effects. Extensive studies by Harris M. Cooper continually show a correlation between students who complete homework versus students that do not, especially on test covering direct material on assignments. His research simply states that, despite constant argumentation to dispute any correlation, homework does more good than harm [2]. In general, based on various studies, the effects of homework have shown a gain of 20-30 percentiles [3]. Even though, some may debate the benefits that come from homework, we cannot ignore that it is a potentially crucial and helpful factor in education. It would be like a team of athletes that are expected to perform better than other teams but never have practice after learning a new technique/play. 3. Alternative method that allows practice of skills and teacher evaluation of retention is lacking. Simply put there is currently no other well known method for encouraging students to study material outside of the classroom, as well as encourage self-involvement with learning. Furthermore, a new method would have to allow teachers to track the progress of the students and be effective in flourishing their knowledge. I will further discuss this later. B. Main Reasons that students, and some teachers do not like homework. 1. Time Management is an important factor. On the student side many arguments can be boiled down to homework is limiting to other leisure activities and family bonding that could be reserved for weekends [4]. However, in this article, they give testimony to a child that “can’t usually start [her] hours of homework until 8:30 PM,” meaning that homework is already limiting within the weekday; thus, reserving homework on the weekdays would only cause more stress to the child that has to finish everything during their most busiest of days. Another argument that was given was that the children do not sleep as well during the weekends, which should be a time for resting. However according to a study by Mary Allard, male and female students spend, on average, 5.7 and 4.5 hours a day on leisure activities after school respectively [5]. In addition, the students slept 2-3 hours more on the weekends than on the weekdays, despite jobs, homework, and other social activities. It is odd that even though given homework, children are still finding more ways to rest and be social during their time off of school. On the other side of the argument, some teachers argue about the amount of time spent grading [6]. While some teachers argue that they hate grading, and others say that it is important practice work, they clearly voice that the spend too much time on the homework given back, which causes them to judge student behavior or completion rather than correct methodology of work. On average, teachers spend around 782 hours per school year teaching (in classroom) which means that on average of 180, 6-8 hour, school days, the teacher are teaching for approximately 4.34 hours [7,8]. That is assuming however, that teachers are not distracted, victim’s of Murphy’s Law, or working with one student in particular that really needs help [9]. That is not a lot of time to work with students in-class, as well as grade, if a teacher is not properly oriented, thus they will get backed up on teaching and homework can help keep students if given after school or on the weekend. 2. Students get burned out Some teachers have stated that homework is “time consuming, dreary, and uninspiring,” to the point that children will become less motivated and apathetic toward learning [10]. In so doing, some teachers have done the extreme and do not issue any “homework” for their students. This was done mainly by well time management of the class and the effectiveness of the teaching. However, it is important to note that: a. While teachers claimed benefits of not doing homework, the have no definitive causation that students did better in the same regards as they criticise students that have homework. b. There is more than one type of homework, as stated above, and an assignment that is meant to help children practice a skill is what practice homework enriches at home. Also, children were able to finish “homework” in school just as much as outside of school. Thus all the teachers are doing is allotting more class time to homework, assuming the children are retaining information or completing their work. c. Homework is more than just practice, as stated above, it is important social tool. Otherwise you are limiting a student from learning how to study intensely on their own in higher learning, thus they will also be less likely successful without proper time management skills when they start their careers [11, 12]. Sources1.http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org... 2. http://users.manchester.edu... 3.http://www.ascd.org... 4. http://www.eastside-online.org... 5. http://stats.bls.gov... 6.http://www.opb.org... 7.http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org... 8. http://nces.ed.gov... 9. http://people.howstuffworks.com... 10. http://www.alfiekohn.org... 11. http://www.adi.org... 12. http://www.palmbeachschools.org...", "title": "Students should never have homework on weekends.", "pid": "bf1a606c-2019-04-18T15:14:10Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.92333984375}, {"text": "Homework is a good thing for all students because it provides extra practice for each student outside of the classroom.", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733c2bc-2019-04-18T13:51:19Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.87783813476562}, {"text": "Actually producing something of value and use in the world is of greater satisfaction than studying and working on fictional projects that go nowhere, even if they are educationally beneficial.", "title": "Work work is more rewarding than homework.", "pid": "824a5a69-2019-04-17T11:47:25Z-00119-000", "bm25_score": 215.8215789794922}, {"text": "My partner also completely conceded and dropped the preparation advantage where if home work prepares people for the workforce with all this time management skills and stress. Preparation and education for the workforce is why we go to school in the first place, so why don't we do homework as well? pro:\"Homework creates stress. \" stress is good in adequete quantities. Therefore homework is good if limited, therefore homework is not usless and futile. According to a Berkeley study, some stress can actually be good for you. \"Kirby discovered that the stressed rats performed better on a memory test two weeks after the stressful event, but not two days after the event. Using special cell labeling techniques, the researchers established that the new nerve cells triggered by the acute stress were the same ones involved in learning new tasks two weeks later. \"stress in adequete amounts can boost future memory capabilities therefore future productivity. Productivity is good. . http://newscenter.berkeley.edu...;The fact is homework can cause stress. But is stress truly that bad? According to the berkeley study above, stress in adequete amounts can boost memory. Homework is a tool that teachers can use to assess students while at home, not a torture device as pro has put it as. Homework in small amounts can be beneficial. I am not calling for a drastic increase in homework, merely that homework maintains a stock in our education system as a means and a tool for teachers. Yes inclass reviews with teachers can be effective, but so can homework assignments that practice your brain's ability to problem solve and think. As the cliche goes, practice makes perfect.", "title": "This House Believes That Homework is Futile in Today's Soceity", "pid": "ed89f195-2019-04-18T15:14:40Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.79788208007812}, {"text": "For this round of debate, I will state my contentions and provide supporting evidence as to why they are viable. 1) Large amounts of homework are bad for children. \"Nancy Kalish's daughter was an enthusiastic middle-schooler -- until homework started to take over, consuming her evenings and weekends. When she started dreading school, the Brooklyn mom began to grow alarmed.\" This is just one of many cases where children are being overworked to the point where a mother or father might get involved. A group of Australian researchers have stated that, \"Piling on the homework doesn't help kids do better in school. In fact, it can lower their test scores.\" Furthermore, according to Richard Walker, an educational psychologist at Sydney University, countries where students spend excessive time on homework prove to have worse results on standardized tests. These three pieces of evidence prove that homework is overworking children. In some cases, overworking be beneficial, but overwork defined by Oxford dictionary is, \"exhaust with too much work.\" Going back to my first example about the daughter of Kalish, exhaust has proved to alert her mother so much that she wrote, \"The Case Against Homework: How Homework Is Hurting Our Children and What We Can Do About It,\" to further prove her point. For this reason, I urge a con ballot. I have a question for you. If these large amounts of homework are negatively impacting student's test scores, how is this beneficial to a student's future life? Keep in mind that test scores such as the SAT are a huge part of college acceptance. http://www.parenting.com... http://www.livescience.com...", "title": "Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student.", "pid": "c6512081-2019-04-18T16:44:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.77659606933594}, {"text": "Firstly, let me define the important terms. ~Homework: work that teachers give their students to do at home ~Abolished: to end an activity or custom officially The argument I will be saying in this round is: ~homework is beneficial to children in moderate amounts And in Round 3 I will be stating that: ~homework enables school days to be shorter Then in the final round, I will be doing a rebuttal of my opponents well-meaning, but perhaps misguided views. Firstly, homework is beneficial to children in schools, as long as it is in moderate amounts. I, as team opposition, understand that in large amounts, homework can overload the child and can be very stressful. But when moderated, homework can be extremely beneficial. The most common benefit of homework is the obvious, improvement in academics. \"Researchers who looked at data from more than 18,000 10th-graders found there was little correlation between the time students spent doing homework and better grades in math and science courses. But, according to a study on the research, they did find a positive relationship between standardized test performance and the amount of time spent on homework.\" This source obviously shows the correlations found in tests. However, doing homework has a lot of less-know benefits for children \"Pryor-Johnson identifies four qualities children develop when they complete homework that can help them become high-achieving students: responsibility; time management; perseverance; and self-esteem. While these cannot be measured on standardized tests, perseverance has garnered a lot of attention as an essential skill for successful students. Regular accomplishments like finishing homework build self-esteem, which aids students\" mental and physical health. Responsibility and time management are highly desirable qualities that benefit students long after they graduate.\" My source clearly demonstrates my point. Whilst the general public may not know these benefits, they are there, improving the child's work across the board. So, as you can clearly see from these arguments, and the sources I have provided, homework should not be abolished because it is beneficial to the children who do them. Sources: ~http://dictionary.cambridge.org... ~http://dictionary.cambridge.org... ~http://education.cu-portland.edu... ~https://www.washingtonpost.com...", "title": "Homework Should Be Abolished", "pid": "f6e16c0b-2019-04-18T12:39:51Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.77590942382812}, {"text": "If I could summarize the Con's Round 4 arguments, it would be like the following: Homework causes family disputes. Still no rebuttals on the Pro's (my) arguments. So I am still left with refuting the rest of the Con's statements.However, this round, there is some truth to what the Con says.But once again, I'm forced to bring up the matter at hand of this debate. The Con argues that homework is more bad than good.Therefore, I can only provide evidence that homework is generally more beneficial for the student.As a matter of fact, homework pays off!The benefits are the obvious: It helps children develop positive study skills and habits that will serve them well throughout life Homework encourages children to use their time wisely It teaches children to work independently Homework teaches children to take responsibility for his or her work [1] Besides any disputed educational effects, the latter are reasons homework is beneficial for all children, no matter how old, how well they do, or how much they struggle.Study habits, time management, independence, and responsibility are characteristics that all people need to progress in life, for whatever career path they choose to take. Yes, it is true, homework causes some stress and may result in family disputes. (But not make kids fat. Read this inaccurate and irrelevant article, and you'll understand why I don't buy it. [2])Yet, it can be argued, and I am arguing, that the general benefits outweigh any handicaps. Not only that- but I guarantee that in a majority of the cases in which students are becoming less active or belligerent over homework, the parents are to blame. When students have massive amounts of electronic games or television to watch, why expect them to do homework instead. If every parent were to remove the distractions from the household, then you would have the select few students that genuinely struggle with education and the few situations where homework actually hinders the student pyschologically. In conclusion, homework is generally good and helps more than it does hinders.Thanks for the debate willtreaty1156, I understand this is your first.Vote Pro![1] Top 14 Reasons Why Homework is Important - e-Skool. (2010, October 27). Retrieved May 28, 2015, from http://blog.eskool.ca... [2] Hey Teachers , Ban Homework and You Will Have Less Fat Kids. (n.d.). Retrieved May 28, 2015, from http://www.datehookup.com...", "title": "homework", "pid": "d686e01-2019-04-18T14:47:36Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.7595977783203}, {"text": "As early as 1994 scholarly artices recognized the benefits of homework. High schoolers who are assigned homework outperform 69% of other students in the same classes without homework[1].Long term studies using a variety of research designs show the positive effects of homework.[2]Citations1. http://www.cehd.umn.edu...2. http://rer.sagepub.com...", "title": "No Homework:)", "pid": "748ad8df-2019-04-18T15:53:22Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.74703979492188}, {"text": "Although homework can be copied , that is only due to the fact that the homework we receive is too long. Homework is beneficial to understanding a subject and furthering your knowledge on the selected subject. Therefore Homework is beneficial to knowledge as long as it is a reasonable length to prevent anxiety.", "title": "Students shouldnt have homework", "pid": "7de56526-2019-04-18T15:10:01Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 215.71731567382812}, {"text": "Well, since you have nothing to argue about, I guess we should skip to the voting time.", "title": "Homework does more good than harm.", "pid": "93909ee1-2019-04-18T17:40:32Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.70269775390625}, {"text": "In different grade-level, homework has different affect on student. So that studies doesn't help your debation as you didn't give the grade of the student in the research. If fact, of fifty state and national studies, forty-three indicated that students who did more homework had better achievement scores. But again, grade-level is the key. Students in grades three through five showed little improvement on test scores; students in grades six through nine showed an improvement of seven percent. High school students on average improved by twenty-five percent. Studies also shown that if we don't review after learning, we'll soon forget the things we've learned. And it's no use of learning if you can't remember the things you've learned. So homework is given to student to help them remember. If homework is banned, student will not think or practise what they have learned. The next morning, they will go to class-brained. That means teachers will have to spend more time for reviewing the lesson and less time for teaching the new things. As the school time is limited, that's a waste of time, which can be saved if the student do their homework at home. With the higher grade, students need to do more homework as they have more things to learn. Homework allows students to test themselves, to find out if they misunderstood or forget something they have learned. It also allows the teacher to acknowledge the student's weakness in turn giving them an chance to improve and acquire new skills. In brief, the amount of homework should fit the age of your child, with younger children receiving less and older children receiving more. Homework is a valuable tool to help children remember what they learn. It only have negative effects if it is excessive. If parents and educators make sure that children don't get homework overload, of course, homework does more good than harm.", "title": "Homework does more good than harm.", "pid": "93909ee1-2019-04-18T17:40:32Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.70108032226562}, {"text": "It\"s often stated that the dislike of homework is simply kids being lazy, but what people don\"t understand is the negative effects it can bring. Quoted from stanford, \"Pope and her colleagues found that too much homework can diminish its effectiveness and even be counterproductive. They cite prior research indicating that homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night, and that 90 minutes to two and a half hours is optimal for high school.\" (1) They say two and a half hours of homework is optimal, however the average amount of homework given is 3.1 hours per night, and again quoted from stanford, too much homework can be counter productive. Another downside is how homework has been linked to causing health issues in students such as sleep deprivation. Quoted from stanford, \"In their open-ended answers, many students said their homework load led to sleep deprivation and other health problems\". (1) Next, I\"d like to address your point when you say \"Many students hate obtaining homework when they have after school activities or they just are lazy.\" Laziness does play a role in this, but students who dislike homework because of extra curricular activities have a solid reason. As stated by stanford, Both the survey data and student responses indicate that spending too much time on homework meant that students were \"not meeting their developmental needs or cultivating other critical life skills,\" according to the researchers. Students were more likely to drop activities, not see friends or family, and not pursue hobbies they enjoy. Homework is a balancing act. No one questions homework can be beneficial at times, but in the current state, the negatives outweigh the positives. Over to you", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733c240-2019-04-18T14:46:35Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.66502380371094}, {"text": "Giving homework is beneficial for students in many ways. It teaches the student about time management and makes them sincere. It helps the student to recapitulate the lessons done at school so that they don't lag behind. It also teaches them the art of planning and organizing their studies one after another to get good grades. Homework also helps the teacher to asses the ability of the student and she can help the student to improve his or her weaknesses. But most importantly it makes the students study and helps them to realize that even if they don not like to do the homework sometimes they have to do things in life they do not want to. So the pressure which is created is actually good because it helps them to face reality and also their life Thank you", "title": "Homework should be given less to the children", "pid": "6c734766-2019-04-18T13:20:17Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.6601104736328}, {"text": "You made some very excellent points on the negative aspects on homework. However, yes homework can be counterproductive but that is called busy work. Busy work is homework that is non productive to the subject you are studying. Trust me I have gotten busy work for years from many teachers. You are not taking in affect of the positives. Homework encourages good time use. With this ability you can schedule your sleep habits and work ethic, you can prevent sleep deprivation and promote good work ethic. This supports the statement you said \" homework has been linked to causing health issues in students such as sleep deprivation\", this is caused by students with poor time management. Homework can strengthen personal time management. Homework can also increase memory and thinking strategies. Homework reviews what was gone over in class and this can help you on tests. When you said \"the negatives outweigh the positives.\" you are not taking in effect of the big picture. Sleep deprivation is very much like being drunk. Being drunk is not big picture. I know I am going off topic by talking about inebriation so I digress. The big picture is that you can never use too much time on helping your brain. When you also said \"Students were more likely to drop activities\" this is caused by homework. Here is a scenario, imagine you want to be a network engineer but you do the homework in the engineering class and you realize you suck at this course and you want to drop it. The homework taught you that network engineering is not you strong suit and you LEARNED that you cannot be in that field. Homework is not only just positive learning. This goes along with what you said about health problems it causes. It teaches you that too much homework can lead to sleep deprivation. I say in the big picture, the long term positives outweigh the short term negatives. Over to you", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733c240-2019-04-18T14:46:35Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.63597106933594}, {"text": "Homework should not be banned from the education system because it allows for better academic success. Homework is meant to augment learning and facilitate proficiency of specific skills. A study conducted on September 23, 2006 by Harris Cooper, distinguished professor in the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience at Duke University, aimed to look at the correlation between homework and academic improvement. The results suggested that homework improves students\" scores on test at the end of that topic. \"Students assigned homework in 2nd grade did better on math, 3rd and 4th graders did better on English skills and vocabulary, 5th graders on social studies, 9th through 12th graders on American history, and 12th graders on Shakespeare\" (Cooper 2006). Other studies conducted to oversee the correlation (with no attempt to control student differences) found that 77 percent find the link between homework and achievement is positive (Cooper 2006). Homework does help. Although the learning is supposed to happen at school, many students are engulfed in a sea of distractions that makes it difficult to stay focused in the classroom environment. According to Katrina Schwartz, journalist for KQED News, digital classroom tools like computers, tablets, and smartphones can be distracting to students. Not all children are capable of coping with the distractions, not limited to digital tools, that a classroom may bring. With that being said, the home environment is where one can truly learn because the limited distractions allow for productivity. Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement?. (2006). Today.duke.edu. Retrieved 29 March 2018, from https://today.duke.edu... Age of Distraction: Why It's Crucial for Students to Learn to Focus. (2013). KQED. Retrieved 29 March 2018, from https://www.kqed.org...", "title": "Homework should be banned.", "pid": "abf49c16-2019-04-18T11:37:52Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.63153076171875}, {"text": "1) Homework helps kids exercise the skills they need to pass, and accelerate in education. According to the \"National Education Association\"(NEA), Individualized assignments that tap into students' existing skills or interests can be motivating. It states that kids at an elementary school level, can help develop study skills and habits that the child will need later on, as he/she passes onto secondary education. They also state that homework is associated with greater academic achievement, such as kids getting A's on tests and some making it into higher education statues such as the \"honor roll\". In an article published by Doug Gavel from Harvard University, he states in his report that \"The assignment of homework, over time, serves to foster the kinds of qualities that are critical to learning -- persistence, diligence, and the ability to delay gratification,\" she continued. \"These [skills] become increasingly necessary as students graduate to higher levels of scholarship in middle school, high school, and beyond.\" Sitting in a room and simply listening and participating in class activities, sometimes isn't enough. If you want to master the skills and exceed in certain subjects, it takes personal time, and effort at home. School isn't the only place on the Earth where people learn new things. Just like learning a new instrument, you can't become a professional just by going to lessons. You need to take what you've learned, and improve on them at home, or somewhere else that doesn't have the influence of a teacher or guardian. You must take the wheel into your own hands, and drive your own path of knowledge using your own mind and body. For this reason, I urge a pro ballot. It's not beneficial to a students future, if their test scores are dropping due to homework, but knowledge is more important than test scores. Even though test scores are impotant, especially if you want to be accepted into a college. They do not always show the true amount of knowledge a being can have. They are simply numbers, that people use to judge you with, without even knowing much about you. http://www.news.harvard.edu... http://www.nea.org...", "title": "Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student.", "pid": "c6512081-2019-04-18T16:44:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.61172485351562}, {"text": "1) Homework is beneficial because it teaches children useful skills at an early age. It teaches kids responsibility. It is a child's responsibility to make sure his/her homework is completed for the next day. It also teaches children time management because students plan when to complete their homework based on their schedule. 2) You can not compare Japan and Denmark to the United States because although they may not get much homework , their work load during school is far more intense than in America, so that makes it even. C) homework should not be banned from schools.", "title": "should the homework be banned from schools", "pid": "d4ad3156-2019-04-18T15:31:45Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.6048583984375}, {"text": "Even though homework does have a positive impact on the student's academic success, it should be banned because it creates physical and mental exhaustion which leads to negative impacts on the student's health. According to a 2006 study, by Harris Cooper, Duke University Psychology Professor, who focused on the effects of homework towards academic success, stated that not only did his studies demonstrate higher performance levels due to homework, but Cooper's studies also demonstrated, \"that homework can cause physical and emotional fatigue, fuel negative attitudes about learning and limit leisure time for children\" (Cooper 2006). While homework may be improving one's academic success it is also creating physical and mental exhaustion, which impacts the student's attitude towards school, as well as creating physical health problems, high levels of stress, and alienation from society. According to an article published in 2014 by CNN-Health, \"Is Homework Making Your Child Sick,\" a study performed by Denise Pope, from the University of Stanford, on the impacts of homework, found that homework had \"a clear connection between the students' stress and physical impacts -- migraines, ulcers, and other stomach problems, sleep deprivation and exhaustion, and weight loss\" (Pope 2014). Thus, a student's health should come first then their education, as one needs to be living in good health to perform effectively in school and achieve academic success. Moreover, homework should be banned, because school is where the learning occurs and should not be continued at home as it leads to an imbalance in the student's life. According to an article by Stanford News, Stanford Researcher, Denise Pope, performed a study on the effects of homework by which she found that \"many students struggle to find balance between homework, extracurricular activities and social time..many students felt forced or obligated to choose homework over developing other talents or skills\" (Pope 2014). This shows how homework leaves students with no leisure time leading to alienation from society, so it should be banned as this imbalance can come into play affecting their health, as students need a break from the workload at school. Lastly, not only do distractions occur in the classroom, affecting the student's learning environment but students are most distracted at home - with the use of technology/media- and does not allow for effective productivity on the given homework. In an article by Michael Howard, a study was conducted focusing on the student distractions with technology, performed by Dr. Larry Rosen, a psychology professor at California State University Dominguez Hills, found that \"Across all grade levels, 80% of students reported that they switch between studying and technology somewhat often to very often. Rosen calls this \"Continuous Partial Attention,\" meaning that most of the time, students are not focused on studying but rather are moving their attention back and forth between studying and various forms of technology\" (Howard 2015). This demonstrates how distractions can also be found at the home whereas the students are less productive and do not have the time/ability to do homework. These distractions are not only from technology but can also occur with the presence of people - disruptions. From this, students are not able to focus because they are in need of leisure time to rest their working brains from school. That being said, homework should be banned as it has detrimental health effects - physical and mental exhaustion, it leads to an imbalance life with less leisure time leading to alienation from society, and students are not able to work productively due to technological and family distractions at home. How homework can affect your child's health. (2014, March 24). Retrieved March 27, 2018, from http://www.ahchealthenews.com... Enayati, A. (2014, March 21). Is homework making your child sick? Retrieved March 29, 2018, from https://www.cnn.com... Stanford University. (2016, April 16). Stanford research shows pitfalls of homework. Retrieved March 29, 2018, from https://news.stanford.edu... Howard, M. (n.d.). Distracted by Technology: Focusing Attention on Homework. Retrieved March 29, 2018, from https://www.beyondbooksmart.com...", "title": "Homework should be banned.", "pid": "abf49c16-2019-04-18T11:37:52Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.5689697265625}, {"text": "Studies have shown that homework can actually lower test scores. California school districts have already taken steps towards banning homework. Some schools who have, including some schools in Texas have seen 25% increases in their test scores. Not only this, but studies have shown that extracurricular such as musical activities can drastically raise test scores.Not only does banning homework help schools, but not doing so can hurt their students in their studies and in their health. Many students stay up late into the night to complete their work. This can cause attention problems and low quality work. When students are working at home, they could be doing the wrong work. If they practice the wrong way, they will remember it, and do it wrong on the test.If homework is banned, then test scores will rise, students will get more sleep, and will be able to spend more time with their families.", "title": "Homework does more good than harm.", "pid": "93909ee1-2019-04-18T17:40:32Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.4930877685547}, {"text": "Setting homework with the intention of encouraging students to do well at tests is beneficial to students as much as it is to teachers and schools. National tests are a way of assessing whether students are at the level they should be, if they do well on the tests, that is a good thing. Therefore, a 'win' for the teachers and schools is also a great deal of learning for the student, the two need not be separated.", "title": "Homework is about 'winning' on tests, not learning", "pid": "269c4789-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00018-000", "bm25_score": 215.46795654296875}, {"text": "Homework has little educational worth, and therefore is a waste of students' time", "title": "ban homework", "pid": "269c4789-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 215.4597625732422}, {"text": "The first benefit of homework is that it allows students and teachers to work more closely together. They can discuss their assignments or any problems that they are having with parts of their textbooks. The 2nd Benefit of it to prepare for a big test. Doing homework also build up responsibility.", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733befb-2019-04-18T15:36:46Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.4548797607422}, {"text": "Homework can also be a stressful thing. There are children who might not have the proper materials or resources available to complete their homework at home. Some children do not have their parents around for them to get help, and can ask their siblings instead. Homework can also be less important because most problems can be too difficult for the child, resulting in parents or siblings doing the work for them, according to a Huffington Post article. Bombarding children with homework can burn them out at home as well. In an article in HealthLine titled \"Is Too Much Homework Bad for Your Kid's Health?\", it states: \"And all those extra assignments may lead to family stress, especially when parents with limited education aren't confident in their ability to help kids with the work. The researchers reported that family fights about homework were 200 percent more likely when parents didn't have a college degree.\" This will only stress out the child even more. In higher education, homework is a stressor. On the same HealthLine article, it was also stated that: \"In 2013, research conducted at Stanford University found that students in high-achieving communities who spend too much time on homework experience more stress, physical health problems, a lack of balance in their lives, and alienation from society.\" Homework is not necessary. We do not need stressed and tired students. Schoolwork is enough. Even in a college course that I am currently taking (History 7), homework is never issued. All of the material on the exams are presented in our notes. Nothing more, nothing less.", "title": "Ban on homework", "pid": "b9c6a61b-2019-04-18T12:17:26Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.43260192871094}, {"text": "Here is another study for you \"Recent studies in Australia have shown homework to be an unnecessary waste of time.\" This study has shown that there is no benefit at all for kids up to 3rd grade, and very little benefit for kids in grades 4-6, minimal benefits for students in grades 7-9, and some benefit to 10th-12th graders. Could you honestly say that homework is worth the strife that it puts families through for these little results. Particularly towards the start of high school kids have enough chores to do at home as it is, and then adding homework on top of all that can easily cause unnecessary stress. School to kids is the equivalent to a stressful job that many parents have. You wrote that if you only did work in class you wouldn't pass the subject, while that may be true, I said previously that some studying should be done at home as revision for tests. I'm not saying no work should be done at home, I'm saying that teachers should not give homework to students while they already revise, which causes the unnecessary stress I was talking about.", "title": "That Homework is a waste of Time.", "pid": "4c6f94e5-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.41970825195312}, {"text": "Thank you con for your argument. I will now post mine:Contention 1: Homework helps the students learn the material at homeHomework helps students learn the material from school at home. It is useful in keeping them knowledgeable about what the have learned at school, so they can go to class the next day, knowing the material, and being prepared.Contention 2: Homework is useful to help studyHomework helps give the students something to look over and study at home. It gives them notes to help them prepare for a test or quiz.Contention 3: Homework is an good way for students to bring up poor gradesHomework is a really good way for students to bring up bad grades. Usually, homework is worth 10% of your grade. So, for example, if you get a 75% on all your classwork, tests and quizzes, if you do all your homework, and get a 100% in that category, then your grade instead will be an 85%.Thank you. I await my opponent's rebuttals.", "title": "homework", "pid": "6bc9904a-2019-04-18T16:46:57Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.40330505371094}, {"text": "\"Homework is great review that helps students learn.\"There are many alternatives to homework that can simply be done in class.Since teachers want to see if their students understand key concepts, they can put students in groups, with each group creatively demonstrating the concepts in front of the class. Another alternative is giving students short pop quizzes.I often get more homework than classwork. Homework is time-consuming. In fact, in an article from Stanford News, it stated, “spending too much time on homework meant that students were ‘not meeting their developmental needs or cultivating other critical life skills,’ according to the researchers. Students were more likely to drop activities, not see friends or family, and not pursue hobbies they enjoy.” That last sentence is true. I’ve had to miss family meals and activities because of homework.https://news.stanford.edu...", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733c67d-2019-04-18T11:47:10Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.3984832763672}, {"text": "My Position: No homework; homework can cause negative effects.", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733c67d-2019-04-18T11:47:10Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.3894500732422}, {"text": "Homework: the backbone of learning. It is crucial that homework should not be banned. Even the thought is unfounded. Homework should certainly not be banned for many reasons. First of all, homework increases your mental ability. Studies have shown that people who do more homework or studying are more likely to be smarter, rather than the people who don\"t. This unaided just proves why homework is of such great importance. People need to do well in tests, which will help them to get a job in the future. Being intelligent just helps you all through life. Homework makes you cleverer, and if this is the case, why would you want to sanction it\"this impression is just erroneous on so many levels. Continuing on, surveys have even shown that homework dramatically increases your smartness. Furthermore, homework also helps you to work at your own pace. At school, you work at the same pace as everyone around you more or less. When set homework is given to you, it\"s your chance to work independently, giving you many great qualities such as independence (that\"s a given), individuality and much, much more. This is also good because when you get to university you will have great study skills. The skills that homework gives you are vital to your everyday life. Moreover, homework also gives you something stimulating to do. It is imperative to develop good brain patterns when you are young and doing homework can help you to achieve this. It\"s very important that kids spend their time doing something productive and stimulating, otherwise all your brainpower is going to go to waste. When children get home from school, homework prevents them from wasting their lives playing video games and other unhealthy activities. Continuing on, you may argue that sport and other extra-curricular activities such as sport and socialising give your brain the same amount of \"exercise\" as homework, but this is just not spot-on. A fantastic way to stimulate your brain is to do homework. We need a balance between sport, socialising, and education. Homework provides this education. So, evidently, it is clear to see that homework should unquestionably not be banned because it gives you something stimulating to do, improves your mental ability, helps you to work at your own pace and helps maintain an educational balance in your life. Homework: the backbone of learning.", "title": "homework should be banned", "pid": "82c5bb4f-2019-04-18T17:27:44Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.36419677734375}, {"text": "I think that family time is achieved even when a student does have homework. It is when teachers give loads of homework that it becomes a problem. Homework is good for young students and even high school age students because it teaches them good time management and it also teaches them responsibility. Homework helps students develop positive work pattern and helps develop good study skills that each student can use later in life. Homework does give some students stress but without homework, a student's grade would dramatically increase as noted in a study about the effects one school saw when they got rid of homework.", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733c2bc-2019-04-18T13:51:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.35240173339844}, {"text": "Homework is a vital and valuable part of education. There are only a few hours in each school day – not enough time to cover properly all the subjects children need to study. Setting homework extends study beyond school hours, allowing a wider and deeper education. It also makes the best use of teachers, who can spend lesson time teaching rather than just supervising individual work that could be done at home. Tasks such as reading, writing essays, researching, doing maths problems, etc. are best done at home, away from the distractions of other students.", "title": "Homework has little educational worth and adds nothing to the time spent in school. Some schools an...", "pid": "8c35ffbd-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.34475708007812}, {"text": "Homework helps develop a student's study skills; their ability to research a topic on their own. If a student needs help, they can ask questions in class, or develop better note-taking skills or research habits.Homework reinforces thr topics learned in class and sometimes prepares students for future cconcepts, so, if everyone has done their homework, class time can be used to continue on to more advanced topics.Homework allows parents to take a part in the student's education, if they are willing and able. Homework encourages the development of a student's self-discipline since it requires them taking initiative/responsibility for themselves without their hand being held.I am a free tutor, and peer tutoring is often a free route to take; further strengthening relationships in class.", "title": "Homework should be optional", "pid": "49b76b2f-2019-04-18T15:51:00Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.31297302246094}, {"text": "My arguments summed up: Homework is a necessary evil as it assures that students take an effort toward their education outside of school. Homework is just a way for students to exercise their minds are prepare for tests and exams. In moderation, homework can be helpful. And I'v always believed that the main cause of academic strain and stress is caused by exams. Huge tests that hang over your head and force you to study at risk of failure. But that's a different debate. It's been fun.", "title": "Homework Should be Banned", "pid": "2acab7ab-2019-04-18T17:01:31Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.29800415039062}, {"text": "Since you forfeited this round, I think you've been getting to agree with me. So I am not post any arguments for this round.", "title": "Homework does more good than harm.", "pid": "93909ee1-2019-04-18T17:40:32Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.29330444335938}, {"text": "A study by a group of Australian researchers found the average scores of relating to students\" academic performances against the amount of homework dished out at the end of the school day, showed clearly that when more time was spent on homework students were getting lower scores. The research clearly suggested that placing too much homework can cause lower grades and even lead pupils to begin suffering from depression. Therefore, you can give whatever statistic you want but we are basing this on the majority of students and not specific individuals. Homework causes stress but is is just an excuse to be lazy? How sure are you that homework this days are taking so little time? It may be true for you, but again its not about you. It is about the majority of students. Chinese school students especially stay up until 1 in the morning just for the sake of doing their homework which brings me to another point. What point is there in giving homework if all the students are just completing it for the sake of doing it and not for actually gaining the knowledge as you mention? At the end of the day, students will copy off homework from another friend's one and do it for the sake of doing it. What point is there?", "title": "homework brings more good than harm", "pid": "546112c3-2019-04-18T13:30:38Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.289794921875}, {"text": "These are the benefits of having homework The first benefit of homework is that it allows students and teachers to work more closely together. They can discuss their assignments or any problems that they are having with parts of their textbooks, before or after classes. The second benefit is that it can bring families closer together as students may ask their parents or siblings for help on their homework. Not only will this help the students get a better understanding of their work with any parts they are stuck on, it will also allow parents to get more involved in their child's educational life. Thirdly, doing homework will prepare students for the big end tests. If a child does poorly on an assignment then they will learn what is necessary to do well on the next test without being punished. It also provides students with the opportunity to practice at what it takes to be successful in school. Like they say, practice makes perfect. Doing homework is also a great way to develop responsibilities. By being assigned work one day and knowing that it has to be done by the next day, they will develop a sense of punctuality by turning their work in on time. And finally it allows parents to see how their children are being educated and they can develop a better idea of how they can help their child. However, some parents, students and even some teachers feel that after 7-8 hours of lessons in school, it is unfair to expect students to come home and work for another three hours.", "title": "Should Homework Be Banned", "pid": "952deb76-2019-04-18T14:21:08Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.27674865722656}, {"text": "Pro says: \" Being introduced to homework loads will put stress on the student and they will be unable to join these extracurricular and thus will not find out what they actually enjoy. \" First off this decision has nothing to do with extra curricular activities, but to wrap it up there are several activities you can do in your free time, ON THE WEEKENDS! Being pressured in middle school will prepare you for the load in high school, college, and will be a great benefit to prep for tests such as, NWEA, NYS tests math and ELA, and many others. Also, not all kids have pressure of homework, if they are smart they will finish their homework in no time and they will have plenty of time to hang with friends and play games,etc. If not enough time during the week there is always the weekend. As for parents having a hard time they can always hire a tutor, or if they can't afford to do so then they can send their child to extra help, or go to their local library and ask for assistance. As for entering just from elementary, the kids will be introduced to homework load and will have a lot more responsibility. Also not all kids have a curfew, and they will have more experience or begin to experience middle school life. As for Washington Post, homework does have a benefit, it gives you more experience, and knowledge. Also, it helps you get more practice on the topic. According to http://lessonplanspage.com... ten benefits of homework are: - Homework teaches students about time management. -Homework teaches students how to set priorities. -Homework helps teachers determine how well the lessons and material are being understood by their students. -Homework teaches students how to problem solve. -Homework gives students another OPPORTUNITY to review the class material. -Homework gives parents a chance to see what their child is learning in school. -Homework teaches students that they have to do things, even when they don\"t want to. -Homework teaches students how to take responsibility for their part in the educational PROCESS. -Homework teaches students how to work independently. -Homework teaches students the importance of planning, staying organized and taking action.", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733bf77-2019-04-18T14:51:21Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.26815795898438}, {"text": "So For Example, you could say my position of homework is Pro/Con because blank. Have fun and Good Luck! My position on homework is Con, because I think that it causes stress on students and takes time away from extra curricular activities.", "title": "Homework does more good than harm.", "pid": "93909ee1-2019-04-18T17:40:32Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.2620849609375}, {"text": "In my opinion, homework is a waste of time because of its ineffectiveness. Sure, it's good to study for a test every now and then or practice an important presentation you have the next day. I'm talking about the work that teachers give students to study outside of class like reading textbook pages, or completing an online simulator for science; things like that. If teachers really want students to study, they should give them time in class to do so. If they spend too much time rambling about a subject and their students don't have enough time to complete work, complete it the next day. So many teenagers have extracurricular activities that are stressful and time consuming enough. Teachers should evaluate the physical, mental, emotional and social stress homework causes students before assigning hours of it. After extensive research, I am able to conclude that homework doesn't actually help, nor do I, in my opinion think it aids learning in any way.", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733c338-2019-04-18T12:35:44Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.25543212890625}, {"text": "Alright so first things first, I forgot to actually link my source by accident for last round, so here it is: . http://news.stanford.edu... Now for rebuttals: Rebuttal 1: \"However, yes homework can be counterproductive but that is called busy work\". Let\"s define homework shall we. Homework: \"schoolwork that a student is required to do at home. \" No matter what it is, even if you throw around terms like busy work, homework is homework. \"They cite prior research indicating that homework benefits plateau at about two hours per night\", stated from . http://news.stanford.edu... Whether it be homework or your so called \"busy work\", its effectiveness plateaus at around two hours per night. Rebuttal 2: \"this is caused by students with poor time management. \". To a point I agree with you here, but at this point we can\"t really blame the students. If an excess amount of them have these health issues, it gets to a point where we can\"t blame the students. Rebuttal 3: You haven\"t been taking sleep deprivation seriously enough here so let\"s lay down some effects for you: -High blood pressure -Heart attacks -Stroke -Diabeetes -Heart failure So, potentially, homework can kill you. Next, sleep deprivation also plays a role in learning, hurting grades at school. Quoted from webmd, \"Sleep plays a critical role in thinking and learning. Lack of sleep hurts these cognitive processes in many ways. First, it impairs attention, alertness, concentration, reasoning, and problem solving. This makes it more difficult to learn efficiently. \" No doubt about it, homework has its positives, being -(sometimes) improved learning (if given in moderation) -Better performance in the class But cons include -Numerous health conditions that can be caused by the excessive amount of homework given (3.1 hours on average per night) -Homework starting to become counter productive -Struggles learning due to sleep deprivation Last thing, I know I have burden of proof, but can I get a source when you say \"homework can lead to greater memory\" Now let\"s ask ourselves a question. Is somewhat improved learning worth these risks? I leave it at that. Over to you.", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733c240-2019-04-18T14:46:35Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.2369384765625}, {"text": "I'm taking the con lets hear what you got", "title": "Homework is a Good Thing.", "pid": "b3c9295e-2019-04-18T15:39:39Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.21998596191406}, {"text": "Thank you for your welcome, and also your clarification, but I do know what utilitarianism and active & passive mean. While homework does have its benefits, which you mentioned, such as improving student's grades, scores, and futures, the cons of homework far outweigh them. Homework can clarify the subject, but if the concepts have not been learned once class is over, the homework becomes pointless. School is, and kids lives in general are, already immensely stressful without homework. Clear relationships between student's stress and ailments (physical and mental) have been found . I am again going to emphasise that homework should be limited. Though you make an excellent point about time restrictions, many teachers assign time-consuming homework that no one could complete quickly, no matter how intelligent they are or how well they understand the concept. If homework were to be limited to a few nights a week, this would open up more time for kids to be kids. I cannot speak for everyone when I say this, but at my school, we have at least four hours of homework total. Per night. Add in school, extracurriculars, meals, and sleep, and that leaves little to no time for freetime. No matter how well you manage your time, there will always be something that does not fit. If you were to try to squeeze in some freetime, you would most likely end up giving up some sleep, which would impair your performance at school the next day. As most kids enjoy having freetime, this is often the case. Therefore, I must say that, though homework is intended for a good cause (that is, improving ability), the ideals commonly get lost in the stress that balancing the different aspects of your life, and homework becomes more of a burden than a helper. You mentioned that homework benefits teachers, but I would have to differ. Homework does show teachers whether the material is clear or not, but it creates extra work for them (as well as the students). Now they not only have mountains of classwork, tests, and projects to grade, they have to grade daily homework as well. This is more evidence why even just limiting the amounts of homework would be beneficial. As for benefiting the nation, you yourself mentioned that the issue we have does not lie within homework, but rather within emphasis on athleticism. In that way, homework is unrelated, and not the fix for the issue: stronger emphasis on education through something such as more personalised learning is.", "title": "Homework Should be Banned, or at Least Made Optional", "pid": "503cf2fa-2019-04-18T16:18:09Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.193603515625}, {"text": "Having set homework allows for your brain to have a necessary time it needs to memorize it, or 'set it in stone' for want of a better word. The study previously mentioned does not state that children get 'smarter' if they receive homework, but they do reinforce the idea in their mind. During time that will be spent in University, or collage in the states, we will have to study for whichever subject we eventually choose. If we only did work while in class, we would not pass our subject, forget getting a PhD. Homework is simply put 'work for home' and it is, but shouldn't be seen as anything more than revision for what has happened that day. Homework is designed to help the human mind remember more, using a technique called ELC; experiential learning cycle. This shows that we learn things through experiences, or from repeating things we may already know. This is why 'Practice makes Perfect'.", "title": "That Homework is a waste of Time.", "pid": "4c6f94e5-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.1568145751953}, {"text": "I don't understand the silly debate that my opponent has posted but I will continue with my second argument. Onto my first point, that children develop time management and study skills by doing homework. Time management skills and study skills are important part of a students life. Homework is able to benefit them in future life with juggling children and work. Students are able to develop these skills as they have to divide their time to fit homework and other activities such as sport or free time. Without homework where will these skills come from? From a study of professor's Lyn Corno and Jianzhong Xu examined taped sessions with interviews with parents and students. The results found that a third grade student is able to learn responsibility and time management skills. The students interviewed also were able to adjust there study habits and independent learning to suit the demand of a assignment or test. These results were also confirmed by professor David Warton from the UNSW. The results confirm homework benefits you and helps develop study skills as well as life skills. My second point is that homework establishes a communication link between students, teachers and parents. A bond between a student, teacher and parent is very important for the students academic and physical achievements. Parents are able to see the quality of the curriculum and the benefit it is to the student. Not only does homework allow the parent to understand what the student is learning but also develops the relationship and gives time for the parent and student to bond. Without homework would you be spending more time on technology or bonding with your parents? The relationships between parents and teachers is a very important aspect and assisting in the building of the students learning. Teachers and parents are able to communicate at meetings, conferences, phone calls and email. Research shows that the more parents and teachers who share relevant information with each other about the student, the better equipped both will be able to help to that student achieve academically. This shows that parents are more than capable to help students learn. If parents don't understand the curriculum they are able to learn online. Trials at school are starting in Melbourne and consist of an afternoon session were parents are able to be in a learning environment and be educated by teachers to the new curriculum. HOMEWORK IS NOT A CHORE ITS A BRAIN SCORE", "title": "That Homework Should be Banned", "pid": "b7e16db9-2019-04-18T14:29:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.1531982421875}, {"text": "Homework has little educational worth and adds nothing to the time spent in school. Some schools an...", "title": "Homework Should Be Banned", "pid": "8c35ffbd-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 215.14016723632812}, {"text": "As time consuming as excessive homework may seem, it has a number of advantages. Our brain is like any other muscle in the body, it requires constant and tiring practice to grow and develop. Therefore, it is only when we pressurise our brain that actual development will occur. If we forever do only how much we find convenient, our brain growth will stagnate. The amount of homework being given in schools teaches the students the importance of time management and deadlines, prepares them to undertake pressure in their lives, and enables them to become responsible, self-reliant and punctual. Homework given in every subject helps the student evaluate their level of understanding of what was taught at school and know how much harder they are expected to work. Solving a large number of problems of the same and of different kinds sharpens the students brain and prepares them for all possible problems. Homework also helps the student remember concepts in a clearer manner by reinforcing them via direct concept and application based questions. It helps the student summarise all that happened that day at school and reiterate important facts and points.", "title": "should homework be banned/reduced", "pid": "cf422126-2019-04-18T15:04:19Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.13951110839844}, {"text": "Homework encourages students to work more independently (by themselves)", "title": "ban homework", "pid": "269c4789-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.1275634765625}, {"text": "Since this debate is coming to a closing and we\"re at round four, I though I should introduce new evidence to my case. As I've been researching why we should have homework on the weekends, I realized mainly that we should have it because it provides extra brain training over your two-day break so that you will remember what you\"ve learned during to week. To begin here is a list of ten benefits from homework in general. 1.It improves your thinking and memory 2.It helps you develop positive study skills and habits that will serve you well throughout life 3.Homework encourages you to use time wisely 4.It teaches you to work independently 5.Homework teaches you to take responsibility for your work 6.It allows you to review and practice what has been covered in class 7.Homework helps you learn to use resources, such as libraries, reference materials, and computer Web sites to find information 8.It encourages you to explores subjects more fully than classroom time permits 9.It allows you to extend learning by applying skills to new situations 10.It helps you integrate learning by applying many different skills to a single task, such as book reports or science projects (Brought to you by http://blog.eskool.ca...) I would like to thank the people at http://blog.eskool.ca.... That list states an excellent set of benefits from doing homework. Overall it\"s saying that homework prepares you through difficulties in life. With the skills and good habits you obtain from homework it becomes easier to overcome your problems. \"In a study conducted by Hill, Spencer, Alston and Fitzgerald (1986), homework was positively linked to student achievement. They indicate that homework is an inexpensive method of improving student academic preparation without increasing staff or modifying curriculum. \"So, as the pressure to improve test scores continues to increase, so does the emphasis on homework\"\" (Brought to you by http://www.studentpulse.com...) There is the evidence folks, and like I said before it helps people overcome their problems and to achieve goals such as higher test score (also known as growth in education) to help society function correctly, and with a wise mind. If you don\"t believe me about this test here is another test conducted carried out by the researchers at Duke University. \" DURHAM, N.C. - It turns out that parents are right to nag: To succeed in school, kids should do their homework. Duke University researchers have reviewed more than 60 research studies on homework between 1987 and 2003 and concluded that homework does have a positive effect on student achievement. Harris Cooper, a professor of psychology and director of Duke's Program in Education, said the research synthesis that he led showed the positive correlation was much stronger for secondary students --- those in grades 7 through 12 --- than those in elementary school. \"With only rare exception, the relationship between the amount of homework students do and their achievement outcomes was found to be positive and statistically significant,\" the researchers report in a paper that appears in the spring 2006 edition of \"Review of Educational Research.\"\" Cooper is the lead author; Jorgianne Civey Robinson, a Ph.D. student in psychology, and Erika Patall, a graduate student in psychology, are co-authors. (Brought to you by http://today.duke.edu...) Once again readers, there is the evidence that homework is beneficial. Therefore, there is no reason for it not to be beneficial on weekends. Ultimately, homework given to students on the weekend is beneficial. If I still do not have you on board with my side I suggest reading this extra evidence. Homework set prior to a lesson can aid understanding later in class. Homework also provides opportunities for reinforcement of work learned during school time and for children to develop their research skills. Children will need to seek information for themselves from reference materials such as encyclopaedias, books, CD ROMs and by doing so, are helped along the path to becoming independent learners. Having the responsibility of needing to meet deadlines promotes self-discipline, an attribute that will impact on schoolwork and beyond. (Brought to you by http://www.topmarks.co.uk...) Thank you everyone for staying tuned in on my side of the case for: whether or not students should have homework over the weekends. Yes they should. Hey, I appreciate everything you guys and hope to for the final round of this debate to wrap up my argument with an overall conclusion of my case and how this, being my first debate, has been. Once again thank you.", "title": "should Students be given homework during the weekends", "pid": "ea4173a6-2019-04-18T17:11:07Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.11190795898438}, {"text": "Homework has little educational worth and adds nothing to the time spent in school. Some schools and some countries don't bother with homework at all, and their results do not seem to suffer from it. Studies show that homework adds nothing to standardised test scores for primary/ elementary pupils. International comparisons of older students have found no positive relationship between the amount of homework set and average test scores. If anything, countries with more homework got worse results next Homework is almost always done when a child is already tired from a long day at school. As a result few students are at their best when they sit down in the evening to yet more work. Homework ends up being done in a hurry, by students fighting fatigue, and poor quality work is produced. Worse still, students who have been up late trying to finish off their homework, then come tired into school the next day, and so are less ready to learn. Really, what is the point? Setting homework does little to develop good study skills. It is hard to check whether the homework students produce is really their own. Some students have always copied off others or got their parents to help them. But today there is so much material available on the internet that teachers can never be sure. It would be better to have a mixture of activities in the classroom which help students to develop a whole range of skills, including independent learning.", "title": "Should homework be banned", "pid": "27354bd7-2019-04-18T18:33:09Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.1045379638672}, {"text": "1st Assertion: Homework does put pressure on kids, but pressure is not always bad. Pressure can push people to do better, and that includes performance on tests. As proof, Let us look at some studies. \"The results of such studies suggest that homework can improve students’ scores on the class tests that come at the end of a topic\" http://www.sedl.org... Another important note is that \"However, 35 less rigorous (correlational) studies suggest little or no relationship between homework and achievement for elementary school students.\" http://www.sedl.org... It is somewhat difficult to prove that homework is the cause of lower test scores. Plus, this seems to vary from individual to individual. This explains why studies show different results. 2nd Assertion: There are many factors that cause stress and depression. Homework alone is not the reason. Also, stress can be healthy as well and is not all bad. “Stress doesn't just motivate us to get things done. Short bouts of it may actually boost the immune system and protect against one type of cancer, according to researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who were able to show the effects using stressed out laboratory mice.” http://phys.org... 3rd Assertion: There are many factors that cause students to drop out. Some have family issues. Some are struggling with bullying, and others are struggling with their health or peer pressure. If students get too much homework, it is a bad thing. Since we are arguing about homework overall, one cannot say that homework is bad. Too much homework is bad, but moderation is key. Too much homework is bad, but that does not mean all homework is bad. 4h Assertion: Just as homework can take away from extra-curricular activities, those activities can take away from homework. Homework, as long as it is not just busywork, can serve as great review. Homework can also be used to further understand the material. Many students need exposure in the classroom as well as at home. Many times, students understand the material at school, but need to be exposed at home as well in order to reinforce this exposure and contribute to better comprehension. Having to juggle activities, family, and homework is a good life lesson. When students enter the \"real world,\" they have to learn to juggle many things in their life. Thus, keeping homework and other activities aids in this very important ability to juggle what life throws at people. 5th Assertion: Cheating happens in life overall. There's cheating everywhere, but that does not mean get rid of certain activities. People cheat in games, school, work, etc., but we don't get rid of these things because they're a beneficial part of life. tress doesn't just motivate us to get things done. Short bouts of it may actually boost the immune system and protect against one type of cancer, according to researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who were able to show the effects using stressed out laboratory mice. Read more at: http://phys.org... Stress doesn't just motivate us to get things done. Short bouts of it may actually boost the immune system and protect against one type of cancer, according to researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who were able to show the effects using stressed out laboratory mice. Read more at: http://phys.org... Stress doesn't just motivate us to get things done. Short bouts of it may actually boost the immune system and protect against one type of cancer, according to researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who were able to show the effects using stressed out laboratory mice. Read more at: http://phys.org... Stress doesn't just motivate us to get things done. Short bouts of it may actually boost the immune system and protect against one type of cancer, according to researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who were able to show the effects using stressed out laboratory mice. Read more at: http://phys.org...", "title": "Teacher given HW does more harm than good", "pid": "e2d7ec45-2019-04-18T17:00:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.09988403320312}, {"text": "Hello there, please forgive any grammer issues as this is my first online debate. I do think homework is good. The reason I think this way is because it is intended as a means to keep the learning of a subject fresh in the students mind for as long as possible. It also gives parents opportunities to further connect with their childs intellect and provide their own insights and ideas thus helping them progress through difficult situations with perhaps an alternative option of solving a problem. I'm long past the age of homework now (don't laugh) but I know I hated it, I know it seemed like a chore and a waste of time but I do believe it helped shaped my intellect for the better in grown up years.", "title": "Is homework good", "pid": "bc9ca527-2019-04-18T14:21:38Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.09732055664062}, {"text": "Homework helps to reinforce the ideas learnt at school, as well as to help students get used to the idea of always having work to do, such as adults do in the 'Real world'. It can be said that homework is a 'waste of Time' because it is seen as 'more work at the end of the day' or 'that the work should be done at school, if it needs to be done at all.' The purpose of homework is not to give the child 'more work', but to reinforce all the ideas taught to the student that day. Studies done in 2006 report that doing homework resulted in a 26% increase in grades. This SHOWS the productive and positive affects of doing homework.", "title": "That Homework is a waste of Time.", "pid": "4c6f94e5-2019-04-18T15:09:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.07601928710938}, {"text": "Homework is something most students dread. It is time consuming and often very very difficult. Many kids have after school programs and that can get in the way of having time for homework, students may be up all night sometimes not even getting any sleep which can result in a drop in grades and overall performance, in school to just being social. Homework causes a lot of stress as well and stress has been proven to kill more people then pneumonitis in a year. Homework can cause more than physical health damage. As a child with a growing mind and a growing understanding of the world, you need free time, to explore, to play, to learn new things about the world, to go out and do things, and homework takes away from a lot of the time kids have to do those things", "title": "Is homework good for students", "pid": "6851beca-2019-04-18T12:14:03Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.06280517578125}, {"text": "Let's begin! Research shows that homework is great. Kids to better if their grade was partly homework <1>. It is extremely beneficial to kids. Homework provides a way to review concepts learned in class <2>. \"A typical homework-completing high school student will outperform students who do not do homework by 69% on standardized tests. \" ~ . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... . Homework teaches discipline <3>. Critical thinking is improved. Homework helps kid learn study habits and teaches time management. Homework also teaches responsibility and develops a concern in studies <4>. Homework gives a chance for students review or learn concepts that they either did not understand or if they missed the class <5>. <1> . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... <2> . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... <3> . http://lrs.ed.uiuc.edu... <4> . http://www.forandagainst.com... <5> . http://www.family-homework-answers.com... We all know that parents dislike their kids when they jump on the couch, scream, or run around the house breaking some items along the way. Homework solves the problem of breaking items. If homework is not banned, items around the house would not be as broken as if homework was banned. ==> Conclusion After reading these arguments, I hope that you can understand why homework is beneficial. I have nothing to refute and defend, so I will conclude my side of Round 2. Thank you and happy holidays! Sincerely, Yami Yugi", "title": "Homework should be banned", "pid": "68a4cf31-2019-04-18T18:58:34Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 215.05650329589844}, {"text": "I agree no one enjoys homework and it is good for is in the long run but some teachers don't teach much at all in class and give you truck loads of homework and its only the start of the school year for me. I'm only in 8th grade and I'm getting stuff my parents aren't that good at. It just shows how different our countries are. Not only does it cause stress it gives you sleep deprivation. Plus we don't really do our homework by ourselves if you think of it. There is the Internet ( Google, wikipedia, ninemsn, yahoo ect ) we just get onto one of those search engines type in the main words and there it is. So we just write it in our book or type it up. Another thing to our parents may help us. Even though stress comes in at some point we still kind of aren't doing it ourselves. Plus it's not just us with the sleepless nights and stress our families come into it as well. My parents are sometimes up all hours helping me. Homework also doesn't allow us to be teenagers and have fun. Is our idea of a fun weekend sitting at home doing maths homework ? I don't think so its taking us away from being social and having fun. Some studies also show that overload of homework isn't associated in higher grades. Also everyone would like to be correct in what they are doing because we need good grades to get somewhere good in life. Homework is good to an extent but an overload isn't good for us.", "title": "Homework Hinders Learning", "pid": "acf20e3-2019-04-18T19:29:41Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.0517578125}, {"text": "Homework isn't just time-consuming. A study proved that homework can cause anxiety, anger, etcetera (1). Also, it is often said that homework increases grades, but data from the TIMSS showed that the correlation between achievement and the teachers who used homework in grading are negative (1). You say homework should be given when students are struggling. Homework is done at home, away from the person who is most familiar with the curricular requirements and key concepts-the teacher. Parents' assistance might not work; homework causes conflict in a third of families (2). Instead, students can ask their teacher for academic help. In middle and high schools, it can be during study hall. In elementary schools, it can be during class or recess. (1) https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au... (2) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733c67d-2019-04-18T11:47:10Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.0452117919922}, {"text": "I negate the resolution which states Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student. Definitions- large-of considerable or relatively great size, extent, or capacity beneficial-favorable or advantageous; resulting in good homework-schoolwork that a student is required to do at home student-a person who is studying at a school or college", "title": "Resolved: Large amounts of homework are beneficial to the student.", "pid": "c6512081-2019-04-18T16:44:37Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.03468322753906}, {"text": "Does homework help the learning process?", "title": "homework", "pid": "d686eda-2019-04-18T12:57:55Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.029052734375}, {"text": "Due to my opponent's failure to post any follow-up arguments, I will end this debate by stating that homework should be given in school because it is more helpful than harmful.", "title": "homework should be given", "pid": "f9c95d4e-2019-04-18T15:27:16Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.02230834960938}, {"text": "I accept, I will be arguing that homework is valuable.", "title": "Homework given to students' by teachers is a waste of time.", "pid": "c217bb47-2019-04-18T13:11:35Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.018798828125}, {"text": "Homework is an essential part of education, allowing students to learn information beyond that which they are taught at school.", "title": "ban homework", "pid": "269c4789-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.00453186035156}, {"text": "Homework should be banned from the education system because it has detrimental health effects. School work does not certainly make a student perform better in their studies, but it does affect a student's physical and mental health. According to the Advocate Health Care News, an article was published in 2014 on a study performed by Denise Pope from the University of Stanford, on the effects of homework. The study found \"Too much homework was found to be counterproductive. In a poll, 56 percent of students attributed any stress in their lives to too much homework. Less than 1 percent of students said that homework was not a stressor.When asked how homework affects them, students reported lack of sleep, headaches, exhaustion and stomach problems\" (Pope 2014). This demonstrates how homework is a stress factor that impacts one's sleep and eating habits, which can lead to serious health effects. In other words, the amount of time spent on homework can cause sleep deprivation which can affect their school performance and mental health, as well as cause eating disorders leading to an overall effect in their physical state. Overall, homework should be banned as it can affect one's health, leading to impacts on their academic performance and causing life-threatening health problems. How homework can affect your child's health. (2014, March 24). Retrieved March 25, 2018, from http://www.ahchealthenews.com...", "title": "Homework should be banned.", "pid": "abf49c16-2019-04-18T11:37:52Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.00277709960938}, {"text": "My point of contention is that homework can be very beneficial given the right balance between the amount of homework and time available for students to complete it. I'm not sure how exactly to respond to your point about children having to do too much of it, as I don't know the country that you're based in or and I also don't know how you define a substantial amount of homework. These are the reasons why I think that it is beneficial and is not a waste of time if the above criteria is met: 1. It allows for the development of time management skills within students, since they have to manage their homework with the time constraints given. The source cited states that homework is important in the process of self regulation and control. [1] 2. Homework forces students to apply the knowledge that they learned in the classroom, which is especially important for development of intellect, as being able to apply knowledge of a given topic is what allows you to utilize it within your everyday life. While you may not be able to directly apply trigonometry into your life, the type of thought processes that mathematics hinges on can give students a better ability apply study skills in their everyday lives. [2] 3. Homework reinforces education, which while may not be directly applicable, it is crucially important for survival in an increasingly modern economic marketplace. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has data that shows that the unemployment rate increases 3.25 times when comparing people over 25 with a doctoral degree and those who only have a high school diploma (1.6% to 5.2%). It also shows that the difference between these two groups when it comes to full time weekly earnings is that those with a high school diploma earn 2.41 times less than those with a doctoral degree. [3] 4. There is also a link between the amount of education one has and their estimated IQ. While IQ may not be the end-all-be-all determiner of intelligence, it gives us a good idea of one's general intellectual capabilities. On page 63 of Coming Apart, Charles Murray displays a graph that shows that the difference between those who don't have a degree and those with a high school diploma is 11 and 12 (82-89, 05-09), and the difference between those with a diploma and a PHD or its equivalents are 27 and 25 respectively, this shows that there are relatively significant differences in IQ between people who have radically different amounts of education. [4] Sources: [1]- Ramdass, D., & Zimmerman, B. (2011, December). Developing Self-Regulation Skills: The Important Role of Homework. Retrieved November 17, 2017, from http://www.davidsongifted.org... Journal of Advanced Academics, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 194-218 [2]- Y. Sagher, M. V. Siadat, and L. Hagedorn, Building study skills in a college mathematics classroom, The Journal of General Education 49(2) (2000), 132\"155. [3]- The NLSY79. (n.d.). Retrieved November 17, 2017, from https://www.bls.gov... [4]- ONeill, William L. Coming apart: an informal history of America in the 1960s: with a new introduction by the author. Ivan R. Dee, 2005. Pg. 63 I wish the best of luck to you in this debate! I think that this is the first debate on this website for both of us.", "title": "Does homework have any benefits", "pid": "d15e57c3-2019-04-18T11:59:31Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.9861602783203}, {"text": "Although you personally believe that homework is a waste of time, I have demonstrated that it has merits which make keeping it worthwhile. You did not demonstrate that removing homework has benefits outside of your own personal case.Thank you for the debate, and keep at it! Like many other things, if you want to get better, you have to keep practicing. Well met!", "title": "We need to get rid of homework", "pid": "2439be89-2019-04-18T16:47:44Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.9811248779297}, {"text": "Homework is not intended to last you several hours. They base home studies on your evaluated intellectual level. If it is taking them all night to finish a piece of work then either they have left everything until the last minute (exactly what I used to do as a kid) or they are struggling to grasp the homework's concept. The latter proves a lack of understanding which is good because they can focus on improving that particular module with a teachers aid. Kid's typically have more than enough time to themselves after they complete homework if they are not having problems with it. But having problems and sorting those problems out is a part of your personal development.", "title": "Is homework good", "pid": "bc9ca527-2019-04-18T14:21:38Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.9732666015625}, {"text": "I'll be taking the side of Pro. First Round is Acceptance ONLY. No Arguments.", "title": "Homework is a Good Thing.", "pid": "b3c9295e-2019-04-18T15:39:39Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.97117614746094}, {"text": "To my mind our debate is not about size of homework, therefore we cannot talk about too much homework. However, I believe that doing homework will not make you \"smarter,\" but it will teach you how to use the \"smarts\" that you have in your brain already - doing homework makes you faster and better at doing other things.Homework is something that we all need. Homework helps us develop a work ethic and get better grades. Homework can be a good and bad thing. Homework shouldnt be stacked on top of each other but planned out from teacher to teacher. Moreover, to conclude I would like to add that Im a student who relies on homework to help me out on grades and preparing for tests. So, I totally believe that all students have to do homework in order to at least develop their skills.", "title": "Homework is a waste of time", "pid": "6013441c-2019-04-18T16:58:33Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.9573516845703}, {"text": "Homework has a lot of educational value, the reason it has not shown this is because teachers do not set the right kind of homework or they set the wrong amount of it. Some teachers believe homework is for reviewing material, others think it is better for learning new concepts. The result is 'confusion for students'.1 If the homework was consistent however, and related specifically to what is learnt in the classroom, it would have a great deal of educational value by helping them remember their lessons and increase students' confidence in how much they are learning. Furthermore, Professor Cooper of Duke University has shown that by the high schools years, there is a strong and positive relationship between homework and how well students do at school. There are two main reasons why this relationship does not appear in elementary school: 1) Elementary school teachers assign homework not so much to enhance learning, but in order to encourage the development of good study skills and time management;2 2) young children have less developed cognitive skills to focus and concentrate on their work.3 Thus, they are more easily distracted from their homework assignments. 1 Strauss, 2006 2 Muhlenbruck, Cooper, Nye, & Lindsey, 2000 3Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2001", "title": "Homework has little educational worth, and therefore is a waste of students' time", "pid": "269c4789-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 214.92794799804688}, {"text": "Thank you for bringing up this topic, as I will be quite happy to refute your arguements. Although your topic is not quite clear, I shall believe that as I am pro, I am saying that homework is good. Homework, especially in America, is a fundamental part of children's education. It is a necessary tool to go over what they learned during class. Most, if not all, of classes need to review topics. Listening and taking notes is not enough in school. If children do not have homework, would they actually go over notes? Would they really find worksheets to fill in, projects to make, essays to write, and problems to solve? Unless their parents enforce their kids to do work, if homework was optional, at least 90% of kids wouldn't do homework! Even for the children who WOULD do the homework, homework is an essential guide that leads them to success on their next test or quiz. To sum it up, homework is a necessary tool, most children wouldn't do homework if it was optional, and it will make them better students.", "title": "Homework", "pid": "cf3337ae-2019-04-18T18:36:24Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.92027282714844}, {"text": "my opponent argues that homework should not be given because of the fact that after school hours, the time should be spent for family to converse and do other activities together. however, it is in my opinion that and belief that homework is not only a way for families to come together, but also for a one-on-one interaction between the parent and the child. the parents can help the child with said homework, thus spending time with the kid, and also the kid is learning at the same time. next i think homework is beneficial because it helps students practice what they learned in school, thus helping them learn and understand the materials covered. it helps them make sure they can do it by themselves, but also gives them responsibility skills of actually doing it when told. if you are at a job after you graduate, and your boss says do something at home, and you have a family, it is the same principle of doing homework. the only difference is one is by a boss, the other by a teacher", "title": "We should ban homework", "pid": "76fe7ef5-2019-04-18T16:54:29Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.91192626953125}, {"text": "Since my opponent failed to rebut the previous argument I presented, let me just proceed with my next argument. Homework is time consuming . It's not just simply time consuming. It takes up the time of the students which should have been allotted for recreational activities which will help develop his/her personality. Another thing, it becomes a reason on why students feel sleepy during class discussions . Why? Because it takes time and with the urge to finish this thing, students tend to sleep late at night. Consequently, the student comes to school late and worst, learns nothing at all because his attention is not focused on the lesson because he's feeling so sleepy", "title": "We should ban homework", "pid": "76fe7ef5-2019-04-18T16:54:29Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.89093017578125}, {"text": "Having homework also allows students to really fix in their heads work they have done in school. Doing tasks linked to recent lessons helps students strengthen their understanding and become more confident in using new knowledge and skills. For younger children this could be practising reading or multiplication tables. For older ones it might be writing up an experiment, revising for a test and reading in preparation for the next topic. Professor Cooper of Duke University, has found that there is evidence that in elementary school students do better on tests when they do short homework assignments related to the test 1. Students gain confidence from such practise, and that shows when they sit the tests. 1 Strauss, 2006", "title": "Homework ensures that students practise what they are taught at school", "pid": "269c4789-2019-04-15T20:24:11Z-00025-000", "bm25_score": 214.88397216796875}, {"text": "I agree that homework can be a struggle, but it is important because it helps to retain the knowledge of what you did in class. If you only do things once in class, and never anywhere else then you are less likely to understand and remember the information.", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733bf39-2019-04-18T15:25:58Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.87698364257812}, {"text": "I am there fore realizing my opponent has forfeited.. here is my argument for round 2# Homework helps you catch up on work at home that u did not do at school also it is a great way to study also if u look up you will see that no homework,no grades thing ends up saying no you do your homework or u will die We shouldn't ban it but moderate better so that they have plenty of time to relax but still learn more. Plus in later life you get homework from your job so you better get used to it, so when the time comes you will be ready. Seriously, homework is good for you. You can catch up in class and it helps you improve. Homework is a good way of studying. reasons why homeworks are good 1) Homework allows you to consolidate what you have learnt for the day. 2) It gives you an early warning if you do not understand a concept or something previously taught. 3) Homework appeases parents. 4) It gives teachers something to do. 5) Practice Practice Practice! Consistently doing homework means that you don't have to study that much for tests. 6) Prepares children for working life by having deadlines. 7) Cultivates responsibility in students. 8) You can actually do your homework in class instead of complaining so you don't have to do it at home. thank you lovedebate11", "title": "home works should be reduced", "pid": "f54bb389-2019-04-18T18:08:32Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.8761444091797}, {"text": "As this is the last round of the debate, I will give a few more points to prove that homework should not be banned. Some of the reasons why homework is important are; it helps for more rapid progress in learning, it can form an important part in the pupil\"s notes, it helps in long term research, and it is good for introverts who may be unable to ask questions in class. The purpose of homework is to help you learn and practice what was taught in class or to gain information by reading and answering questions. As you can definitely see from the above mentioned points, home work is a very important part of our studies. Take myself for an example; I am a introvert but I have managed to convey my knowledge through homework. As it has been very useful for me, I do not see why it cannot do the same for others too. In addition to helping you practice what you have studied or learned at school, homework prepares and helps you to use resources such as encyclopedias, books and the Internet which help you to find information for your homework/research projects. When you complete homework independently, you actually become independent. Homework is a sense of independence, responsibility and self discipline and it can bring home and school closer together. As we know, homework is not to be done and forgotten about. It has a deadline: this will teach you that completing a task on time is very important. This thing called homework also gives your parents a greater opportunity to participate in your education. Now, don\"t you think that the reward is the practice that you get (which will allow you to do well)? Homework is indeed a good practice for success in life, so be sure to complete it and turn it in on time. After reading all these points, I hope that you will agree with me that homework is very important and thus should not be banned. With that, I rest my case.", "title": "Homework should be banned", "pid": "68a4cf8e-2019-04-18T17:19:01Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.8522491455078}, {"text": "Hello, I will be proving why homework should not be banned. I'll make my own arguments here in Round 1.1. Homework provides an opportunity for parents to interact with and understand the content their students are learning so they can provide another means of academic support for students. [1] Also, teachers give out homework not for students to do work and learn, but instead to see if the way they teach the material is successful so they can get the best knowledge in school. [2] 2. The recommended amount of homework depends on grade level.“Does Homework Improve Academic Achievement?” also identifies the amount homework that serves as a learning tool for students. While practice improves test scores at all grade levels, “Homework for junior high students appears to reach the point of diminishing returns after about 90 minutes a night. For high school students, the positive line continues to climb until between 90 minutes and 2.5 hours of homework a night, after which returns diminish.” [1]3. Homework is basically testing, but you have a longer time to finish it.Homework is just like tests, quizzes, etc.. It's also usually significantly easier than tests, as tests are about if you have learned all of the material and remembered it all. If you did, you'll get a good grade. Just like homework. There's no negativity here. Sure, you're wasting precious time so you can get yourself glued to your phone or T.V., but at least you're showing that you're improving. There have been multiple cases of teachers finding different ways to teach or urge to do your homework if homework grades aren't done or aren't having a good grade most of the time. And this works successfully. That's why homework should not be banned.Sources:[1] https://education.cu-portland.edu...[2] http://lessonplanspage.com...;", "title": "Homework should be banned", "pid": "abf51f98-2019-04-18T11:54:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.85215759277344}, {"text": "Everyone HATES homework. I do too. It doesn't mean homework doesn't help. First off, homework teaches time management. If you do sports and stuff AND have homework you have to manage your time wisely. Second of all, it teaches responsibility. If you forget it, you have to learn that there are consequences and take your punishment. And homework is there to help you review the topics you learned so you don't forget a topic after class. Plus it's scientifically proven it helps. You just got beat!", "title": "Homework", "pid": "1733c29d-2019-04-18T14:10:58Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.83802795410156}, {"text": "It is a fact that In a normal class you learn about 20% of the information presented. It is necessary that kids have homework to reinforce those knowledge and teachings that they had earlier in the classroom. If not the teacher would spend more time in next class reinforcing the knowledge that they should had reinforced. And, well let's deal with it, an average kid stays all afternoon procrastinating, they should have a goal in the afternoon. Some people may say that procrastinating leads to experimentation in drugs, violence and even pornography. So the question here, What do you prefer? Some extra time procrastinating that may lead you to illicit activities and have more time at school or try to have a goal in your noon and learn more and more each day. Lets go to a greater future not to a worse one!", "title": "Homework is a Waste of Time", "pid": "9110203b-2019-04-18T16:55:01Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.8328094482422}, {"text": "I think I won this debate because you have committed several logical fallacies and you have not provided any evidence as to why a simple thing like homework should be made illegal. Furthermore, I'd like to assert that homework in moderation is an essential part of education and helps students grow their brains at a time when they would normally be playing video games. I did answer your question. Poor sleep routines are not the responsibility of the school, but the responsibility of the student. I don't know how which side of the world you reside in relates to how much homework you should be given. I believe that education is essential in all countries. As an American citizen, I think that homework is better than extracurricular activities. Extracurricular activities are fine in their own right, but homework should always be made a priority. Also, sports are not essential to the development of the body. People should focus more on the development of the mind.", "title": "Ban Homework!", "pid": "7c899e50-2019-04-18T11:40:11Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.82806396484375}, {"text": "The basic objective of homework is what school is designed for in the first place: to increase your knowledge and IMPROVE your intelligence. Homework, classwork, and projects improve your sense of responsibility, and provide a real time report of your progress in class. Homework can reveal weak areas in individuals, and even in the class in general. Homework, classwork, and projects improve cooperation between students and in some cases builds teamwork, they can reveal weak areas in individuals or in the class as a whole, and can alert teachers to who learns how and may teach them to teach more intelligent students more efficiently. My opponent has forfeited round 3, but I just wanted to reiterate my point. Regardless of whether or not you actually like to DO homework- which I never really did in school- you should understand that it is a better method of teaching than limiting grades to test scores or giving more importance to test scores rather than to habitual progress, completion of work, and demonstration of understanding and progressive learning. I rest my case.", "title": "RESOLVED: Intelligence should determine grades more so than Effort in School", "pid": "3c682384-2019-04-18T19:37:24Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.82579040527344}, {"text": "Homework should not be banned from the education system because, although school is where the teaching is given, the understanding occurs at home; independently. Homework boosts children's self-esteem, teaches responsible habits, allows them to be independent thinkers, teaches time management, and allows for more learning opportunities. As stated by Bonnie Terry Learning, board-certified educational therapist #10167 known as America's leading learning specialist, Regular accomplishments like finishing homework build self-esteem, which aids students\" mental and physical health. When children complete a homework assignment, they feel better about themselves, thus, improving their self-esteem; they feel worthwhile. Self-esteem, confidence, friendship, problem-solving are all part of every human\"s basic needs, as seen in Abraham Maslow\"s Hierarchy of Needs. According to Maslow, psychiatrist and psychology professor, once an individual meets their basic human needs, they are able to move on to the next step where one achieves self-actualization (morality, creativity, acceptance of facts, problem-solving, etc). Once here, they are able to learn more effectively and even develop skills as accomplishment, achievement, and responsibility. As stated by Cathy Vatterott, writer for Association for Middle-Level Education (AMLE) on September 2017, many teachers may often say that homework teaches responsibility because it demonstrates that the student is capable of receiving a task and completing such task within a certain amount of time. Aside from homework encouraging responsibility for work ethic, the students take responsibility for their learning. When properly designed, homework encourages students to reflect on their learning and self-evaluate whether or not they understood the concept. By doing so, students gain independence through the efforts they display(AMLE). Dr. Sam Goldstein and Dr. Sydney Zentall, Adjunct Assistant Professor at the University of Utah School of Medicine and professor of Special Education at Purdue University, explains to parents at that Fostering independence is accomplished by moving [their] child from dependence on [the parent] to dependence on homework buddies and material resources for the Learning Disabilities Associaton of America (LDA). Homework is the first step for children to have opportunities to make their own choices, to make plans, and to set goals. By doing so, students become independent learner which is a critical skill through all years of higher education. Being an independent, responsible student ties in with having good time management skills. On October 20, 2014, Brian Sztabnik\"s Homework: Helping Students Manage their Time elaborates on how, with good time management, students know how much time they have, how long it will take to get assignments done, and what they can accomplish in the time they have. By doing so, students have more breathing room, which reduces the feeling of being rushed, which then leads to less frustration and stress (which of course is bad for one\"s health). Although there are distractions at home, the distractions at school are worse. Rosen\"s \"Continuous Partial Attention\" is defined as students\" lack of focus because of the constant interaction between them and their technology (Howard). Because of Continuous Partial Attention, children aren\"t able to focus in class because of technology and their peers. Banning homework would only take away students\" opportunity to learn outside of the distracting classroom environment. Homework. (2013). AMLE - Association for Middle Level Education. Retrieved 30 March 2018, from https://www.amle.org... Howard, M. (2018). Distracted by Technology: Focusing Attention on Homework. Beyondbooksmart.com. Retrieved 30 March 2018, from https://www.beyondbooksmart.com... How Homework Can Help Build Kid's Self-Esteem and Confidence. (2018). Bonnie Terry Learning. Retrieved 30 March 2018, from https://www.bonnieterrylearning.com... Developing Self-Regulation Skills: The Important Role of Homework. (2018). Davidsongifted.org. Retrieved 30 March 2018, from https://www.davidsongifted.org... Homework: Helping Students Manage their Time | Edutopia. (2018). Edutopia. Retrieved 30 March 2018, from https://www.edutopia.org... Morgan, H. (2018). Helping Your Child Gain Independence with Homework. Learning Disabilities Association of America. Retrieved 30 March 2018, from https://ldaamerica.org...", "title": "Homework should be banned.", "pid": "abf49c16-2019-04-18T11:37:52Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.81280517578125}, {"text": "If you truly feel that the homework you are being given is not beneficial to your education, then you should try to do something about it. Bring it up to your parents first, get their opinion. You will have to have some valid points as to why it isn't beneficial. Also, try to come up with something that would be more beneficial, because homework isn't going anywhere buddy, not for any of us.", "title": "Homework should be banned", "pid": "68a4d00a-2019-04-18T16:43:31Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.80990600585938}, {"text": "Homework should be optional for students to complete in school. Homework, although useful for practicing the skills taught in class, has been shown to cause depression, stress (1), and even physical problems such as migraines, stomach problems, weight loss, and sleep deprivation (2). In a study conducted by a Stanford researcher involving high school students who lived in upper-middle class communities, 56% of the students considered homework a primary source of stress (3). In most schools, homework counts as a large part of students' final grades, which explains why it can be so stressful. If homework wasn't counted as part of students' final grades, we wouldn't have to worry about it so much and our health in general would improve. Those are some reasons why homework should be optional. (1) http://factualfacts.com... (2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (3) http://news.stanford.edu...", "title": "Homework should be optional in schools", "pid": "6bd18767-2019-04-18T14:33:51Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.80908203125}]}
{"idx": 46, "qid": "48", "q_text": "Should the voting age be lowered?", "qrels": {"91505a99-2019-04-18T18:58:09Z-00001-000": 0, "89b9ae07-2019-04-18T15:38:42Z-00005-000": 0, "750f1586-2019-04-18T19:47:50Z-00002-000": 0, "9860f93c-2019-04-17T11:47:22Z-00015-000": 0, "6ead9505-2019-04-18T18:25:41Z-00000-000": 2, "6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00005-000": 2, "abb42382-2019-04-18T16:14:47Z-00002-000": 2, "a7acd758-2019-04-18T19:54:02Z-00003-000": 2, "a6f23d50-2019-04-18T13:31:49Z-00001-000": 0, "a06594ff-2019-04-18T16:07:04Z-00002-000": 0, "9247b1e1-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00005-000": 0, "6ead9505-2019-04-18T18:25:41Z-00001-000": 0, "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00006-000": 2, "a06594ff-2019-04-18T16:07:04Z-00003-000": 0, "357d3b4f-2019-04-18T20:02:49Z-00000-000": 0, "20d72cd0-2019-04-18T17:05:46Z-00004-000": 0, "2045b810-2019-04-18T19:12:56Z-00000-000": 0, "2045b810-2019-04-18T19:12:56Z-00001-000": 0, "992b0216-2019-04-18T14:30:54Z-00003-000": 0, "1aa97ae9-2019-04-18T15:32:46Z-00003-000": 0, "1a514fda-2019-04-17T11:47:23Z-00000-000": 0, "db06427c-2019-04-18T11:49:34Z-00004-000": 0, "e76f7b80-2019-04-18T18:21:51Z-00002-000": 0, "62414d26-2019-04-18T14:01:41Z-00005-000": 0, "1997960a-2019-04-18T16:54:30Z-00003-000": 0, "12e9a897-2019-04-18T19:45:48Z-00004-000": 1, "a06594ff-2019-04-18T16:07:04Z-00006-000": 0, "9acf5a44-2019-04-17T11:47:40Z-00032-000": 0, "452eaf9c-2019-04-18T19:48:30Z-00003-000": 2, "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00004-000": 2, "e62a27a7-2019-04-18T11:20:35Z-00002-000": 2, "d62e7eb3-2019-04-18T17:50:30Z-00005-000": 0, "d01debdc-2019-04-18T12:30:47Z-00001-000": 2, "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00003-000": 2, "cc8f279a-2019-04-18T20:00:13Z-00004-000": 0, "cbfd88a8-2019-04-18T13:14:17Z-00005-000": 1, "c6ce3e46-2019-04-18T13:30:26Z-00004-000": 1, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "c6ce3e46-2019-04-18T13:30:26Z-00005-000": 2, "c1d70405-2019-04-18T19:11:25Z-00004-000": 2, "f3e3bbd9-2019-04-18T18:54:46Z-00004-000": 0, "4c68354c-2019-04-18T13:19:39Z-00000-000": 0, "337b3aee-2019-04-18T16:22:29Z-00003-000": 0, "3aa1a07c-2019-04-18T17:02:59Z-00003-000": 0, "aeb43fe9-2019-04-18T11:40:53Z-00002-000": 0, "b661889e-2019-04-18T17:56:09Z-00005-000": 0, "aeb43fe9-2019-04-18T11:40:53Z-00000-000": 0, "be96fc73-2019-04-18T17:02:03Z-00005-000": 0, "b0d05931-2019-04-18T18:20:30Z-00001-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "My opinion is that the voting age limit should be lowered to 16 as that is in the very center of the passage from childhood to adulthood. Many responsibilities are given to people at the age of 16 and I believe that voting for president should be one of them.", "title": "The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered", "pid": "2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.20726013183594}, {"text": "The younger generation is arguably affected the most by many of the votes that take place across this world, yet they do not get a say in what happens. I believe they should, hence why the voting age should be lowered to 16.", "title": "The voting age should be lowered to 16", "pid": "d01debdc-2019-04-18T12:30:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.99325561523438}, {"text": "I accept. Voting is the process in which we choose the officials that will represent us, and requires a lot of thought. Through voting, we elect citizens into government offices and put our trust into them, and hope they will represent us correctly. Because this is such an important decision, I believe that the voting age should remain at 18 and not reduced to 17 or 16.", "title": "The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered", "pid": "2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.9673614501953}, {"text": "Heck, no! Today's kids are way too immature and ignorant to be trusted with such a privilege. We need to raise the age to 21 and make it so only male landowners can vote. Liberalism will die in one election cycle.", "title": "The voting age should be reduced to 14.", "pid": "c0b1c40c-2019-04-18T13:10:29Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.88922119140625}, {"text": "Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered.", "title": "The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16", "pid": "452eaf9c-2019-04-18T19:48:30Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.84588623046875}, {"text": "My opponent has not refuted any of my points and thus their entire case can be considered null and void as of now because they have not responded to my refute. Hopefully, they will post in the next round...", "title": "the voting age should be lowered to 16.", "pid": "2045b810-2019-04-18T19:12:56Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.77603149414062}, {"text": "Definitions: Voting Age: The legal age at which citizens of the United States can submit their opinion on current matters to be counted during national elections. Hello, my name is Wendell Phillips and I am the PRO speaker stating that the voting age should be lowered to 16. Before I begin, I'd like to point out that xStrikex, my opponent, is a classmate of mine and I am very excited to debate this controversial topic with him. My Points: The limit of 18 is ultimately arbitrary. Previous to the voting age being lowered to 18, the voting age was 21. The reasons cited for this higher age boundary were exactly the same arguments as are being used by those who oppose lowering the voting age to 16, namely that the individuals would be too immature or ignorant to use their vote wisely. As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens. Rather, maturity occurs on a spectrum, and as will be outlined below, some 16 year olds may be equally or better informed about politics than people much their senior who have the vote. More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote. When young people are involved in a meaningful democratic process they respond with enthusiasm and responsibility. Many people of all ages are increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of passion and enthusiasm for politics and for change, a phenomenon that manifests across all age groups in engagement in single issue campaigns and protests. Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system. Young people are motivated by exactly the same issues as older voters, public safety, taxation and the cost of transport there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others. In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. While young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years. Many people have no real idea about politics. 16-year-olds who care enough to vote are just as likely to understand politics as those who already have the vote. Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago. Let me ask you, do we deny the vote to mentally challenged people? Do we deny the vote to people that are completely drunk and stoned out of their minds? Of course we don't, because they are over 18! Tell me, should we allow retarded citizens to vote, yet deny tax paying citizens the right? I rest my case.", "title": "The Voting Age should be lowered to 16.", "pid": "6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.72586059570312}, {"text": "The voting age limit should be lowered from 18 (17 in some states) to 16 at most. My argument is that if you can learn to drive and be given the responsibility of a car, why can't you vote for a president? many people are sophisticated enough to vote even under the age of 16! Format for debate: Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Rebuttal Round 3: Final statement", "title": "The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered", "pid": "2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.65670776367188}, {"text": "I believe that the voting age should be lowered. at 16 we allow kids to drive, and a car is lethal weapon so why would you think we could trust them with voting?", "title": "voting age should be lowered", "pid": "abb42382-2019-04-18T16:14:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.61770629882812}, {"text": "Yes it should be reduced as most adults are ill-informed and teenagers are still in school so they at least get bits and pieces of politics in history and other subjects. I don't see why I need to be 18 to cast a foolish vote.", "title": "Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16", "pid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.55126953125}, {"text": "At 14, you are mature enough to vote.", "title": "The voting age should be lowered to 14", "pid": "d01d031e-2019-04-18T16:42:46Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.53335571289062}, {"text": "In my opinion, the voting age would be better off staying the same. From the amount of young people already neglecting their right to vote, to potential of misuse of the vote, it is worthless and/or potentially disruptive to the voting system. Even though 16 year old kids do have several rights, voting is important, and therefore 16 year olds must be taught some responsibilities before they have the right to vote. Therefore, the voting age should remain at 18, and I think most people agree that lowering the voting age would be a risk that isn't worth it to take. Thank you for the debate 1davey29.", "title": "The Voting Age Limit Should be Lowered", "pid": "2a12b5f8-2019-04-18T16:35:53Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.4916229248047}, {"text": "My opponent has not refuted any of my points and thus I have won this debate. They have no argument and my case still stands strong.", "title": "the voting age should be lowered to 16.", "pid": "2045b810-2019-04-18T19:12:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.48623657226562}, {"text": "I will gladly accept", "title": "voting age should be lowered", "pid": "abb42382-2019-04-18T16:14:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.43478393554688}, {"text": "Although at 14 your brain is not fully developed, it's developed enough to cast an independently made decision (outside of influence) because you can independently judge at 14 and at 14 you should be able to understand the long term impact of complex policies (I was able to understand such things at 14). Also things like healthcare affect 14 year olds and they should have say in the government.", "title": "The voting age should be lowered to 14", "pid": "d01d031e-2019-04-18T16:42:46Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.41891479492188}, {"text": "acceptance only, this is for voting rights for 16&17 year olds", "title": "voting age should be lowered", "pid": "abb42382-2019-04-18T16:14:47Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.37106323242188}, {"text": "Most youths at 15 years old most likely have much more pressing things to worry about than politics and voting. Also, many youths will most likely just flip a coin and make a random choice because they do not care. 15 year olds should be worrying about grades, college, homework, and possibly driving. They should not be worrying about politics. Some 15 year olds will be too young to understand! Other ones will not take it seriously! 15 years old is simply too young of a age to start voting. I apologize that my agrument is extremely short-- but it gets all my ideas across well.", "title": "The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds", "pid": "e6603d1a-2019-04-18T14:22:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.36451721191406}, {"text": "No, the voting age should not be reduced to 16. I agree with you when you said that is unconstitutional be paying taxes without representation, but this situation must be resolved since a reform of the quantity or kind of taxes that the under 16 should pay. The voting age was set pretending that people would be able to make an analytical election. A random person at age of 16 generally is starting to know how the world works and what to look for in life. Their opinion might be easily influenced by false arguments and the campings could be measured by a lack of truthful proposals.", "title": "The voting age should be reduced to 16", "pid": "4848b93e-2019-04-18T13:12:06Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.27906799316406}, {"text": "My opponent seemed to believe that this resolution was undebatable. I'm here first of all to prove him wrong, and second of all to show why I've long thought that the voting age restriction should definitely be lowered. Some ground rules. There are four rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters in each round. Debaters should post all their arguments and sources in their rounds, and voters should consider nothing except the arguments and sources presented in the debate (comments not being considered part of the debate). I (obviously) have the burden of proof. The first round is for acceptance. The presumption of the resolution is that the voting age is currently 18 or higher. I'll presume that the debate is set in a reasonably western society without regard for any particular jurisdiction or legal code. Because the cultural, educational and social background of youth may be relevant to the debate, I think it is fair that all cultures are considered, given that most reasonably western societies are quite multicultural. The vote we're talking about specifically is any general vote to determine legislative and/or executive office, as the case may be in that jurisdiction, in a national election format (so local body elections could be excluded etc).", "title": "That the voting age should be lowered to 15", "pid": "6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.25396728515625}, {"text": "If you can legally work at 16 and be taxed, you should be able to vote. The fact that 16 year olds who are legally working are unable to vote is taxation without representation and is unconstitutional. Many 16 year olds would be more than capable of handling this responsibility.", "title": "The voting age should be reduced to 16", "pid": "4848b93e-2019-04-18T13:12:06Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.24781799316406}, {"text": "Where oh where to begin... For starters, this is an insult to those who are 24 and have graduated college. Especially those who have graduated Yale, Harvard, MIT, or any other ivy-league school. I will even go as far as to say some 14 year olds have the brain capacity to vote intelligently, although I'm not saying that we should lower the voting age to 14. You are applying a small statistic to a vast number of people. Your argument is just completely illogical and it's, as I said, an insult to many of the middle-aged voters in the United States. 25 year olds are able to see the ramifications of their actions quite clearly whether it be voting, driving, or anything else.", "title": "The lowering of the voting age>>>", "pid": "dac67b43-2019-04-18T15:27:10Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.23187255859375}, {"text": "Teenage years are a time when individuals are figuring out who they are, what they want to do, and what they believe. Because of their lack of experience they are likely to be manipulated by others. At 16 and 17, teens are just getting access to the car, but they are still not trusted to do things like gamble, consume tobacco, and drink alcohol. Plus, they\"re just under 10 years from being allowed to rent a vehicle in many places. It puts into question whether they are developmentally prepared to help make important decisions about the country\"s future. Teens lack real world experience and do not have a good understanding of how certain decisions may affect a nation over time. High school students would be just learning about how the government functions as they received the right to participate in the election process. Additionally, teenagers tend not to pay too much attention to current events.", "title": "The voting age should be lowered", "pid": "b72d2186-2019-04-18T12:12:43Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.22039794921875}, {"text": "Because of working restrictions on children under 16, dependent 14-year-olds most likely don't make enough money to have to file an income tax return, and considering, then, the incredibly low statistic of 14-year-olds with jobs in the first place - no, 14-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote, based on this argument.", "title": "The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14", "pid": "c6ce3e46-2019-04-18T13:30:26Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.1951446533203}, {"text": "The voting age in the U.S. should be lowered to fourteen years of age. The rationale behind this is that the working age in the U.S. is fourteen. Now, if one is working a pay-check job, then the government is charging taxes on that pay-check. And if one is being taxed by the government and they do not have the right to vote, then that is taxation without representation. Taxation without representation is one of the reasons why the U.S. broke away from British rule in the first place, so it is ironic and somewhat ridiculous that the U.S. now imposes taxation without representation on anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 who is working a pay-check job. There are basically three logical arguments that I can think of that are on \"my side of the fence\", so to speak: 1. Total Agreement. \"The voting age should definitely be lowered to 14.\" 2. Compromise. \"The voting age should be lowered, but not to 14; it should be lowered to 15, 16, or 17.\" 3. Alternative solution. \"Voting rights should be based on something other than age, such as credit score, employment, level of education, or some other basis.\" You may agree with one of the above opinions, or you may have your own opinion. I hope that I see lots of original positions, different from the ones listed above. Thank you for joining or commenting on this debate.", "title": "The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14", "pid": "c6ce3e46-2019-04-18T13:30:26Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.16552734375}, {"text": "Originally you had to be 21 to vote in the United States. The voting age was lowered to 18 because young men were being drafted to the Vietnam war before they were old enough to vote. The government changed the voting age because the lives of young people were being directly impacted by government policy, and they believed young people should have a say. https://en.wikipedia.org... Policy affects everyone including children. Small kids are not smart or informed enough to vote, but older students are exposed to things in school that make them more knowledgeable. In fact school is a great place to talk about politics. Adults are discouraged from talking about politics in public which is considered impolite. But in school, students have the opportunity to learn and discuss things. http://www.amazon.com... In most states you can begin working at 14 years old. Teens are working and paying income taxes. They are also paying sales tax on their purchases. By not allowing them to vote, it is taxation without representation. https://www.dol.gov... Con says kids are too young or stupid to vote, but that could be said about many adults as well. We don't have a screening process that makes sure people are intelligent enough to vote. Many 14 and 15 year olds are smarter than 18 and 19 year olds, or even 48 and 49 year olds. Age does not determine intelligence or maturity.", "title": "The voting age should be reduced to 14.", "pid": "c0b1c40c-2019-04-18T13:10:29Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.14920043945312}, {"text": "There's a bunch of reasons why the voting age shouldn't be lowered The average 16 year old would be completely uninterested in politics and wouldn't even know the importance of voting. There are only a small minority of 15-16 who are interested in politics and want to help change their country. If the voting age was lowered to 15-16 then the kids would vote which one is \"the cool one\", also candidates could easily the vote from a child by promising to destroy homework or by making detentions illegal while on the other side that same candidate is about to make bad decisions for the country. Con states that \"Children would be harder to buy\" which is false. You could pay a child almost any amount to do something especially if it was just voting, the child would see that as writing on a piece of paper. Children are easily corrupted especially at a young age, this is why we shouldn't lower the voting age.", "title": "Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16", "pid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 217.10369873046875}, {"text": "Some ground rules. There are four rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters in each round. Debaters should post all their arguments and sources in their rounds, and voters should consider nothing except the arguments and sources presented in the debate (comments not being considered part of the debate). I (obviously) have the burden of proof. The first round is for acceptance.The presumption of the resolution is that the voting age is currently 18 or higher. I'll presume that the debate is set in a reasonably western society without regard for any particular jurisdiction or legal code. Because the cultural, educational and social background of youth may be relevant to the debate, I think it is fair that all cultures are considered, given that most reasonably western societies are quite multicultural. The vote we're talking about specifically is any general vote to determine legislative and/or executive office, as the case may be in that jurisdiction, in a national election format (so local body elections could be excluded etc).I wish my opponent very good luck and look forward to a fun and spirited discussion!R1 is acceptance and optional definitions.", "title": "The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds", "pid": "e6603d1a-2019-04-18T14:22:17Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.0958709716797}, {"text": "I will just clarify the rules, but, as stated they seem to be correct. Pro has the BoP. Specifically, if Pro cannot prove why the voting age should be lowered, then Pro has lost the debate. It is not enough to simply argue that it doesn't matter whether or not the voting age should be lowered (i. e. lowering it has no effect)--Pro must make the case that's it's beneficial in some way or another to lower the voting age.", "title": "That the voting age should be lowered to 15", "pid": "6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.08837890625}, {"text": "I would first like to say thank you for the invite. I do not believe that the voting age should be raised to 21. The main reason that I think this is that at age 18 teenagers fully mature into adults, thus giving them many responsibilities,which, in turn, makes them more responsible.", "title": "Voting Age", "pid": "c1d70405-2019-04-18T19:11:25Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.08157348632812}, {"text": "The voting age should be lowered for many reasons: 1) People think that kids would make horrible choices with the power to vote, but adults make horrible choices too. like for instance look at who is in office right now. Us teenagers did not. 2) The government can control our choices, so we should have a say in the government. 3) We are at least somewhat mature (i would say mature but some are not and are probably going to stay that way through adulthood anyway)", "title": "Should the voting age be lowered", "pid": "aeb43fe9-2019-04-18T11:40:53Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.0782012939453}, {"text": "Good luck and have fun!", "title": "The legal voting age should be lowered to 15 year olds", "pid": "e6603d1a-2019-04-18T14:22:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.0308837890625}, {"text": "Per rules I waive!", "title": "Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17", "pid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.00128173828125}, {"text": "I think the voting age should be raised to 21 due to young kids not fully understanding most issues that concern America. Not only raised to to 21, but college students not being allowed to vote either, due to professor guidance and pushing their agenda's on the students. They are very easily manipulated. :)", "title": "Voting Age", "pid": "c1d70405-2019-04-18T19:11:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.99893188476562}, {"text": "In the US 16-year-olds are considered legally competent to drive a car. Driving requires both impulse control and good judgement. We trust 16-year-olds with the lives and safety of both passengers and others on the road. Since we deem them responsible enough to the make life and death decisions that come with driving a car, Why don\"t trust them to make informed choices in the voting booth?", "title": "The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16", "pid": "e62a27a7-2019-04-18T11:20:35Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.9892120361328}, {"text": "18 gives youngsters more time to gain experience of the world outside of school which is important. School is biased towards Socialist/left wing policies and the effect of this on your rationality at age 16 is important. When people enter the working world they became more aware of how taxes are spent and how much they are having to spend. It would be better to raise it to 25 or maybe 30 in my opinion because of how much your opinions change over time as you are exposed to more of the world. You can't learn so much from school and teachers, there is a saying \"those who can do and those who cant teach\"", "title": "The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years.", "pid": "5ff149d1-2019-04-18T16:31:56Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.95657348632812}, {"text": "I agree that there are adults who have little knowledge about politics, but the majority, are more analytical and have more experience to take a decisi\"n. And also, there are 16 years old guys with an extraordinary political sense, but those are the minority. But, you can not determine case by case who is able to make an intelligent choice. So you have to appeal to well defined segmentations, in this case, by age, and by majorities or average.", "title": "The voting age should be reduced to 16", "pid": "4848b93e-2019-04-18T13:12:06Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.95510864257812}, {"text": "People below the age of eighteen are less biased, while people over eighteen are bribed. That is why it would better American politics.", "title": "Lowering the voting age to 16", "pid": "1a7af591-2019-04-18T18:28:22Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.9496307373047}, {"text": "All right. I will change my argument, then. There are about 4,200,000 fourteen-year-olds and many, many more 14-18 year-olds (http://www.marketingcharts.com...). We are currently denying about 16,000,000 Americans the right to vote. Now, some may argue that high-schoolers are too young and ignorant to understand the politics of the U.S., but this is simply not true. In fact, millennials are more involved and concerned with politics than any previous generation of 14-18-year-olds (http://www.usatoday.com...),(http://www.forbes.com...). So, millions of young Americans are being denied the right to vote on the basis that they're too ignorant, while millions more older Americans are voting for the likes of Trump. (Now, dear voters, I know this will bring down the hordes of Trump supporters on this website, so please try to ignore them).", "title": "The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14", "pid": "c6ce3e46-2019-04-18T13:30:26Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.94607543945312}, {"text": "Hello Jane. And hello guys. In December 19th in 2008, we have presidential election. In election, if people are over 19, our country give us a voting quality. I think we have to lower the voting age. According to Dr. Sam, people always said if we give university student a voting quality, they will pick wrong president because they are stupid and they have short thinking, plus because they have low ages. Well, it's wrong. I mean it could be in old days, because they are poor so they can;t study well so they don't know how to pick a great president. But now a days, it's different everyone. Now a days, there is less that student can't study. So they can be smart then in old days students so they can choose a great president. So we can lower the voting age. In 2008, we have many president candidates. And they come out with many reduction. But, can we believe it? I think that lower ages student can't pick great president is no just they are stupid, short thinking or they have low ages. It's because president candidates said lie in they're reduction. So we need to lower a voting age. According to homepage kuro5shin, lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout. For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life. Kids Voting is a program in which children participate in a mock vote and accompany their parents to the polls on Election Day. Reports show that even this modest gesture to including youth increased the interest in voting of their whole family. Parents were more likely to discuss politics with their kids and thus an estimated 600,000 adult voters were more likely to vote because of it. Lowering the voting age will strengthen this democracy for all of us.", "title": "Lowering the voting age", "pid": "a7acd758-2019-04-18T19:54:02Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.9246826171875}, {"text": "Everyone would agree that there has to be a minimum voting age. Most people believe that the line should be drawn at 18 rather than 16. Although some 16 year olds may be mature enough to vote, most have not yet formed political views of their own yet. On average, young people are much more likely to be ready for the responsibility of voting at 18. There is then no reason why 16 would make a better cut off point than 18. At both ages some rights are given, at both there will be some who pay tax who are not given representation, at both some will be immature. There is no clear dividing line so there can be no clear reasoning for lowering the voting age to 16.  ", "title": "There needs to be a cut off", "pid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00023-000", "bm25_score": 216.91506958007812}, {"text": "Same argument, same answer: I agree with you when you said that is unconstitutional be paying taxes without representation, but this situation must be resolved since a reform of the quantity or kind of taxes that the under 16 should pay. The average teenagers has not showed to be enough rational or knower about politics and how does the world work. If you suggest something to change the status quo you should show some objetive evidence that support your argument. And I repeat, the main point to set the age to be able to vote are not the taxes, is the maturity of people. Regards.", "title": "The voting age should be reduced to 16", "pid": "4848b93e-2019-04-18T13:12:06Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.91082763671875}, {"text": "On average 16 year olds are worrying about a lot of different things like their school dance and what not. Most might be able to handle a paying job and taking care of their cars, but that doesn't mean that they would be able to handle voting with all the other part of society. They aren't at that stage that they would fully understand what things would help our economy and what wouldn't.", "title": "The age that people have the right to vote should be lowered to 16 and not stay at 18", "pid": "1332c9cb-2019-04-18T18:48:12Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.90304565429688}, {"text": "Give your rebuttals in round 2 along with the opening argument. The voting age should be lowered as it would give a wider range of voters and give more free will to students. Wider range of voters Not all people in a country are even interested in politics, much less for voting. Furthermore, adults can be paid to vote, but children have a more idealistic sense and may be harder to corrupt. Children would be harder to buy as they haven't seen the real world yet, therefore believe that their vote matters and that they should be loyal towards their country in voting. Furthermore, as children don't earn money, they don't understand the difficulty of earning money and therefore would need more money for their vote to be bought. Free will Decisions of the political party severely impact teenagers, such as changes in the age limits of drinking, driving, gambling, and movies. Then why they don't have a right to choose their future?", "title": "Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16", "pid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.89491271972656}, {"text": "The reason why 14 years olds aren't allowed to vote is that many don't understand the issues, or don't care. Most 14 years olds don't have a job, or have a household to run, like an adult does. Adults understand the issues way more than a 14 year old does.", "title": "The voting age should be lowered to 14", "pid": "d01d031e-2019-04-18T16:42:46Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.89218139648438}, {"text": "This resolution will be about the United States. I believe you should be allowed to vote once you turn 14. Another stipulation is that you must also be enrolled in high school or high school equivalence (if home schooled). I will begin my arguments in the next round.", "title": "The voting age should be reduced to 14.", "pid": "c0b1c40c-2019-04-18T13:10:29Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.8876953125}, {"text": "I believe that 16 and 17 year olds should be able to vote for many reasons. Why does hitting 18 make you responsible? Would being 17 and 11 months make you irresponsible compared to an 18 year old? Many 18 year olds are still as irresponsible as 16 year olds but why does that make the 18 year old better at choosing who should run the government or choosing to leave or to stay in the EU? Being 18 is just an age, it is what the mind is like that counts.", "title": "The voting age should be lowered", "pid": "b72d2186-2019-04-18T12:12:43Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.88548278808594}, {"text": "\"People below the age of eighteen are less biased, while people over eighteen are bribed. That is why it would better American politics.\"This is unfounded and absurd.", "title": "Lowering the voting age to 16", "pid": "1a7af591-2019-04-18T18:28:22Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.88021850585938}, {"text": "16 year olds are mature enough to vote", "title": "lower the voting age to 16", "pid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.86630249023438}, {"text": "Thank you for responding quickly. Allow me to refute the points at hand. Counter-Rebuttal 1: Uninformed voters I have shown empirically that voters in particular who are under the age of 18 are particularly uneducated with both cards that I used that addressed children in particular. I will quote myself: “Well, if we were to allow those at the age of 17 to vote, we would be adding to this problem. In fact, the average high school senior usually does know about the basics of government in the US, but 75% of them are not considered “proficient” in civics.” (1) High school seniors are usually between the ages of 17 and 18. This shows that high school seniors are specifically less politically savvy, as my opponent has put it, which means that this rebuttal is void, due to the fact that he has not nullified the impact of more dilution in an already weak voting base. I also have shown the fact that generally, those who are younger voters have a huge influence on the election cycle, specifically in 2016. By decreasing the voting age, we would be seeing more people who are uninformed voting. Remember, the voting rate of younger voters is usually static, but by adding more to the system, we would be seeing an increase in youth voters which will result in higher uninformed voters. Counter-Rebuttal 2: Propaganda Actually, I have proven this. The fact is, teens are more impressionable as proven by my Harvard article showing that teens are more influenced by their environment (2). Not only this, but because teens use social media more than other age demographics, we can see that they will be more influenced by social media. This is a problem since I have shown that presence on social media has effected election results, as shown by Trump (3). So no, I have proven that this would disproportionately affect teenagers at a higher rate. Counter-Rebuttal 3: Counter Plan I have proffered a counter plan that was refuted by the pro side, so allow me to respond. First, he suggests that my plan is similar to Jim Crow Laws, which is not a rebuttal, rather an opinion. At the time of Jim Crow laws, racism was rampant. This is important, because in my counter plan I have provided an alternative, which was education relating to policy and public affairs which would allow those who are disadvantaged still become politically knowledgeable enough to vote. Yet, I am confused. I asked for an observable metric to determine voter competence in the future. This could determine the general competence of certain demographics of voters to understand the general demographics for future reference for potential policy to increase said political knowledge. This was my intention of the counter plan. I did not realize the vagueness. I apologize if it seemed that I wanted to oppress groups. Counter-Rebuttal 4: Rebuttal Under the framework I provided, the purpose of government does not play in. However, let us observe he fact that if the argument that we are undermining the purpose of the government, then it would be quite apparent. Remember, we live under a social contract where people give up certain rights for protection. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, we see that the social contract theory states the following: “Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.” (4) John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, both who influenced the constitution both proclaimed this (5). With this theory, we can see that some rights, such as voting, are not guaranteed. In fact, people give these rights up to live in a civil society with competent leaders put into office by knowledgeable voters. Counter-Rebuttal 5: General Observation My opponent has not offered any points under the framework I provided. Remember, we are debating the tangible effects of today’s resolution on the election process. While this may seem unfair, keep in mind we are doing this to make the election process better with less uninformed voters. Onto my opponent’s case. Rebuttal 1: “Of the people” This points toward a utilitarian framework due to the fact that we are looking for benefits for the people. I have proven that this does not happen because of the fact that we see less competent people in office with uninformed voters. Thus, this argument falls. Even if we are talking about political representation in a sense, I have offered a counter plan that, while vague, solves the problems the pro ide has brought up. Rebuttal 2: No difference between 18 and 17 year olds I have shown you through a previous statistic that 75% of high school seniors are not proficient in civics (1). Regardless of the fact that 17 year olds may be quite similar in representation due to their military conscription and other privileges given to them, this does not automatically qualify them for voting. 18 year olds have usually graduated from high school and have earned their votes. Also, weigh the points I made due to the tangible effects it would have over the abstract arguments my opponent has made, as they have no impact in this debate. Rebuttal 3: Taxation without representation My opponent claims that by not allowing 17 year olds to vote we are taxing them without representation. This may be true, but under the framework I provided, we are looking at the effects on the voting system in general. This point is then moot because it does not address the problem at hand, which is the system in which voting occurs. Remember, I have already proven that the system is bad due to the already poor voting base becoming even more diluted, which is a problem that my opponent has yet to address. 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com...", "title": "Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17", "pid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.85110473632812}, {"text": "15 year old's are not mature enough. The large majority still live at home and go to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18 they have become much more independent and are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents opinions or adopt silly ideas for the sake of rebellion.", "title": "Lowering the voting age to 15", "pid": "1a7a8132-2019-04-18T17:50:29Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.84652709960938}, {"text": "The large majority of teenagers who would be voting would at least do some research though. Many adults vote solely based on political party. The fact still remains that 16 year olds are being taxed without representation which is unconstitutional. In order for 16 year olds to be taxed, they need to be able to vote for representatives that represent their interests and they currently cannot do that.", "title": "The voting age should be reduced to 16", "pid": "4848b93e-2019-04-18T13:12:06Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.84124755859375}, {"text": "But without school teachers a pupil cannot gain information about the left wing parties, what is good/bad about them etc. Or if they were going to vote other than left wing they would gain knowledge of the left wings bad points. I do not agree with your statement that if anything we should raise the voting age to 25 or 30 as young people need a say in our country. At the moment it is mostly only OAP's that get attention as it is mostly them who vote- they get attention on pensions etc.", "title": "The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years.", "pid": "5ff149d1-2019-04-18T16:31:56Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.8340301513672}, {"text": "Though it is not a problem per say, the idea of 16-year-olds being given the right to vote isn't actually a bad idea. Also, yes, children do look forward to being able to hold power and vote on something - so why not give them that power at a younger age? After all, by then, we do have adult responsibilities so it would be incorrect to say that we are 'too young' to vote at that stage. Furthermore, if we had more 16-year-olds (and, as I assume, 17-year-olds) with this right, the results of our future votes would differentiate and become a lot less conservative. As a result of this, we would be welcoming a much more open and diverse array of people in our society - with higher levels of LGBTQ+ acceptance being an example of a positive impact a lower voting age could give.", "title": "You shouldn't raise the voting age to 21", "pid": "a06c77c-2019-04-18T11:36:18Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.80593872070312}, {"text": "I accept and will have an opening statement in round 2", "title": "Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16", "pid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.80294799804688}, {"text": "Rules1. Comment before accepting the debate2. It may take me a while to respond, so be patient3. No trolling4. No kritiks5. No forfeiture6. Be courteous7. No new arguments in final focus, you may refute if you want to.Round structureR1- Pro provides caseR2- Con (me) present my case, pro refutesR3- Con refutes, pro final focusR4- Con final focus, Pro waives", "title": "Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17", "pid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.7809600830078}, {"text": "Thank you for responding quickly, I shall offer the following framework since one was not provided. Framework We need to weigh the effect on the election process and results over everything else in today’s debate. Thus, if con were to show that the voting age being lowered to 17 is a net harm, then the judge should feel comfortable with voting on the negation. Contention 1: Uninformed voters Under the status quo we see that many voters are unaware of the political process. In fact, if we were to turn toward a poll from the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum shows that only 1/1000 Americans know the first 5 freedoms given by the first amendment (1). This is a problem because when people are standing at their voting booths, we see that they are not informed at all about the very basic rights given to us. We can see further in depth why voters are usually misinformed or uninformed with a startling statistic from a study conducted by the American Press Institute and the Center for Public Affairs Research, which states that 30% of Americans do not go in-depth in news stories (2). In fact, we can see this by looking at the following graphic (2). Forbes goes into more specifics by showing the fact that the average voter is usually uninformed and biased toward the political party they represent (3). Why does this matter? Well, if we were to allow those at the age of 17 to vote, we would be adding to this problem. In fact, the average high school senior usually does know about the basics of government in the US, but 75% of them are not considered “proficient” in civics (4). If these are high school seniors, could you imagine the political understanding of a freshman? Well, you do not have to take my word for it, a poll of incoming freshman has determined that only 26% of them considered politics important, or kept up to date with political affairs. In other words, we would be diluting the already weak voter base so that more uninformed people would be participating in voting. We would be able to see this because generally, despite a minor decrease in the 2012 election, numbers of youth voters have remained static (5). This shows that despite a generally static trend in young voters, there is still a generally uninformed youth-voter base, which would only increase with this resolution due to allowing more people to vote. In fact, according to CIRCLE, an organization that focuses on youth in voting, has found that off the states with the most influence from the 2016 election, most of them are swing states and states where there is no general consensus on who would win. In other words, the votes from young voters could decide the election (12). This would cause problems, because without an informed base of people voting, we would see that people would be making decisions affecting many people without being necessarily informed about the magnitude, or impact of the decision. Ergo, unqualified people taking office would be the net harm under the resolution. Thus, we need to negate to prevent incompetent leaders. Contention 2: Propaganda With teen voters, we would see that propaganda would have an increased effect. In the status quo, we see that teenagers are usually more prone to impulses and their environment, as shown by the Harvard Magazine in 2008 (6). This is important because of the frequency of political advertisements and attack ads which populate the entire spectrum of media. In fact, on TV ads alone, the total spent on advertisement was $4.4 billion, which is a huge number which reaches 87% of people over the age of 18 (7). This would increase for the technology obsessed youth with increased focus on social media in recent years, as candidates are more likely to tweet, go on Facebook, or both. In fact, according to a Pew Research poll, over 70% of teens go on Facebook, and the majority of teens who use social media use more than one site (8). This is a problem due to the aforementioned political propaganda. This can be easily seen as a recent report by New Republic which found the following (9): “The prod to nudge bystanders to the voting booths was simple. It consisted of a graphic containing a link for looking up polling places, a button to click to announce that you had voted, and the profile photos of up to six Facebook friends who had indicated they’d already done the same.” What was the result? There was a .39% more of a chance that people would vote for what the friends’? preferences were. The ripple effect of friends on Facebook influencing others resulted in more than 300,000 votes for a particular candidate (9). This powerful tool could result in “digital gerrymandering,” where people abused this tactic to get people to vote for others. This would be incredibly effective against the easily-influenced minds of teenagers, who are proven to act on impulse. Thus, we would be seeing political candidates having an advantage by targeting teens at an unprecedented rate. This is happening in the status quo with Donald Trump, who uses Twitter, a social media outlet, quite often to appeal to the 90% of young adults who use the site (10). This is confirmed by the fact that the majority of young republicans actually support Donald Trump. This is not a coincidence, and with the popularity of social media and the teen’s ability to be influenced means that political candidates will take advantage with propaganda, meaning a negative vote is necessary. Thus, I urge you to negate this resolution. Counter Plan What needs to be seen is the problem and the solution. Since teenagers are not represented in politics, then we can allow them to form political clubs or PACs to further political goals. We can push for more time spent contacting state senators to make sure that youth are represented as well. Not only this, but we need to make sure that people who are voting are actually competent, thus we need to establish an observable metric that could determine the overall competence of the voter when it comes to basic rights, current events, and politics in general. However, the resolution has unreasonably harmful effects, thus a negative vote is the only vote one can imagine to be beneficial to the voting process. Conclusion One must conclude that lowering the voting age to 17 will produce harms on the electoral system and will skew the results of elections with unfair propaganda being used by future political candidates. Ergo, one must negate. 1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. (http://tinyurl.com...) 4. (http://tinyurl.com...) 5. (http://tinyurl.com...) 6. (http://tinyurl.com...) 7. (http://tinyurl.com...) 8. (http://tinyurl.com...) 9. (http://tinyurl.com...) 10. (http://tinyurl.com...) 11. (http://tinyurl.com...) 12. (http://tinyurl.com...)", "title": "Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17", "pid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.78041076660156}, {"text": "The voting age is a tender topic that at the moment, isn't exactly what many would call a problem, so why mess with that now. Many kids and others look forward for the right to vote that now at this moment in our country is a right that we shouldn't tamper with.", "title": "You shouldn't raise the voting age to 21", "pid": "a06c77c-2019-04-18T11:36:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.7747344970703}, {"text": "Ignorant, immature, and we can now add irrational. He has made no case for why children should vote. To the contrary, they would simply whine for free goodies, like x-boxes.", "title": "The voting age should be reduced to 14.", "pid": "c0b1c40c-2019-04-18T13:10:29Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.77000427246094}, {"text": "The voting age in the U.K should be lowered to 16 years as once you are 16, you have to pay taxes so a view of opinion starts to form on politics. At this age you will be thinking of your future; what occupation will I want to have? How much will I earn? Will I be able to afford the cost of living? All these sort of questions and more will be in a 16 year olds mind- they should have a right to vote. I do not agree with the statement; “16 year olds are not mature enough to decide the country’s democracy” as surely, if you work (part time at 16) and pay taxes you have as much right as a 36-year old who does exactly the same things- don’t you think so? Not only will this, having 16 and 17 year olds voting increase the variety in election results so the popularity turnout will increase.", "title": "The voting age in the United Kingdom should be lowered to 16 years.", "pid": "5ff149d1-2019-04-18T16:31:56Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.76583862304688}, {"text": "Now I know what most people are thinking, kids are too immature, or ignorant to vote. But for my friends and I, we have known more about voting situations then our parents the past 2 times. Now I have a group of very intelligent friends, and believe me I know that not all 14 and 15 year old are like that. But trust me on this the teenagers who don't want to spend the time to learn about the current political situation truly don't care enough to vote or even \"waist there time\" thinking about it. I have only met a handful of teenagers who keep up on current events,and those are the only ones who would vote before at least 18.", "title": "Lowering the voting age to 15", "pid": "1a7a8132-2019-04-18T17:50:29Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.73989868164062}, {"text": "*Neither citations you used to confirm your statement that more 14-18-year-olds are involved and concerned with politics today used 14-18-year-olds as a reference, BOTH of the citations you cited quite clearly said the sample was between the ages of 18 and 36. Thus the new basis for your argument is invalid. It should be noted that I think the law is less in place because teenagers are \"ignorant\" (I was one not very long ago however and can attest: they are), but because they lack experience and, perhaps most importantly, a fully-developed ability to make rational decisions. I mean this scientifically - it has been observed that teenagers don't have very active frontal lobes (this is the rational thought center of the brain) when making decisions, and rely more on their brain's limbic system (more emotional / reactive basically). (1) This is why, for example, teenagers are so stereotypically prone to peer pressure, and stupid decisions. Anecdotal, but back when I was starting college I used to give high school kids stick-n-poke tattoos on the side for cash, and, believe me, this tendency was on full display. Plus, while Trump is, frankly, rather irrelevant in this argument, it isn't as if teens ubiquitously hate Trump, thus proving their rationality. (2) (1) http://brainconnection.brainhq.com... (2) https://newrepublic.com... Side note: Not bad, but do know that it's generally not good debate form to change the basis of your argument in the final round, when we should both be drawing our conclusions. You should have still attempted to find some way to counter my point. You could have, for example, argued that ANY tax payer should be afforded the right to vote, regardless of age, and possibly argued that the large percentage of teens in the age bracket who DON'T pay taxes don't invalidate the ones that may still DO. You could have further argued that enough legislation occurs regarding teenagers without their consent - concerning their education, their employment, even their sex lives - that not giving them the right to vote essentially makes them second class citizens to be acted on by government but without a voice, etc.", "title": "The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14", "pid": "c6ce3e46-2019-04-18T13:30:26Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.72824096679688}, {"text": "The fundamental parts of driving and voting are very different. Driving is split-second decisions, But not very complicated split-second decisions. Voting is a long and hard process, In terms of the decisions that need to be made. When someone votes, They need to be up to date on the candidate's stances. The legal voting age, Coincidences with the age when most are considered old enough to live on their own (in college). Also, Many states are putting in a graduated licensing program. In Illinois, The program ends, And the driver is allowed to drive without restriction on number of people or curfew (provided they received no traffic convictions) at age 18. (1) The program has been credited with saving many lives of teen drivers. In fact, Drivers 16-17 have two times the amount of fatal crashes per mile driven than drivers 18-19. (2) (1 )http://www. Cyberdriveillinois. Com/departments/drivers/teen_driver_safety/gdl. Html (2) http://www. Iihs. Org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers", "title": "The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16", "pid": "e62a27a7-2019-04-18T11:20:35Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.71725463867188}, {"text": "Do you think that the voting age should be lowered to age 18? If so why?", "title": "Drinking Age", "pid": "e76f7b80-2019-04-18T18:21:51Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.71395874023438}, {"text": "Con says kids are too ignorant and immature. I did not confirm that, I said that ignorance and maturity is not determined by age. That was the last line of my previous round. It's a shame that Con does not know how to read. Perhaps Con should not be able to vote even though he is 47. If he cannot grasp basic comprehension then he should definitely not be casting a ballot. But the government does not weed out the ignorant and immature. They only weed out by age which I explained is unfair, does not make sense and is contradictory with other values (like no taxation without representation).", "title": "The voting age should be reduced to 14.", "pid": "c0b1c40c-2019-04-18T13:10:29Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.7119903564453}, {"text": "I did not say kids were too stupid, but too ignorant and immature, which you confirmed. And by limiting voting to landholders, we weed out the ignorant and immature.", "title": "The voting age should be reduced to 14.", "pid": "c0b1c40c-2019-04-18T13:10:29Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.71121215820312}, {"text": "Adults have forever messed up the country, so what would be the harm in allowing sixteen and seventeen year olds to also vote? Under the law of eighteen and older that we currently have, minors who are intelligent enough to monitor an election and unbiasedly elect a canidate are forced under the leadership of the biased and politically uneducated voting of adults. This is not fair. Lowering the voting age to sixteen would allow teens a fair chance at really deciding their future.", "title": "Lowering the voting age to 16", "pid": "1a7af591-2019-04-18T18:28:22Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.69570922851562}, {"text": "I am not saying that every single right granted at eighteen should be lowered to sixteen, but just voting. It shouldn't be any lower because sixteen is just the right age to get into politics. Adults messing up America isn't my opinion, but a fact. Every decision made that led to this recession was made by adults. The decision to get into wars were that of adults. So, what could be the harm of giving us a chance?", "title": "Lowering the voting age to 16", "pid": "1a7af591-2019-04-18T18:28:22Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.6832733154297}, {"text": "Lowering the voting age to 16 will give the vote to people who have roots in a community, have an appreciation for local issues, and will be more concerned about voting than those just two years older. Youth have comfortable surroundings, school, parents, and stable friends, they feel connected to their community; all factors that will increase their desire and need to vote. Lower the voting age, and youth will vote.", "title": "Should kids at age 16 be able to vote", "pid": "f12d8c0e-2019-04-18T18:47:16Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.58200073242188}, {"text": "Heck no. The 1961 Bobo Doll experiment, conducted by Stanford professor Albert Bandura, demonstrated that children will interact with others in the precise manner that was modeled for them by adults. Given this responsibility, many parents try to instruct their children and impart their views, perhaps hoping their kids become carbon copies of themselves, or become the people they wish they were themselves. Parents can get the advantage of their children's voting right and manipulate them to their political view. Then they will vote without having any experience in politics. When your 18, your brain is more developed and choice become more independent. Also, it will cost a lot more if we lowered the voting age to 15, bringing taxes up. The 2016 Election cost 6.8 BILLION dollars, imagine how much more it would cost if there were a whole bunch more people. Plus, most teenagers probably wouldn't care or they don't know who to decide so they don't vote. In 2010, only 21% of 18-24-year-olds voted.", "title": "We should change the voting age to 15.", "pid": "fe7a40d0-2019-04-18T11:53:23Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.5781707763672}, {"text": "The right to vote is a injustice to just not only me, but to future generations of citizens. We are all citizens, we all live and work here, why as teens are denied the most important civil right to our democracy. Youth Suffrage or lowering the voting age to 16-17 is a issue that is sidelined by the media and the government. But I have a voice, and want to use it. Why in the home of the free, we are still being looked down as dumb uneducated teens? We are more inform than half of voters. We pay income tax when we have jobs and pay sales tax when we buy stuff at the stores. We can drive cars, that can kill us but not vote! We can be charged as adults but not vote! We, just, want our voices to be heard as equal. Why give a vote to a person who has no idea how our democracy works, but not a teen that dose? I am asking for your support and help to bring this issue to the tables across the country and the world! We are all citizens of the world!", "title": "Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age.", "pid": "219652fa-2019-04-18T14:33:32Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.57400512695312}, {"text": "You are arguing that the group of 14-year-olds who are employed is too small? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov...), in 1999 roughly a quarter of 14-year-olds held non-freelance, meaning paycheck, jobs. If 25% is too small a group, then you might as well argue that black people shouldn't be allowed to vote - after all, they make up only about 13.2% of the U.S. population, according to the United States Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov...). 25% is, by no means, a negligible minority.", "title": "The Voting Age in the U.S.A. Should Be Lowered to 14", "pid": "c6ce3e46-2019-04-18T13:30:26Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.57276916503906}, {"text": "The voting age in the United States should be eliminated for several reasons. First, this country was founded on 'no taxation without representation'. Despite this, in the 2008 presidential debate, over SEVENTY MILLION citizens, a majority of whom did pay taxes, were denied the basic democratic right to vote merely for having been born in the wrong year. Second, it's discriminatory. We've had laws in the past that arbitrarily denied the right to vote (laws against women or black people voting), but we have found such laws to be unfair. Furthermore, if a law against people over a certain age existed, it, too, would quickly be found unfair and discriminatory. It's time to extend the same respect to those under eighteen. Finally, the fourteenth amendment clearly forbids refusing people rights due to their belonging to a certain class of people. In the case of today's voting age, that class is those people who are under eighteen years of age. For these reasons, I urge the nation to eliminate the minimum voting age.", "title": "The voting age in the United States should be eliminated", "pid": "e8f3cfdf-2019-04-18T19:27:57Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.55877685546875}, {"text": "Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages", "title": "lower the voting age to 16", "pid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.54579162597656}, {"text": "There needs to be a cut off", "title": "lower the voting age to 16", "pid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.537841796875}, {"text": "Just because 15 year olds have the right to do some things, it doesn’t mean that they should use them. If all 16 year olds left home at 15 and started families it would be considered a disaster. And not all rights are given at 15 - most countries have a higher age for important things such as drinking alcohol, serving on a jury, joining the military, etc. It makes sense for different rights to be gained at different times as young people mature and get used to more responsibility. Because voting is so important, it should be one of the last rights to be gained.", "title": "Lowering the voting age to 15", "pid": "1a7a8132-2019-04-18T17:50:29Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.5005340576172}, {"text": "16-year-olds should be allowed to vote in the US. Prior to the 26th amendment being passed, you had to be 21 to vote. The 26th amendment lowered the age to 18. Lowering the age has already been successful once, why not do it again? About 10% of 16-year-olds work. Many complain that these numbers are dropping, which they are, but giving 16-year-olds the right to vote would make them feel more like adults, possibly bringing up the employment rate.", "title": "You should be able to vote at the age of 16 in the US", "pid": "1c3a6a0a-2019-04-18T14:09:40Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.493408203125}, {"text": "On average a 16 year old are worrying about a lot of different things like their school dance and what not. Most average teenagers might be able to handle a paying job and taking care of their cars, helping their families and worrying about their school work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would be able to handle voting with all the older part of society. When we are younger we have different things running through our heads and might think we know what is important but in reality we don't have any idea. Most 16 year old lack the competence or the required skills or knowledge one most know before approaching the ballet box. Most of the time we have to know to research and know what we are talking about before we said anything about it. Yes at 16 they are driving, working and helping their families make due with food and money. But voting is a totally different thing. When you are voting you have to know who you are reading about and what they can bring to the table you have to understand what they are talking about. You have to be well informed about the topics and the people that getting talked about. We may never know what is what. As said by Former President Kennedy The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all. One single vote could make the economy worse then it was to begin with. Henry David Thoreau also stated that All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong. i now turn it over to my oppent", "title": "The age that people have the right to vote should be lowered to 16 and not stay at 18", "pid": "1332c9cb-2019-04-18T18:48:12Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.48867797851562}, {"text": "If we were to lower the voting age to 15-16 then governments (of some countries) would force kids to vote like they do for adults and it'd be pointless because majority of all the children voting wouldn't know the importance of voting. My opponent then states that children are very active on social media and would know about the current events from there which is useless. Children on social media don't even pay attention to the news, especially if it was concerning politics. Pro keeps stating that Children are harder to buy because they have this \"Sense of justice\", children are already becoming corrupted because of social media. Any kid would be willing to sign a piece of paper for $10 or less, why? because to them, it's something meaningless. This is why we shouldn't lower the voting age, you wouldn't want ignorant children choosing the future for your country.", "title": "Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16", "pid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.48280334472656}, {"text": "Most adults are way to uninformed to vote and most kids are way more informed because we are forced to learn about it. And I know tons of teen who are WAY more mature then some adults.", "title": "Lowering the voting age to 15", "pid": "1a7a8132-2019-04-18T17:50:29Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.47640991210938}, {"text": "Welcome to DDO (debate.org)! Yes, the Proposition is a classmate of mine and I return his excitement. I hope that this will be a fun debate for both of us. As the CON side, I will be arguing that the voting age should not be lowered to 16. And without further ado, I would like to begin this debate. Refutations \"As we have seen, 18 year olds are just as capable of making informed democratic choices as 21 year olds, and there isn't any magical transformative process which occurs between 16 and 18 which turns individuals into fully fledged democratic citizens.\" Just because 18 year olds are capable of making choices much like 21 year olds does not mean, in any way, that 16 year olds can cast a mature, independently-made decision. I argue that there is a transformation when a person grows from 16 to 18. At 16, a boy or girl is in his or her sophomore years, still very young and maturing in high school. However, an 18 year old is a senior in high school and is very capable of making self-decided decisions and mature enough to understand politics, government, and society. 16 year olds have not completed their full studies of the United States government. Plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... \"More to the point, there are many things which 16 year olds are deemed by the state to be mature enough to do. For example, you can marry, leave full time education, leave home, and get a full time job, all of which are serious responsibilities. More seriously than that, at 16 one can volunteer for military service, and it seems implausible to claim that one can be simultaneously mature enough to volunteer to fight for one's country yet immature enough to vote.\" Does this necessarily mean that they are mature? Marrying is a huge responsibility. A responsibility that 16 year olds have not demonstrated their ability to handle. Marrying means there must have been a great bond of love between two people, love that must have distracted the 16 year old from high school work. Raising a family is usually also a party of marrying. Just because 16 year olds can have sex does not mean that they are mature. When a 16 year old drops out of high school, that must mean he or she is extremely lazy and does not wish to learn. This is not maturity. Furthermore, if a 16 year old doesn't wish to be delayed by the work of high school, why would that same person with to receive a full time job? If someone is devoted to studying, then why would he or she get a job, for that same matter? This is not a clear-cut case of maturity. Lastly, 16 year olds are not allowed to actually fight in the army. They can receive cadet training, but cannot risk their lives [1][2]. Plagiarism. Same source as above. \"Voting at 16 offers an opportunity for young people to inject more passion and energy into the political system... there is a lack of evidence that 16 and 17 year olds are more impressionable in their voting habits than others.\" You have provided no evidence for any of your arguments. Your former argument about passion, energy, enthusiasm, and responsibility have absolutely no true cases in which 16 year olds would have possessed such feelings. Anyways, the evidence will be provided in my arguments. Argument is plagiarized. http://debatewise.org... \"In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum.\" Please explain this entire paragraph and put it in your OWN words. Further plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... \"Again, to follow this point to its logical extreme, we should return to a system where only well-educated people can vote, something that was abandoned as classist and backward a hundred years ago.\" As my opponent himself has stated, we should revert to a system where well-educated people can vote. 18 year olds are much better educated compared to 16 year olds. They are in their senior year or have even possibly finished high school. 16 year olds are still stuck in high school and do not yet understand politics and government. Plagiarism. http://debatewise.org... Proposition, I ask that you provide real, hard-core evidence and facts rather than state opinions that you have plagiarised from Debatewise. Arguments 1. 16 year olds are not mature enough to vote The large majority still lives at home and goes to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18, they have finished high school and have legally completed all their educational requirements for their life, they have become much more independent, and they are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents' opinions or adopt silly ideas for the sake of rebellion. Worse, they may be uninformed and vote for the candidate not for his or her policies but the candidate's give-aways A research team headed by The Chief of Brain Imaging at the National Institute of Mental Health, found that in teenager brains, the part of the brain in teenagers where long-term consequences spring to consciousness is not fully mature [3]. 2. Not everyone needs to vote. Governments do things which affect every age group but that does not mean everyone deserves the vote. Should 12 year olds get the vote because school policies affect them? Should toddlers get the vote because health services affect them? No - we trust parents to cast votes after thinking about the interests of their families. And there are other ways for young people to have a say - they can write to elected representatives and newspapers, sign petitions, speak at public meetings, and join youth parliaments. It's not like we're shutting these kids out of the political world forever. Come 2 years time, they'll get to vote. 3. 18 is the best age to have as a minimum for people to vote When you're 18, a lot of things happen to you. First, you officially become a U.S. citizen. This is also the age when you get your driver's license officially, are allowed to take any job you want, and have finished all required education by the U.S. government and can go to college. Now, what about 16 and 17 year olds? Well, they can practice driving under a licensed supervisor, can practice having a job as long as it isn't one of the 55 job types not permitted by the Federal Youth Employment Laws, and they can practice taking college exams or practice completing school. Obviously, in those 2 years gap between 18 year olds and 16 year olds, much maturity and experience is put upon the teenagers, which without, they would be too irresponsible to vote or do most of the things that we legally allow 18 year olds to do. Due to the fact that I have run out of space, I will add 2 more points the next round. I await my opponent's response. Sources: 1. http://wiki.answers.com... 2. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com... 3. http://www.nimh.nih.gov...", "title": "The Voting Age should be lowered to 16.", "pid": "6c32784f-2019-04-18T18:59:38Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.43612670898438}, {"text": "Voting at a lower age would increase participation", "title": "lower the voting age to 16", "pid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.42868041992188}, {"text": "First of all, I find an apparent lack of definitions in your opening statement. Are you talking about the voting age in the United States, or some other country? Also, what kind of voting are you talking about, local, state, national? Also, what problem does changing the current voting age even solve? Personally, I'm just fine with the voting age where it is, thank you very much. Why fix what ain't broke? How do propose to go about doing this, how are you going to pass the laws necessary? Finally, why do you think that (even if it could be accomplished) it would necessarily have a good outcome? Younger teens tend to be less informed than older teens, and uninformed people is what lead to this crazy election. There's just no argument to even be had here. You didn't defend your resolution at all, and if you can't do that, what's the point?", "title": "The voting age should be lowered to 16", "pid": "d01debdc-2019-04-18T12:30:47Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.42800903320312}, {"text": "It's been shown that an average voter couldn't pass a basic economics course. Why then, should we put more barely knowledgeable voters into the mix. Most kids would probably just vote for who their parents voted for. Unless they've been watching the news or doing some serious reading, how would they know anything about the issues of the day. Most people can't identify the speaker of the house or tell which party controls which part of congress. Assuming they are allowed to vote, they will become targets of eager politicians taking advantage of their general ignorance. To get a informed voter you have to sway them with arguments. To get a uniformed voter you have to make up some position that relies more on emotion then logic and sounds very supportable or common sense. To get a totally ignorant teenager to vote for you, you just need a good campaign add and a nice slogan. Here's a article about a survey done about some kids political knowledge. The results showed that these kids didn't know crap. What possible benefits are there to gain by allowing teens to vote? http://www.phillyburbs.com...", "title": "voting age should be lowered", "pid": "abb42382-2019-04-18T16:14:47Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.42742919921875}, {"text": "As for interest in politics, those not interested may not vote either, and the same case is for most adults. I know a person who spins a dice to choose who he votes for. He is about 45. Children are also very active on social media and would know about the current events from there. No candidate has try asserting the claim for no homework, for otherwise college students would have voted for him. Moreover, by the age of 15 we all know deleting homework is irrational, and we know we can't trust any politician. Lastly, detentions are useless as the child is required to sit idle for hours, rather than studying during that time. I support the removal of detention. As for corruption, children are harder to buy as they have a sense of justice which is not yet corrupted by the harsh world. Also, tattletales would report such incidents to the police, while adults usually fear the reciprocation after reporting. Even adults are not doing responsible voting, especially when I got to know Trump won in a few states. Children voting would have had a different outcome. Furthermore, 15 to 16 is relatively not a young age and are intelligent enough to make a wise vote.", "title": "Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16", "pid": "d003097b-2019-04-18T13:09:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.41998291015625}, {"text": "While it's true a 16 year old could easily be swayed, I know many adults who have little to no political and economic knowledge. There are plenty of adults who are extremely ignorant. Why should they vote and not a 16 year old?", "title": "The voting age should be reduced to 16", "pid": "4848b93e-2019-04-18T13:12:06Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.41769409179688}, {"text": "Thank you for responding. Con makes two contention’s and provides a counterplan. I will address each in turn. Con’s case C1: Uniformed Voter’s Con argues that uninformed voters harm the system and demonstrates that 17 year olds are likely be uninformed voters. The issue with this contention is that con does nothing to demonstrate 17 year olds any less informed than those who can vote. What con has demonstrated is the reality is many of those who can and do vote are not particularly \"politically savvy.\" Essentially con’s contention here is against uneducated voting, not voting age. Thus, we see this contention entirely misses the mark. It seems to me that according to con’s logic here, if someone is informed they ought to be able to vote. I am certain that con would not contend the fact that there are a few politically savvy teens that are informed enough to vote. Certainly savvy enough to pass an arbitrary test to vote. C2: Propoganda As with the first contention, this argument misses the mark. It addresses the issue of misinformation and voter manipulation. This is true of the status quo and is not going to be impacted by allowing 17 year olds to vote. Worse yet, con confirm this as he presented a source indicating that the average voter is usually uninformed and biased toward the political party with which they identify. Again, this contention has nothing to do with age but rather against voting in General. Con’s Counter Plan Here con makes some inconstant and startling suggestions. In my estimation the worst being the suggestion of a type of metric or test to determine if those that do vote should be allowed to. Sound like Jim Crow laws to me. Not only does con want to keep 17 year olds oppressed, it sounds like he wants to take the vote away from other groups. Summary of Con’s case Con has not addressed the issue at hand, both contentions address issues that are separate from age and thus do not negate the resolution. Con’s counter plan is likely to restrict voting from young, old, and uneducated. Rebuttal “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence) Unalienable: “impossible to take away or give up” (1) We live in a society that accepts the concept that some rights are unalienable. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” (Declaration of Independence) “Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority;” (2) We live in a society that requires of its government the protection and security of such rights. “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”(Declaration of Independence) “Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law.”(2) We live in a society that dictates that the power of government come from the consent of the governed Via voting. \"A man without a vote is a man without protection.\" Lyndon B. Johnson 36th U.S. President (3) \"Voting is the most precious right of every citizen\" Hillary Clinton (4) We live in a society that accepts… 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting To accept con’s argument is to reject the very purpose of our government. His plan rejects equal rights to voting, and effectively would mitigate the ability of people to give consent to the government. This is tyranny. Value liberty; uphold our Constitution and the values displayed in the Declaration of Independence. Return sovereignty to the people. Vote in favor of lower the age to vote to 17. Vote Pro. Sources (1)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://www.brainyquote.com... (4) http://www.brainyquote.com...", "title": "Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17", "pid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.41539001464844}, {"text": "Pro doesnt give a single coherent reason of why the voting age should be lowered. However there are quite a few reasons why the voting age of the UK should not be lowered.1) Young people dont care about politics, and numbers show this2) Young people know far less about the politics involved than older voters3) There really isnt a dire need to expand the voting rights4) Lets face it, who knows what they can do to the UK. .. - 1 - Why should the voting age be lowered if young people dont even vote? . http://www.theticker.org...http://voices.yahoo.com...http://trace.tennessee.edu...http://mypolitikal.com...Point is, young people dont give a damn about voting, and the younger they are the more apathetic they are. - 2 - Young people naturally are more misinformed about politics and politicians. http://www.policymic.com...http://www.appeal-democrat.com...Simply put one of the reasons why young people dont vote is that they dont know anything about the politics or politicians. - 3 - There is no dire need to expand the number of potential voters in UK. UK Voter turnout is still at 76% while the US is still below 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org...Point is, UK doesnt need a larger voting population because the number of registered voters in the UK who actually vote is rather impressive - 4 - this one is really my own opinion, and I know that there are some intelligent 16 year old UK political nuts on this site right now, but a majority of UK 16 year olds are,How do I put this. .. . Would you trust this person to decide who serves in government? . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I'd sh*t my pants tooTo summarize my argument, the voting age should not be lowered in the UK because the UK already has a stunning voter turnout, young people dont want to vote, young people dont know much about politics or politicians they are voting for, and trusting all 16 year olds to vote scares the sh*t out of some people.", "title": "Lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 in the UK.", "pid": "6ead9505-2019-04-18T18:25:41Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.40560913085938}, {"text": "In my school when the elections came up they held a mock election and you voted for the party you would vote for had you been old enough we where at an age where everything was very clichy and if you didn't vote for the right party you weren't in the group, therefore think the age should be lowered to 15/16 that way people are past that point aswell it gives you more freedoms when your 16 as these days all you can do when your 16 is have sex legally and most people do it illegally anyway", "title": "It should be lowered not scrapped all together", "pid": "1962bef4-2019-04-19T12:46:39Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 216.40093994140625}, {"text": ":) \"Young people today are well informed enough and mature enough to vote so the voting age should be lowered. \" Not necessarily. Actually, I would go against this. How are they informed? Most may have a job, but not one that they have to depend on for money in order to live. They do not own a house, have children, or maybe not even have a car! They do not understand how the \"real world\" works and therefore do not have the right to vote. Most are not concerned or involved in taxes and house mortgage and this is what most of the candidates focus on. Teenagers' brains are still developing. I will also mention how many stupid decisions 16 year olds make. I am certainly not saying all, but many do. Should these children who are still living with their parents, who do not own a house, are not involved much in the economy, and are just learning to drive really need to have a say in the government? The voting age now is certainly not causing anybody harm and is working our just fine. Also, I will mention how most of the 16 year olds would be biased due to their parents' opinions.", "title": "The Voting Age Should Be Dropped to 16", "pid": "452eaf9c-2019-04-18T19:48:30Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.380126953125}, {"text": "Per rules this is my final focus. Con case If you recall in my first argument I mentioned that to win my opponent must provide reasoning that demonstrates why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. Let’s see if he has done that. 1: “Uniformed Voters” Essentially con’s contention here is against uneducated voting, not voting age. Last round he attempted to argue that he has shown that it is a larger issue for those under 18, though all he showed was that it is an issue, not a larger issue for the age group. In fact I can show this via my opponent’s own words. “High school seniors are usually between the ages of 17 and 18. ” My opponent has just affirmed that his stat reasonably applies to 17 and 18 year olds alike and thus this contention does nothing to negate lowering the voting age to 17. It is therefore off topic and ought not be weighed against the resolution. 2: “Propaganda” This contention addresses the issue of misinformation and voter manipulation. Con does claim that teens are likely easier to manipulate, though as with the last contention; this would include eighteen and nineteen year olds. Thus, we see this contention also does not really address why those that are 18 should vote and those 17 ought not. This contention is therefore not well established to be against the resolution so much as voting itself and ought not be weighed against the resolution. 3: “Counter Plan” Con’s alternative was for an observable metric to determine voter competence. I mentioned that this is reminiscent of Jim Crow Laws. It seems my reference here was misunderstood. I was saying that having some kind of intelligence test or metric to determine voter competence has been found to be easily used to oppress minorities. For example; Jim Crow laws. As Con has provided no kind of specifics, it is impossible for me to attack whatever metric he is referring to. Thus, my contention was that when such “metrics” have been used in the past, they have been used to oppress minorities. Final thoughts on Con’s Case My opponents contentions and counter plan miss the mark. We are discussing whether voting should be extended to 17 year olds. Nothing in Con’s case demonstrates support for the status quo which allows those the age of 18 to vote and not allow those 17 to vote. He has thus not justified denying the vote to 17 year olds specifically. My case I presented the simple concept that This Democratic Republic was established “of the people, by the people, for the people. ” At the time this government was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U. S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. Con claims that this claim points toward a utilitarian framework. It does, it appeals to the greatest possible good being liberty of the people to choose outweighing the so called benefits of tyranny. Con’s claims his counterplan solves the problem I brought up. I am not sure how he sees that being the case. His counter plan seems to more than likely limit liberty not oppress it. I have shown that the difference between 17 and 18 year olds is virtually nonexistent and thus no reason there to give 18 year olds the power to vote and restrict 17 year olds. Con claims that 17 year olds ability to conscript in the military does not qualify them for the vote. If con was aware of history he would see that is the main reason 18 year olds were given the vote. During Vietnam 18 year olds could be drafted but not vote. It was argued that such an arrangement that allows you to die for your country but have no representation way tyrannical. Con again cites his stat concerning high school seniors. Again I will point out this stat also includes those who have the ability currently to vote. I also briefly argued that taxation without representation was tyrannical. He concedes this but says it does not affect his framework. Apparently con feels as though his framework is the end all be all of this debate. Though, he never addressed my framework. Clearly, I argued that what ought to be valued is liberty and what ought to be avoided is tyranny. My opponent needed to provide reasoning that demonstrated why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. He has not done so. I have shown, the difference in age between the two is negligible and thus those who have reached the age of 17 ought to be able to vote for the president that will represent them the next four years. This is why the voting age in Presidential Elections should be lowered to 17.", "title": "Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17", "pid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.35751342773438}, {"text": "Counter-Rebuttal 1: Uninformed Voters I have shown empirically why my opponent is wrong. I have proven that 17 year olds do not have the political knowledge to vote with the statistic I have mentioned before about the fact that 75% of high school seniors are not proficient in civics. Yes, this applies to both 17 year olds and 18 year olds, but that point is irrelevant considering the fact that I have already shown that 17 year olds are not politically knowledgeable. I have shown this through the previous statistic that my opponent has already conceded effects both 18 year olds and 17 year olds. Thus, we see that my impacts are still valid. By passing this resolution to extend voting rights to 17 year olds, we would be seeing an increasingly diluted voting pool, which still stands regardless of whether 18 year olds are any more politically knowledgeable than 17 year olds due to the fact that we are still diluting the voting pool with more uninformed voters. Counter-Rebuttal 2: Propaganda First, I should clear something up. No, I do not think it is fair that those who are 18 can vote, and those who are 17 cannot. However, there are impacts that one would want to avoid in the status quo, and since not allowing 17 year olds to vote would mitigate this, one needs to vote for the con side. However, allow me to address the points made by my opponent thus far in relation to propaganda. My opponent has already claimed that my contentions are not specific enough, but this doesn’t matter as long as my impacts still occur, which I have already proven. Remember, we are allowing more people into the voting base who are uninformed, that being 17 year olds. Not only this, but these are young voters who are impressionable and on social media, which I have proven is also a way in which candidates could manipulate to get more votes. I have proven this by the statistic showing that the ripple effect from other Facebook friends resulted in .39% more of a chance that people would vote for their friends’ choice. This, as cited by the author of the previous statistic, can be easily manipulated by means of “cyber gerrymandering. ” This impact still remains unrefuted. Counter-Rebuttal 3: Counter plan My opponent still has not touched on the other factors I have mentioned in my original case such as forming PACs or pushing for more time in which teens can contact state senators, so extend those as my opponent has dropped them. Regardless, I will explain the difference between Jim Crow laws and my counter plan. I never stated that the information gathered could be used to limit voting I stated the following: “This could determine the general competence of certain demographics of voters to understand the general demographics for future reference for potential policy to increase said political knowledge. ” Unless affirmative action is the same as Jim Crow laws, then this accusation is false. This would not limit voting; this would make the process even more fair. Counter-Rebuttal 4: Opponent’s case Extend my social contract theory point as well as my point that none of my opponent’s points fall under the unrefuted framework. Regardless, I will refute. a. My opponent’s framework My opponent claims that his framework has to do with liberty. This not only does not produce tangible effects on the American people, but there are no impacts to this as the political system will continue as it does with no major problems. Not only this, but he has waited until his final focus to point this out. b. Similarity between 17 year olds and 18 year olds My opponent may have provided evidence showing that both have similar rights, but again, this has nothing to do with voting ability or political knowledge. Even so, I have proven detrimental effects on the voting system if this resolution were to be passed. c. Utilitarian framework One can’t propose both a utilitarian framework and one about liberty. Regardless, I will refute. My counter plan will work because we are still involving 17 year olds into the political system by pushing them to form PACs and generally become more politically involved. Thus, they still get the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Conclusion My opponent’s case has been completely refuted.", "title": "Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17", "pid": "6623faa8-2019-04-18T13:12:04Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.3556365966797}, {"text": "Con would now like to remind readers of the purpose of this debate. The resolution states that we should lower the legal voting age to 15. For Pro to uphold this resolution they must first and foremost explain why this is beneficial. Pro makes many seemingly convincing arguments for why this would be beneficial to 15-17 year olds but fails to show why it would be beneficial to the country. Also Con has made convincing arguments that this would be detrimental to a democratic society and has backed up these arguments with scientific evidence. Con will now attempt to summarize the arguments made by Pro and show a) none of the claims are substantiated rather are all hypothesized reasoning and b) Con has refuted many of the claims made by Pro with scientific evidence. Engagement/Education: Pro argues that 15-17 year olds become disenfranchised due to not being allowed to vote and that this creates an apathetic view towards voting which may result in them continuing not to vote once they do reach legal voting age. Con's main argument against this is admittedly partially of an appeal to the absurd which is why Pro characterizes this argument as being a “slippery slope” argument. Furthermore Pro states that in New Zealand students are not taught politics until the age of 13/14 thus 15 is a good age. This is not a slippery slope argument and while Con does make the argument absurd by going as low as 5 years old, Con does not feel it is absurd to consider 12, 13, or 14 year olds when Pro is making the claim that 15 is the “correct” minimum voting age. Furthermore, anyone familiar with US primary education will note that Government/Economics is generally a senior level course (17/18 years old) and thus would rule out 15 being the minimum age by Pro's own arguments for education. This is one of many instances where Pro makes a claim but offers nothing but anecdotal evidence or hypothetical arguments. If Pro's claim is that it is generally normal for children to learn politics as early as the age of 13/14, then Pro should have presented evidence to back up that claim. Without evidence, we are left with either New Zealand's educational curriculum or the United States'. This does not help to clarify this argument. Change: Pro makes the argument that older generations are more stuck in their ways, making them more likely to promote the status quo as opposed to teens who are more likely to adopt new, novel ways of thinking and thus better policies. Con presented polling data showing that, in fact, teens are more likely to merely vote however their parents do. In Con's rebuttal, they attempt to shift the BoP: “To be a valid argument, pro still needs to show why independent reasoning is a valid excuse for not allowing voting. ” Actually Pro's argument, that teens are independent and novel thinkers, has the BoP. Once again, they fail to present such evidence while Con has provided evidence that this is not the case. Pro's one piece of evidence to support this claim is a poll showing that European youth support gay rights at a much higher rate than their older counterparts (. http://www.eyp.org... ) --which they did not even present as evidence for this particular argument. First this claim presupposes that indeed gay rights are a good thing. While Con agrees, this is not objective reasoning and thus does not support the argument that change is a good thing. Next lets look at Pro's rebuttals of evidence that Con presented showing that teens do not make for very good voters. No Stake: First Pro attempts to attack Con's source which states that only 25% of teens in the US have summer jobs [8]. Pro's major problem with this source is that the number is a model not a statistic. I do not know where Pro gets this idea from or how this refutes the source. Even if we go with the historical high of 60%, this still means a large portion of teens do not work (much higher than for normal adult unemployment of <10% and even underemployment of around 20%). “From the 1950s through the 1990s, between 45 and 60 percent of teenagers had summer jobs” [8] Furthermore, following a link from this article shows that this is from US Census Data [9]. Even so, Pro makes the claim that this is irrelevant: “Nevertheless it's not relevant, because con has never justified why:1) voting is an economic decision or has primarily economic impacts2) teenagers cannot make decisions on behalf of others they care about3) we should not care about those teenagers that do work, and4) teenagers cannot think about their future” First, Con has shown points 2) and 4) to be the case with scientific evidence [1, 2, 3, 4]. I ask readers, what evidence has Pro presented showing these to be true? Furthermore, Con never made the argument 1). Instead Con stated that taxpayers have a right to decide where their money goes—this is not directly related to economic decisions. As for point 3), Con has stated that while some teens do work, the majority (or at the least a large portion), do not. Irrational/Immature: This argument comes down to evidence. Con has made the claim that teen brains are still developing and that studies have shown that they primarily use their amygdala as opposed to their frontal cortex when making decisions. This hinders them from making correct cause-effect decisions. This means teens are not likely to understand the ramifications of their political decisions. Pro's only rebuttal to this evidence is to present hypotheticals intended to refute sound scientific evidence. I don't think comparing Early 20th century “neuroscience” with modern neuroscience research is a valid argument (i. e. saying people argued women's/African Americans' brains were inferior—they merely stated this fact, there was no scientific evidence to back it up as I have presented for teen brains). I think the evidence vs. non-evidence speaks for itself. Con has presented numerous sources—what sources has Pro offered to support their arguments? In conclusion, this debate comes down to evidence. Pro has made elegant pleas as to why teens should be allowed to vote. However, all of Pro's arguments hinge on one single assumption: teens will make good voters. Con has presented overwhelming evidence to support the idea that a) teens are irrational and thus cannot make good political decisions and b) teens are likely to just vote the same as their parents anyway. I will end with a quote from one of my sources which I think hammers home the idea that 15-17 year olds, living at home with their parents, are not likely to make independent decisions. “By the end of the high school years, there’s a “high point of agreement” between parents and children, he said. But during the college years, children who no longer live with their parents are “pretty malleable,” subject to influence from peers, the media and current events and issues, Franklin said. ” [6] Sources:[1] . http://www.aacap.org...[2] . http://brainconnection.positscience.com...[3] . http://www.tesh.com...[4] . http://www.cnn.com... [5] . http://articles.mcall.com...[6] . http://gazettextra.com...[7] . http://www.gallup.com... [8] . http://www.slate.com... [9] . http://online.wsj.com...", "title": "That the voting age should be lowered to 15", "pid": "6d6965d5-2019-04-18T17:51:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.34326171875}, {"text": "You may go first. I am FOR lowering the voting age, and for this argument we will talk about lowering it to 16.Here are some extra rules:If either side curses, they lose right away.No new arguments may be brought into the last round, only rebuttals. This counts in conduct.Formatting counts for spelling and grammar in voting. Meaning both sides must make their argument look good and be easily readable.", "title": "Lower the Voting Age", "pid": "d461a67d-2019-04-18T11:42:08Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 216.34165954589844}, {"text": "It would be dangerous to give young people the vote. They might use it in foolish ways. For example they might vote for celebrities or make their decision on which party had the best image. They might put extremists into power or vote without thinking on single issues (e.g. making drugs legal, free university places, cheap beer!).", "title": "Lowering the voting age to 15", "pid": "1a7a8132-2019-04-18T17:50:29Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.3323974609375}, {"text": "That is a biased and ageism view point. We want to be engaged and change the world for the better. Teens can think differently than their parents. All teens think differently than their parents, (I do it all the time). We all are created equal! Is it fair that we don't have a say in what Happens with our taxes or our education. Also a republic is a type of democracy. You are using the same points as the oppressors of allowing African Americans and women the right to vote. We have social studies classes for a reason, so we can be better citizens and humans, and learn from the past. Your argument is unrealistic,that we can say that adults who have no idea about government and the political system but not The youth of America who are have classes about and care. Plus if we lower it we increase voter turnout!", "title": "Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age.", "pid": "219652fa-2019-04-18T14:33:32Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.3315887451172}, {"text": "Voting Age Should not be LoweredThere are three main reasons why voting age should not be lowered, these are: 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough, they do not yet have enough experience or are as aware of the world around them and the way it will effect their lives and that 16 and 17 year olds and their lack of understanding on the responsibility of casting a voteFirstly, are 16 and 17 year olds mature enough to handle a vote? No, they are not. If they are not yet considered mature enough to be in the army, protecting and making decisions for their country, they are definitely not mature enough to decide the future of themselves and others. Most 16 and 17 year olds do not pay taxes, so therefore none of their money will go towards the way their government is running the country. If 18 year olds are not yet mature enough to walk into a pub how can they be mature enough to decide the future of an entire country. As well as this your brain is still not fully developed until you turn 30.16 and 17 year olds have not got enough experience of the world to vote. They will not have had a long term job or the responsibility of running their own lives but the proposition would hand the way the country is run to a 16 year old? If you would not trust an average 16 year old with your life why would you give them our country. We do not have 16 or17 year old politicians so why have voters that age? They will both do the same, decide the future of the country.Could a 16 or 17 year old handle the responsibility of voting? You are only allowed to be part of a jury when you are 18 and older, making the decision that could change someone's life forever. This shows they could not handle the responsibility of deciding the future of millions of the other people in their country. So no, they could not handle this responsibility.So as I have shown 16 and year olds should not get a vote, if you disagree please accept my challenge!", "title": "Voting Age Should be Lowered to 16", "pid": "44c7d18-2019-04-18T18:04:38Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.3314666748047}, {"text": "1) I`m not saying we lower the age to 8, I`m saying we lower the age to like 16 or something, and the teenage brain does not get fully developed until about 25 anyway. And in the article you submitted said \"If they feel pressured, stressed, or are seeking attention from their peers\" and voting is none of those things http://www.abc.net.au... http://www.bbc.com... 2) more adults (according to NBC) have died than kids so your argument is invalid https://twitter.com... 3) See example one", "title": "Should the voting age be lowered", "pid": "aeb43fe9-2019-04-18T11:40:53Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.30316162109375}, {"text": "kids have read about the government and now the difference between good and bad, they know about government corruption. They have studied history and i argue that they do know who to vote, having a younger age group would help us because they are still is school which would make the votes better for school.", "title": "voting age should be lowered", "pid": "abb42382-2019-04-18T16:14:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.30047607421875}, {"text": "No taxation without representation", "title": "lower the voting age to 16", "pid": "ca9d6789-2019-04-15T20:24:25Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 216.29217529296875}, {"text": "First, just because you went to Ivy-League college doesn't mean you know everything. Second, my argument is completely logical and is completely supported by hundreds sources and is backed up entirely by science. Third, the more educated a person is, the more mature that person will become and the can make better choices. However I understand that people are not immature until age twenty-five, but on average the human brain is not fully developed. Fourth, the more mature people are, the better off our nation will be (the United States). Its that simple. There is nothing more to it.", "title": "The lowering of the voting age>>>", "pid": "dac67b43-2019-04-18T15:27:10Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.2842254638672}]}
{"idx": 47, "qid": "49", "q_text": "Should body cameras be mandatory for police?", "qrels": {"869af6cc-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00005-000": 0, "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00005-000": 2, "9586ef79-2019-04-18T11:15:05Z-00005-000": 0, "6288d523-2019-04-18T13:31:12Z-00004-000": 0, "77b9d4a1-2019-04-19T12:47:46Z-00002-000": 0, "77b9d4a1-2019-04-19T12:47:46Z-00004-000": 0, "9247b1e1-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00003-000": 2, "869af6cc-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00000-000": 0, "8375938-2019-04-18T19:45:55Z-00000-000": 0, "869af6cc-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00006-000": 0, "8375938-2019-04-18T19:45:55Z-00002-000": 1, "5d6bbcc-2019-04-18T12:50:03Z-00002-000": 2, "1733c744-2019-04-18T12:03:59Z-00002-000": 2, "51bd3188-2019-04-18T15:02:46Z-00001-000": 0, "289dc5b0-2019-04-18T12:28:56Z-00000-000": 2, "51bd3188-2019-04-18T15:02:46Z-00000-000": 0, "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00005-000": 0, "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00000-000": 0, "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00002-000": 0, "46d49c81-2019-04-18T18:14:45Z-00005-000": 0, "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00006-000": 2, "3ec93a8d-2019-04-18T19:37:46Z-00001-000": 0, "289dc5b0-2019-04-18T12:28:56Z-00001-000": 2, "12cc98d3-2019-04-18T11:08:03Z-00002-000": 0, "54a0a16c-2019-04-18T16:27:17Z-00004-000": 0, "2ecd255b-2019-04-19T12:45:25Z-00001-000": 0, "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00004-000": 2, "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00002-000": 2, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "b11887a6-2019-04-18T19:50:17Z-00002-000": 0, "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00054-000": 2, "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00075-000": 2, "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00013-000": 2, "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00026-000": 1, "bae3dc04-2019-04-18T18:44:45Z-00002-000": 0, "ce7f5699-2019-04-19T12:45:21Z-00007-000": 0, "dd6e128b-2019-04-18T12:30:58Z-00001-000": 0, "e98fe508-2019-04-18T14:13:32Z-00005-000": 0, "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00003-000": 2, "e5f6de37-2019-04-18T14:46:12Z-00004-000": 0, "e5f6de56-2019-04-18T14:08:24Z-00001-000": 1, "e5f6de56-2019-04-18T14:08:24Z-00002-000": 0, "e5f6de75-2019-04-18T14:04:51Z-00003-000": 1, "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00001-000": 2, "e871f8e7-2019-04-18T12:44:35Z-00002-000": 0, "9c362344-2019-04-18T16:59:33Z-00000-000": 0, "4c68354c-2019-04-18T13:19:39Z-00000-000": 0, "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00003-000": 2, "6c1e3b72-2019-04-18T16:56:13Z-00003-000": 0}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "Now to be honest I actually agree but I am board so why not, I think that body cameras might be extreme. Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race but what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. and i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things.", "title": "Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty", "pid": "5d6bbcc-2019-04-18T12:50:03Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 219.16885375976562}, {"text": "1. Body cameras can help an investigation. First of all, direct evidence is the best evidence possible. Having these officers wear these body cameras helps the judge to make an educated decision, and to make sure no officers are help wrongly at fault. Second of all. it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie.", "title": "Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.", "pid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 219.13194274902344}, {"text": "I will argue that police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty. Since purchasing body cameras for law enforcement agencies would be a public expense, I will accept the burden of proof in this debate. Sources can and should be posted in text after the arguments they are being used to support. -Power and authority should be accompanied by accountability. This is something that Sir Robert Peel recognized in his principles of policing which were developed to guide the first professional police force. One example: \"The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.\" Body cameras an oversight tool which can be used to better hold officers accountable and maintain public trust. (Source: http://www.nwpolice.org...) -Body cameras have the two-pronged effect of encouraging police officers to act professionally and also defusing situations with subjects (who are less inclined to behave in discrediting ways when they know they are being filmed). In pilot projects where body cameras worn by police officers have been implemented and studied, complaints against officers have dropped over 90%. (Source: http://cjb.sagepub.com...) -Further expanding on the point of cameras being a tool to defuse situations, they will improve officer safety as subjects will be aware that their actions will be recorded on camera and those recordings could be used as evidence against them. -While cost is sometimes cited as an argument against the implementation of police body cameras, lawsuits against police agencies for misconduct can be extremely expensive for the agencies and the government bodies that oversee them. Body cameras can capture evidence that can discredit false complaints against officers and can prevent frivolous lawsuits from succeeding or forcing governments to provide unnecessary settlements. -Individual officers themselves are protected from false accusations in the form of complaints or lawsuits if they behave professionally and appropriately and their conduct is captured through body cameras. I'm looking forward to further debating this with anyone willing to argue the contrary position.", "title": "Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty", "pid": "5d6bbcc-2019-04-18T12:50:03Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 218.8682861328125}, {"text": "No sources allowed in this debate.", "title": "Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.", "pid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 218.6199188232422}, {"text": "No, they should not have to wear body cameras. They are put in a position of authority for a reason. The law enforcement officers should be trusted on what they do and own up to their mistakes when the make them. Yes, they do make mistakes, most admit when they do. Should we put body cameras on all criminals after they are released from prison or jail? No, because we put trust in them they will never commit a crime again.", "title": "Should all cops have to wear body cameras", "pid": "289dc5b0-2019-04-18T12:28:56Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 218.47882080078125}, {"text": "I think cops should have to wear body cameras because we want to know the true story on cop killings", "title": "Should all cops have to wear body cameras", "pid": "289dc5b0-2019-04-18T12:28:56Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 218.30291748046875}, {"text": "Also, I'd like to apologize for the lack of formal rules and structure to this debate (I am new to the site and this is the first debate I posted); we'll have to freestyle this. Now then, addressing your points in order: --- \"Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race\" I'm sorry, I don't entirely understand what you mean by this (I'm assuming that \"betting\" is a typo there). But I'm going to infer that you mean to bring up racial profiling here. I would actually counter that body cameras can serve to reduce racial profiling in that they can be used to show that officers had probable cause in their interactions with subjects (including minorities). It makes it more difficult, if not next to impossible, to fabricate evidence or charges. --- \"what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. \" With respect, I don't see how it would. During a physical altercation it is certainly possible that a camera could be knocked off. It happens in this body camera footage for example: But officer safety takes precedence over protecting equipment so I don't see how wearing a body camera could put officers any more at risk. Keep in mind they already wear a lot of equipment on their person. Anecdotally, I was an LEO who wore a mic (but not a body camera) at all times on shift, I never once felt it posed an officer safety threat and I'm struggling to imagine how it could. I'm open to further argument on this point if you could elaborate. --- \"i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things. \" Again, I'm sorry but I don't understand the last half of this sentence. I will, however, address the first half: Dashcams are already standard in police cars but they have several disadvantages compared to body cameras. For example, they have a static position. Body cameras are dynamic and move along with the officer's POV. This is an instant process and they do not need to be adjusted. By contrast, with a dashcam at best you can orient it to face a specific area you believe will be most relevant to capture footage, but that both requires foresight to do (which is difficult in the heat of a high stress situation) and will not follow the officer and/or subject if they move out of the line of sight where the camera is oriented.", "title": "Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty", "pid": "5d6bbcc-2019-04-18T12:50:03Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.84934997558594}, {"text": "Today as the con, I am going to prove to you that police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty at all times. My value today is morality. The reason why this is my value because I am going o prove that it is immoral to wear a body camera as it harms the people's rights, and the community as a whole. Contention 1: Body cameras are seen as an invasion of privacy. When body cameras are on, they will capture all civilian and police behavior. Now, not all people would like this. Some people find it very uncomfortable to be recorded while talking, as they find it invades privacy. Current law prevents a search, which invades privacy, and would everyone is not exactly comfortable for recording them, which will be there forever, and it is an embarrassing memory. Contention 2: Body cameras cost too much. A single camera costs about $350. Many small areas do not have the money and resources to provide these cameras for EVERY officer. Doing so would put the budget at a very uncomfortable position, and it leads for more debt to rise. Contention 3: A camera will never replace a whole investigation. Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies. So with these reasons and many more, police officers should not wear body cameras while on duty. I respectfully, but strongly urge you to put a vote in the Con side today. `TheResistance", "title": "Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.", "pid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.73068237304688}, {"text": "1. No, don't even go there with the stupid logical fallacies, I can't **Flashback** This guy attacked me on here saying that all I used was logical fallacies... I'm going to ignore that. 2. There's already a fund for the body cameras. 3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie. 4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game. 5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves? I can't break down and analyze your argument at a cellular level because I'm a full- time college student, so sorry for the short responses.", "title": "Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.", "pid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.63931274414062}, {"text": "So I guess there were two other studies. The policies of the other departments still don\"t require body cams be turned on for every civilian interaction. For example in Orlando the policy is:\"Officers shall activate the (body-worn camera) whenever there is a potential for dealing with a suspect of a crime,\" states the policy. It adds that, \"(the camera) may be activated whenever the officer feels its use would be beneficial to his/her police duties.\" http://www.clickorlando.com...The San Diego guidelines advise police to not record victims of violent crime, or record peaceful protestors, when they perform their protection duties at those. http://voiceofsandiego.org...We can see that my opponent is advocating for a policy that has likely never been implemented before, and using data from studies that never required police to record all civilian interactions. If my opponent wants to replicate the results of those studies, he should follow the body worn camera guidelines they have. Not create his own unproven guidelines. My opponent should lose because the use of bodycams can be implemented with the same results, and without requiring the use of bodycams in every single civilian interaction.Impact analysisI\"ll keep this short. There isn\"t much to say, because this is such a clear loss for my opponent. Even without me adding anything. My opponent must show that bodycams should record every single civilian interaction. He has not done this. He has showed the usefulness of body cams for sure. Officers should use them for traffic stops, and when responding to service calls, but he has not given a single good reason (or any reason at all) to use them when talking to informants are victims of violent crimes. He needs to give some good reasons as to why bodycams should be used while talking to victims of violent crimes or why informants who may have to admit their own illegal activity to help a cop catch a bigger fish, should be recorded. I haven\"t won because I\"ve presented some sort of compelling evidence that police shouldn\"t be wearing body cams in every interaction with civilians (I have). I\"ve won because my opponent has failed to give a single reason why informants and victims should be recorded.Responses\"In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such).\"I have not insulted anybody, but this is an insult. How dare my opponent say an accident where I killed somebody and watched their mangled body squirming in odd and inhuman ways on the ground is not traumatic. How dare my opponent say I was not a victim who has had to live with the knowledge I have killed somebody, because of his own criminal behavior as well as the behavior of his buddies. My opponent should definitely lose some conduct points for this rude behavior. Between the conduct point, arguments and loss of the source point, my opponent cannot be allowed to win this debate.\"I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera.\"This is silly to even say. There is a huge difference between talking with a cop who is acting like a trusted confidant, and talking to somebody with a camera where the footage will be reviewed by whoever puts it in the database, the chief of police, the district attorney, 12 jurors, a judge whoever happens to be in the courtroom that day, and numerous media outlets displaying the footage to millions of people. Without the bodycam a victim is crying on the shoulder of a trusted confidant, with the body cam (AKA evidence for a court case, likely pulled up by the defense team to find tiny contradictions), the victim is talking to a large group of people. The situation with an informant is worse, especially if we are dealing with organized crime. Way to give somebody the death sentence who gave a police officer who used his information to bust a hitman pro. \"This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case?\"This is what a written witness statement is for. The victim can type down a statement about what happened, and still have a shoulder to cry on where she can say whatever she wants (Personal wise not evidence wise) in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event. I won't even respond to the discretion point too much. My opponent has completely went off the rails with it. Just read my previous round to see how I\"ve already addressed every single thing he says. Look this is a clear win for me. Do the right thing. Thanks voters.", "title": "Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction", "pid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.56082153320312}, {"text": "As my opponent stated, today\"s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. What he is not considering is that this same claim applies to his own stance as well. He is arguing that wearing body cameras will provide objective footage, which, in turn, will allow society to judge on situation. The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair. Society have their own idea of what it means to be \"fair\". Their own core values and principles. Some people might not share those values and principles. Just because majority are majority does not logically lead to conclusion that their stance is automatically correct. Think about ancient rome, where slavery was legal. Or think about middle east, where killing homosexuals is legal. Or think about nazi germany, where gassing jews was legal. Just because something is considered \"legal' does not mean that it is right thing to do. With body cameras government will have absolute control over police force, meaning that governments own interpretation of \"right\" and \"justice\" will be forced upon people more effectively. I am against that. Even tho I do, generally speaking, agree with most (if not all) of the governments values, if one day I will not, I will have no way to stand up to the government. Everything will be recorded and people will be jailed based on governments own, egoistic interpretation of \"justice\". I believe that granting government ultimate control will lead to disaster, because if government is going to change, there is going to be nothing you can do to avoid their \"unjust\" (according to you) punishment.", "title": "Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras", "pid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.50784301757812}, {"text": "Framework The resolution says police should us body cams in civilian interactions. The wording of which and the lack of mentioning any exceptions to the rule of requiring body cams in civilian interactions, implies that they should be used in all civilian interactions. This is how the resolution is written, and should be interpreted. Privacy Concerns There are some definite privacy concerns with body cams. Police don\"t only deal with suspects of crimes, and traffic infractions on a daily basis. Officers also talk with witnesses and informants. They talk to rape victims. They also are sometimes the first to arrive at car crashes and interact with the victims of horrible tragedies. The main concern is that all the footage would be public property and therefore public can get access to it through the freedom of information act, but even if laws were made to protect the privacy of people, leaks still happen and the civilians still know the film is being made which has an effect on their psychology. You can easily go to youtube and already view dash cam footage of a lot of people in the worst moments of their lives, we don\"t need to make this problem worse. Informants, many of which are in the criminal underworld will be less inclined to provide evidence needed to capture and prosecute dangerous criminals. Scared and shaken witnesses will also be more scared to and less inclined to give information. An officer talking to a 7 year old who just watched his mother raped and murdered, does not need to have a camera in his face bearing witness to and forever immortalizing the greatest tragedy he will ever face. Even when filming the arrest of somebody perhaps a batterer, the officer is often going into a private residence and there is all kinds of private information lying around, and no way should a victim of domestic violence have her private life exposed to whatever prying eye makes a FOA request, or youtubes the video, because some cop thought the interaction was funny enough to upload on the internet. Bureaucracy concerns Just like any other occupation, and especially with government agencies there can be a lot of bureaucracy. There is a lot of concern that having police cams on too much can make the jobs of officers harder, it can also make it harder on good cops. Right now an officer has a lot of discretion. If he sees an old lady in a dangerous neighborhood with an unregistered gun, he can turn a blind eye but with the cameras, he may be forced to prosecute every single tiny infraction. If you think broken windows policing is bad now, just wait until the police can no longer let little things go. The cameras can be used for his bosses to nitpick about every tiny thing he does, from improper uniform, to some off the cuff remarks to fellow officers. Everybody needs to blow off steam on occasion, and especially so in a high stress jobs like policing. Conclusion I know everyone thinks these body cams will be used to keep an out of control government in check, but in reality, just like every other tool. It will be used against citizens. Anyone can watch Tru TV and see \"Top 20 Drunks\" shows, shaming people seen in dash cam videos or videos in a police room, we don\"t need to embarrass random people by allowing these shows more material. We don\"t need to handcuff good cops, by forcing them to lose their discretionary privileges. If unjust laws are made, we\"re somewhat protected by the fact that cops can use their discretion to stop enforcing stupid laws, with body cams you can forget that. Vote Wylted", "title": "Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction", "pid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 217.41952514648438}, {"text": "* This is not necessarily a round of police debate* Humanity has been on an ever eternal quest in search of felicity and safety. However, throughout mankind, there has been a series of crimes gone unsolved and detectives failing to solve assigned mysteries. Sadly, all have been failing to notice the very blatant solution to all of these. A way to ensure public safety and solve crimes is right in front of us and the proposition team wants this resolution to be implemented. Hello, I am Forever 23 and I am going to debate pro on the topic that police officers should not wear body cameras. I will first provide definitions and then introduce my own points. Body cameras- The cameras put on the uniforms of the police officers. They are of very high quality and NOT easily breakable. Now onto my own points.1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. Racial apartheid in the police force may seem impossible and implausible. However, that is the current reality. Today’s world criminal justice system is not at all filled with justice. In fact, many times, the fortune and faith of the one convicted will depend on his race, ethnicity and skin color. Cameras however, will provide a much more objective view on the situation. Nothing can bestow more truth than the situation itself on a video. . http://www.discoverthenetworks.org..., \"Los Angeles congresswoman Max Waters thinks that the system is racist, she stated that “the color of your skin dictates whether you will be arrested or not, prosecuted harshly or less harshly, or receive a stiff sentence or gain probation or entry into treatment. ” The late law professor Derrick Bell claimed that the justice system “disempowers people of color. ” At a presidential primary debate in 2008, Barack Obama charged that blacks and whites “are arrested at very different rates, are convicted at very different rates, [and] receive very different sentences . .. for the same crime. ” That same night, Senator Hillary Clinton likewise disgrace the “disgrace of a criminal-justice system that incarcerates so many more African-Americans proportionately than whites. ”\"The only way to ensure honesty in our justice and jurisdiction system is by having objective footage. The “he did it because he is African American” approach is not the way to go. The only way to make this system more fair to those of different races and skin colors is by implementing cameras. The real video will show what really happened, not from different people’s point of view. The video is better than any testimony. Since, African Americans are judged many times by the skin color in court, they mostly get unfair punishments. In order for the punishment to fit the crime and to know what the crime even is, we need cameras on officers. Cameras on police officers will stop deliberate, false accusations against African Americans and make the justice system much more stronger and efficient. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. . http://www.cam.ac.uk..., \"Knowledge that events are being recorded creates \"self-awareness\" in all participants during police interactions. This is the critical component that turns body-worn video into a 'preventative treatment': causing individuals to modify their behaviour in response to an awareness of 'third-party' surveillance by cameras acting as a proxy for legal courts—as well as courts of public opinion—should unacceptable behaviour take place. According to, . http://phys.org..., \" During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures. . http://www.cam.ac.uk... \"The 'preventative treatment' of body-worn-video is the combination of the camera plus both the warning and cognition of the fact that the encounter is being filmed. In the tragic case of Eric Garner, police weren't aware of the camera and didn't have to tell the suspect that he, and therefore they, were being filmed,\" said Dr Barak Ariel, from the Cambridge's IoC, who conducted the crime experiment with Cambridge colleague Dr Alex Sutherland and Rialto police chief Tony Farrar. The belief in police officers is at an all time low. That is quite harrowing because officers are the ones who protect us and safeguard us. People seeing officers as pernicious is not the way to benefit our society. In fact, many people dislike police force because of the utmost use of force. With officers being aware about the cameras strapped to their chest, they will be less likely to provide a criminal with unjustified force and more likely to do their jobs with fairness and the not needed force. That will result us in a much stronger police system and at the end, a stronger nation itself. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. The people of the USA see the benefits of the propositions plan. The majority of the US citizens want to see the plan in action. They want to ensure a safer future by not only arming officers with guns, but also giving them cameras to record the happening events. Judge, we need to listen to our public and make the safe. We should give the people what they want because in this particular case, the implementation of cameras will provide support to the security and democracy of the public. According to Huffington Post, 56% of voters stated that police body cameras would be beneficial to the police force. 13% stated that it will protect the unalienable rights of the US citizens. 25% of the poll takers figured that it would invade the privacy of people.6% figured that the officers should have the choice. 65,064 votes were supporting the resolution and 28,272 were considering this an invasion of privacy. . http://www.nbcnews.com..., Tracey Knight, community liaison and PR officer for the Fort Worth Police Department, told NBC News. \"However, more and more officers are requesting to have one issued to them and some have even purchased their own. \"The people want it! The officers want it! The officials want it! The question is, then why not? Most people from different areas including the police officers themselves are willing to record the data happening on the streets. They are willing to have objective, documented footage. People are waiting to switch from the “he did it” and the “no I did not” approach. The citizens of the USA are willing to make this nation change for the better and with the substantial support and assistance, the propositions plan will be able to function and even support the stance on majority decides. The propositions team plan is to make it required by law for every police officer to wear the Trascendent ProDrive Body 10 Body Camera. It will be very effective for this cause. I will further expand on this in the 2nd proposition speech.", "title": "Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras", "pid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 217.1175994873047}, {"text": "Hello once again, I am Forever 23 and I will debate that police body cameras must be implemented. Firstly, I would like to to a rebuttal of my opponents refutations (he has not brought up any point and no new arguments in round 3), restate my assertions and summarize my plan. So first of all, I would like to point out that throughout his refutations, my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments, instead of letting the message pass on as a whole. Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government. However, the people agree with the government. The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished. The proposition team agrees that fairness is completely subjective. However, in our era, in our nation, there are certain moral values. Value that are followed because they are accepted by the general public. If the public did not accept these values, they would be different. Something subjective stays in place as long as the majority accepts it. Nobody is forcing \"fairness\" onto anyone. The people are accepting and praising the current moral standards. To take the root and heart of their refutation, \" Body cameras will allow one group of people to force their own subjective ideas of \"fairness\" unto other people. That was my point. \". Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace. Body cameras fit the current \"fair\" which makes the implementation of them necessary for the US government- a government based on the values THAT THE PEOPLE CREATED, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Next, he mentions how once again everything is subjective. He expecially attacks the point on how genocide does NOT help the public by mentioning that some people thing that it does. He points out how Hitler thought that it was beneficial. Hitler was a man WITH AN INSANE MIND. It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong. If you come up to a stranger on the street and ask, \"Why is murder wrong? \", the most common response will be, \"Just because it is wrong\". The majority of the public holds the opinion that both genocide and murder are wrong, making it applicable. And while a subjective opinion is applicable and accepted by the general public, it must be used and applies. Same with body cameras and modern day laws. Most have the subjective opinion that police officers should wear cameras. That makes it applicable. Since it is applicable, it must be implemented. My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case. Now, I would like to point out that my opponent has completely misunderstood all of my arguments. 1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force. 3. The majority supprots this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. Overall, I would just like to summarize by saying that my opponent failed to understand and address 3 of my claims and my plan. Finally, to restate my plan. The Transcendent DrivePro Body camera will be put on all police officers. Well, how is it affordable?", "title": "Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras", "pid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 217.11196899414062}, {"text": "His refutation to my first point was that. We never stated the the crimes were fair. In fact, the opposition has completely misunderstood and obfuscated the simple argument that it will ensure a fair punishment to the criminal. Afterall, after seeing the situation, the decision makers will see what punishment fits the crime. And well of course, the punishment will in no way be unfair. If an unfair verdict is passed, there is always the video for evidence and the very simple statement can be said: Based on the video, the verdict was to strict/lax. He deserves a fair punishment since his rights are protected under the 8th amendment. Next, he refuted my majority point by saying that society may sometimes consider something wrong, right. He gave a few completely irrelevant examples. Such as, Nazi Germany. However, there is a very blatant difference between these to cases. The main difference is that the genocide was NOT made to HELP the public. It was a very obvious detriment. Here however, the public supports a movement which is supposed to ensure equality, and the use of less police force. In addition, the people did NOT support Nazi Germany. That is why brave soldiers from the US, Russia, France, England, etc have fought and risked their lives in order to end the terror. The second point, about the decreased use of duress remains standing as it was not refuted by the opposing side. Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan. So, my points were:1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police.3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Now onto a new assertion:4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. The opposition case in this debate will mostly be pointing out the ineffectiveness of these cameras, the costs and even uselessness. But in order for this plan to be successful, the police department must find the correct camera, find the most cheapest and yet efficient product and finally do more tests to find the effect of these cameras. If we do not take a serious approach to this situation, this plan will be a fail. However, with the right equipment, this system will run very well and efficiently. . http://www.bhphotovideo.com..., Record your every move with the DrivePro Body 10 Body Camera from Transcend, ideal for security personnel like bodyguards and police officers. The camera can record up to 3.5 hours of continuous 1080p video recording and has a built-in microphone for recording audio. Integrated IR LEDs are automatically triggered in low-light environments allowing the camera to record footage regardless of the light setting. The front of the camera features an easily accessible snapshot button for taking still pictures while recording video. The body camera features a 360° body clip which can quickly and securely attach the camera to a jacket or vest. IPX4-rated, the camera is water-resistant against splashing and rain, as well as shock-resistant. Footage is recorded to a microSD card and can be managed using the DrivePro Body Toolbox. While the camera is compatible with Microsoft and Mac operating systems, the DrivePro Body Toolbox is compatible only with Microsoft Windows systems.360° clip for connecting the camera to a jacket or strap IR LEDs for night vision capability Built-in battery for easy charging and up to 3.5h of continuous recording Built-in microphone for recording audio, in addition to video Snapshot button for capturing on-demand stills IPX4-rated against water Shock resistant They pricing is affordable, 149.99. Currently however, according to CNBC, the TASER cameras are being used. These cameras are also very effective. In fact, they are able to get really clear footage. This camera is 359.99 only. Overall judge, throwing this idea into the trash can because of expenses and trouble finding the correct camera is such a waste. If the government puts some thought into this idea, it will happen. The prices are not as extreme as the opposition may suggest as shown in the evidence. In addition, the cameras brought for these practical prices provide with a clear image that helps resolve the conflict in minutes just by watching this video. Overall, judge the body cameras will have a major effect on the issue of abortheid in the justice system and duress used by police force. Simply, the decision of the court will be based of real objective footage. If something seemed or was unfair, just looking at the video would be proof. The punishment will start to truly fit the crime because once you have the video, the mass, nothing can really defy it. With body cameras strapped to their chests, police officers will second guess themselves and therefore will not use an excessive amount of force.", "title": "Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras", "pid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 217.09512329101562}, {"text": "\"my opponent has been cherry picking my arguments\" I actually copied and pasted literally all your arguments, which you, very conveniently, listed. Here is the exact quote: \"Now, to restate my own points, introduce a new point and finally expand on my plan. So, my points were: 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras.\" And here is how I copy these points and provide counters: \"So, to re-state my counters to your arguments. 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. That being a good thing is merely your subjective opinion, not a fact. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. Again, your own, personal morals. Just because you, subjectively, believe it to be a good thing does not mean it actually is. Moral relativism. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Which does not mean that it is right thing to do. As I stated earlier, argument on grounds that something is right simply because majority believes so, is illogical (ad populum). What is \"right\" can be decided by each culture, or individual himself.\" Thus, I took into account and replied to ALL points. No cherry picking took place. \"Firstly, he pointed out that this will be fair only based on the government.\" I did not. Here is exact quote. \" The thing is that whether or not government or society approves situation does not prove that situation was indeed fair.\" \"What you are arguing here, is essentially to force your cultures and majorities values unto those who disagree.\" It was acknowledged that government will have majorities support. \"The sane, they agree that murder is immoral, that stealing is immoral and that those who commit such crimes must be punished.\" Ad hominem. The sane agree with me. Implying that those with different moral standards are insane. Text-book ad hominem. \"Nobody is forcing \"fairness\" onto anyone.\" They are, on minority. On those few who disagree with their ideas of fairness. \"Not one group of people at all! The majority. The population. This is not a single group, but an extremely large portion of the populace.\" Which is still a group... thus my point stands. \" It it not at all subjective that murder ir wrong.\" FOR THE RECORD- I DO NOT SUPPORT MURDER. I BELIEVE IT TO BE WRONG. That being said, unlike my opponent, I realize that this belief of mine is merely a personal opinion. It will be pleasure for me to inform my opponent that up until this day, no set of morals have been proven to be objectively correct to any other set of morals. Thus, morals are subjective. deal with it. My opponent believes that his personal, as well as his cultures morals are objectively correct, which is the problem. On a side note, I am not arguing that society can't and shouldn't enforce their subjective understanding on others. Society must exist somehow, which means laws must be enforced. I fully support that. What I explained in first round, was that if one day society and government will come up with unacceptable morals, those who disagree with said morals will have no way to avoid unjust punishment. This is why, in my opinion, we should not give government (and majority) full control. There must be a back door for instance if society turns evil, so that you could escape. \"My opponent talked a lot about how many support genocide. Does HE support the extremination of a certain race? I hope not. Which once again supports my case.\" I do not, but this is my personal opinion. I realize that me NOT supporting genocide is merely my subjective opinion, not objective truth. \"1. Dwindle the amount of apartheid. This argument is about how objective footage will lower racial discrimination in the justice system.\" It will lead to a situation which is classified by majority as \"lower racial discrimination\". Whether or not their classification of what counts as \"lower racial discrimination\" is objectively correct, is unknown. \"2. Downtrend the amount of duress used. Simple enough, the refutation was irrelevant. This argument was how police officers will use less force.\" And while it might be that police officers will use less force, it is only assumed by my opponenet that using less force is a good thing. If person does not agree with this premise, then this argument holds no merit and does not lead to conclusion that police should wear body cameras. 3. The majority supports this. Not majority of government people. But of our citizens and even the officers. I realize that. It was acknowledged by me on several instances. 4. If we do the hard work to figure out how to maximize the accountability of the police and minimize the privacy risk, this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States. Not personal values. The prop has evidence. If you look at some of the previous speeches, there has been evidence to proove how it result in less discrimination and force used by the officers. Which will then ensure safety. People want safety. Safety is what is wanted by the majority of the public, making this argument applicable. You are drawing conclusion on what is beneficial for US citizens based on your own personal values. It is you who believes that less discrimination = beneficial for US citizens. If all your arguments are based on your personal values, then one has to simply reject your values and the conclusion (that police should wear body cameras) will not logically follow.", "title": "Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras", "pid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 217.035400390625}, {"text": "You're wrong, my argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered. You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement. By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie. Also, I don't agree with you on cost at all. It's worth preventing false witness statements, wrongful jailing, and it helps the investigation tremendously because again, you cannot argue with the facts! My opponent verges on strawmanning. I urge you to vote in affirmation of this statement.", "title": "Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.", "pid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.99427795410156}, {"text": "Wow... I'm incredibly sorry about my initial sources. I had the same debate with someone else, but he bailed. The old debate was automatically deleted, so I started a new one. I copy and pasted my previous opening statement from that page, and apparently the links didn't copy properly. Here are my actual sources: http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org... (this is the Rialto study my opponent mentioned) http://www.latimes.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Getting on with my closing statement... Police body cameras are a step in the right direction for improving police practices. The evidence shows that police body cameras reduce the use of force and complaints levied against the police. Police body cameras would also be instrumental in protecting police officers against false allegations. In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such). Further, he has not supported his contention that cameras will offend traumatized victims with any evidence, just conjecture. My opponent seems to have a gut feeling that it is the case. Honestly, I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera. This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case? My opponent is either failing to acknowledge or is downplaying the fact that discretion can be used poorly. LEOs have a lot of power. That power is meant to be held in check by their superiors. Just as you say discretion can be used to not enforce an unjust law, it can also be used in a corrupt or otherwise illegal manner. We should not give such massive amounts of power to LEOs and then refuse to supervise them and hold them accountable. Also, I will restate one of my previous points: the law enforcement hierarchy understands and respects the role of discretion. Your example of \"a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering\" is, well, ridiculous. What police chief is going to look at that situation and demand swift justice? If he did, there would be riots.", "title": "Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction", "pid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.58578491210938}, {"text": "Sources My opponent has listed 3 links that merely go to the front page of 3 news sites. These sources do not verify the existence of 3 different studies done on police body cams. He should be deducted source points for providing fake links, and punished accordingly. He should probably also be deducted conduct points, because I\"m only aware of one major study done on police body cams. I assume he lied about the number of studies found. Use of Force and Civilian Complaints I\"m going to go ahead and concede these points, because they don\"t matter. They are also a waste of time, though I could easily shed serious doubt on them. The debate is not whether police body cams are useful, or should be required. The debate is whether police should wear them in every civilian interaction. You can support body cam usage and still be opposed to them recording every interaction. Now I support officers turning them on during traffic stops, or during calls into tense situations, but when dealing with a rape victim or an Informant (for example), the officer should be allowed to turn them off. What reason is there to record an informant telling the officer about some drug dealers on the corner, openly selling? It has the down side of preventing informants from speaking, while carrying absolutely no upside. Responses \"In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information.\" This is just stupid. This is not Law and Order SVU. Often times detectives don\"t even talk to victims. I was personally in a situation, where I killed an escaping robber. His friends actually ran off and let him to die. I was never once talked to by a detective, and was later issued a subpoena for court, never talking to a detective at all. The only people I talked to were first responders. This is how the real world works. Most victims of crimes, only talk to first responders. The witness statement they write up should be enough. They shouldn\"t have to have a camera in their face, during the worst time of their life. Beyond that, you have yet to state a reason why victims or informants should be forced to be recorded. My opponent most likely attempted to link to 3 articles on the same Rialto California police body cam study. What my opponent doesn\"t realize, is that even during these studies, the body cams weren\"t rolling during every civilian encounter. There is no police department in the United States that requires that. According to Police One who reported on the study, and on whose article a link to the study can be found; \"For 12 months, Rialto\"s 54 frontline officers all were assigned randomly to wear or not wear TASER HD Axon Flex video/audio cameras attached to their clothing during each of their 12-hr. shifts. On shifts when they wore cameras, \"the officers were instructed to have them on during every encounter with members of the public, with the exception of incidents involving sexual assaults of minors and dealing with police informants,\" the study team explains.\" https://www.policeone.com... So even the studies my opponent are linking to, don\"t show the results of every police interaction with civilians. No such study has been done, nor will it be done. \"In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion.\" The whole point of personal discretion that nobody is in the officers shoes and can judge that better than him. If an officer has somebody sitting over his shoulder judging every discretion as either good or bad, and punishing or criticizing him for what is viewed as bad discretion, well that takes away the discretion altogether. Now there are certain laws that are known as \"must arrest\" laws, and officers are required to arrest for those laws or risk termination, but that is not what we are talking about. We\"re talking about the discretion of whether or not a jay walker is ticketed, or whether a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering. The officer needs the discretion of whether or not to lock up somebody for public intoxication or not. Without this discretion, this country will turn into one where anybody can be arrested or fined for just about anything. Most legal experts believe that the average citizen commits 3 felonies a day. http://www.wsj.com... You certainly can\"t tell an officer he can\"t use his discretion to fine or arrest somebody who broke a law, so now with the second guessing for free passes, you incentivize officers never using their discretion to give somebody a free pass. With the fact that every single one of us breaks the law, every single day. This becomes a very dangerous thing to incentivize. Conclusion My opponent has not disputed my claim that leaks of footage can and do happen, embarrassing people unnecessarily. This is a point in my favor. He is acknowledging that people will be seen in their most private moments, when they should not have been. My opponent brings up some good reasons to have body cams, and I agree with them. However he has failed to show why they should be used in every single civilian encounter. The Rialto study showed that using the cameras in most civilian interactions as opposed to all of them, got the desired results my opponent is asking for. If the Rialto study was so successful at getting the desired results without shoving a camera in a child victim\"s face or without compromising confidential informants, why don\"t we replicate that study in real life?", "title": "Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction", "pid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.48170471191406}, {"text": "Let's look at your rebuttals. \"My argument does have value. Your opinion on my value is not considered.\" Currently, you have provided absolutely NO value(which I did of morality), and NO value criterion(which mine was enforcement), which you might have a value, but until then, you do not have one unless stated. By default, since I have a value and value criterion and she has not stated hers since, mine are the standing values. \"You're also wrong about the cameras having to be in 3D. First of all, you invalidate your own argument about the cameras costing too much. Equipping the officers with 3D cameras would cost even more! Also, the investigation does not need 3D cameras, a regular video is just fine. Most investigations aren't lucky enough to get a video at all! 2D video can still help everyone make a fair judgement.\" 1. I never said that all cameras needed to be in 3D. I only said that cameras only had a 2D perspective. I never implied that we needed 3D, which implies the STRAW MAN! 2. Ok. Let's look at a police officer employment. Let's look at my local city. If a local city has, let's say, 500 police officers, and you are saying that they should all have body cameras, then look at the cost provided. 500*350=$175000 dollars! This is a lot of money! Money does not grow on trees, as this will increase debt in the country and decrease spending in many needed areas. 3. 2D movies cannot make a fair judgement. Cameras cannot perceive the 3rd dimension that is perceived by the human eye-which is distance. Cameras can't record danger cues because you can usually tell when you touch a subject whether he/she will have an objection, but cameras lack the sensory cue, which makes it lacking the important thing:the danger cue. 4. Cameras will always make us play the guessing game, and the speed is very difference. Cameras record at MUCH higher speed, and the camera will make us play the coulda-shoulda game, because it is not what someone perceived. It is a nonliving thing, and we can scrutinize it for detail, but that is only 1 sided-by the officer. Witnesses are far many more and they will be multi sided. \"By the way, everyone lies. By saying that witnesses do not lie, you are saying that people don't lie.\" 1. I never said that people don't lie. 2. It states in the witness oath, \"I swear that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Affirmation: I solemnly affirm that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.\" This is the basis I am stating. Many witnesses can be provided, so we can get multiple things from the whole truth. How can they lie if they swear before the oath? My opponent thinks I am strawmanning. However, I am not. The fact that you did not break down my 1st and 2nd contentions make the fact that they are valid, and that you don't have any say to it. Secondly, my opponent did not state her value. This is what I stated. I never said her case had no value whatsoever. Thirdly, everything she said was copied directly and in quoted. Then, I broke down on the thoughts I had to counter. With this, she did not answer my basic status quo of my argument:the morality of cameras. I have proven with many reasons and examples why my contentions stand. I have a direct value of morality, which has been PROVEN with the 3 contentions. In fact, she is strawmanning with many examples. (ie.with her saying that the cameras have to be 3D). I never said that. I said that cameras can only see in 2D, and witnesses are more reliable because they see it in 3D. Then, she stated I said that people don't lie. I never stated that or implied that. I only implied that in the jury oath, when the people are stating their evidence, they can't lie. So with these reasons and many more, it has been obvious to vote for Con today. ~TheResistance", "title": "Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.", "pid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.207275390625}, {"text": "Let's look at your rebuttals. \"2. There's already a fund for the body cameras.\" Not all officers wear body cameras. Many more officers still need body cameras. So therefore, that leads to MORE spending, which decreases spending in more needed areas. Currently, there isn't a fund for body cameras. \"3. 2d cameras are still cameras, most investigations don't even have video to go off of. Once again, video can't lie.\" Interesting point. Body cameras cannot lie, but however, they degrade civic values, which adds on to the morality of my cameras, which are wrong. Camera speed differs from the speed of life, and your body may block the view of the cameras. 1 camera might not be enough. If someone robs a store, they won't just look at 1 camera. They will use multiple cameras. 1 camera, at one point of view, cannot replace 1 through investigation. Just because we saw a masked person kill another person, do we know who the masked person is? Of course not. We still have to do more analysis for the blood and fingerprints. \"4. Guessing game? Once again, the reason the cameras are there is so that the judge does not have to play the guessing game.\" The reason why these people have to play the guessing game is due to the fact that they have only 1 point of view. The officer has to then guess the conditions, and then assess a 1 sided pov, unlike the many witnesses with many pov. \"5. Witnesses can take the oath and still lie, what if they were threatened by the criminal themselves?\" The Witnesses have to tell the truth no matter what. The courts will protect them. I have shown all the bad things about the body cameras and added in my values, which my opponent has failed to provide. The cost is just to expensive, and cameras can't replace an entire investigation. So with these reasons and many more, you should deposit a ballot in the Con side today. ~TheResistance", "title": "Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.", "pid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.20089721679688}, {"text": "You will be expected to use evidence and logic to prove your position. Please use acceptable grammar, good structure, and easily identifiable sources (I personally prefer URLs). You will only have 24 hours to make each argument. Clarification of terms: American law enforcement - while it may be of benefit to other nations as well, this debate is only concerned with the current wide spread discussion of this new policy in the United States. A law enforcement officer (which is common abbreviated to LEO) is any public sector employee concerned with enforcing laws. This includes city police officers, county sheriff deputies, state/highway patrol officers, border patrol officers, federal marshals, etc. Body camera - any sort of recording device carried by LEOs. While this specifically means a camera mounted on the officers body, it will also include head mounted cameras for the sake of this debate. We will not be concerned with vehicle cameras. Civilian interaction - This includes traffic stops, initial investigation/questioning, crowd control, or any other instance where LEOs respond to a call or intervene in a situation. We will not be including interactions within police facilities, where it is expect that most areas are already under surveillance. Today, there has been a resounding call to reform police practices. This is the result mostly of the various instances of alleged racially provoked shootings at the hands of police. Many cases result in disappointing verdicts, based on a lack of evidence. A prime example was the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted on the basis of a lack of evidence. Because there was no video evidence, it was difficult for the courts to paint a clear picture of what occurred that night. Even though the shooting was highly suspicious, it would have been near impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilson wasn't engaging in legitimate self defense. Due to the accessibility of recording equipment in this day and age (thanks to smart phones), some cases have experienced the opposite effect. When Walter Scott was shot in North Charleston, SC by officer Michael Slager, video evidence led to a swift indictment. The question remains why do we not utilize this new technology in full effect. My contentions Protection of the rights of civilians: Simply put, surveilling the actions officers take with civilians holds them to a high standard of professionalism. If an officer knows they are being recorded, they realize they will also be scrutinized for their actions. Many studies have noted the positive effect cameras have on use-of-force trends (I will list three separate studies). All three studies noted a drastic decrease in instances of use-of-force and complaints filed. . http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org...... . http://www.latimes.com...... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... Protection of the rights of officers: Police officers are also concerned about faulty complaints and false assumptions about events. Anyone can file a police report, be it justified or not. Police body cameras would provide clarity to the circumstance surrounding the report. Video evidence does not lie: More evidence is better evidence. One common court room dispute is whether or not a detainee was read their Miranda rights before being questioned. According to the supreme court, any evidence obtained through an interrogation of someone who has not been Mirandized is inadmissible in court. Whenever there is a dispute over whether or not the defendant was read the Miranda warning, it often comes do to the officer's word versus their's. With body cameras, it will be easy to show video evidence of an officer reciting the warning or not. This is just one example.", "title": "Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction", "pid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.1427764892578}, {"text": "My opponent brings up the very valid concern of privacy. However, the issue may not be a prevalent as it appears. Firstly, my opponent seems to b concerned with the general public gaining access to body camera footage. He specifically mentioned the Freedom of Information Act. The FIOA has many exceptions; the general public is not entitled to all government records: \"Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that: 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual\" The government has already considered the privacy of the general public. Simply put, I can't file an FIOA request to receive footage of DUI arrests for an arbitrary reason. If, for instance, I was a lawyer taking a case against an alleged malpracticing police officer, I could easily receive footage. http://www.foia.gov... In terms of informants and traumatized victims, they would not have to worry about this information becoming public for the reasons mentioned above. The police should be instructed to inform the public of the exemptions of the FOIA. In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information. At the end of the day, this is a problem not with body cameras but a with policy. In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion. Your specific example displays a poor use of discretion. The old women has an illegal firearm, when she could have easily registered it. She could have an insidious motive for having motive for having an unregistered firearm. Should that weapon be used in a crime, it will be difficult if not impossible to trace. With the presence of a body camera, his supervisor could inform the officer of his mistake and make a positive change.", "title": "Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction", "pid": "dfae64e7-2019-04-18T13:40:27Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.13934326171875}, {"text": "Former Oakland Mayor (now California Attorney General) Jerry Brown said in 1999 when the City of Oakland rejected proposed video surveillance cameras: \"Reducing crime is something the community and police must work on together. Installing a few or a few dozen surveillance cameras will not make us safe. It should also not be forgotten that the intrusive powers of the state are growing with each passing decade.\"[8]", "title": "Crime cameras are an intrusion on individual privacy rights", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00076-000", "bm25_score": 215.8661651611328}, {"text": "In fact, the opposition has completely misunderstood and obfuscated the simple argument that it will ensure a fair punishment to the criminal.\" A \"fair\" punishment according to whose opinion? Governments? Societies? Punishment will be fair only according to their interpretation of \"fair\", which can be unfair according to person being punished. It is you who completely missed my point, which was that concept of \"fairness\" is subjective, meaning different people can have different understanding of \"fair\". Body cameras will allow one group of people to force their own subjective ideas of \"fairness\" unto other people. That was my point. \"The main difference is that the genocide was NOT made to HELP the public.\" Which is, again, your subjective opinion. Each person can have his own subjective opinion regarding what helps public. Just because you believe that genocide does not help public, does not mean that Hitler or average Nazi had same belief. Again, relativity and subjectivity. \"It was a very obvious detriment.\" Again, personal opinion. Someone who believes Jews to be cancer of this world would have different opinion. \"That is why brave soldiers from the US, Russia, France, England, etc have fought and risked their lives in order to end the terror.\" My point exactly. Not all people share same morals. Some believe right/fair thing to be X, others believe Y.This is exactly why those soldiers fought- because they did not share same morals, values and understanding of \"rightness\" as nazis did. So, to re-state my counters to your arguments. 1. Implementing cameras for officers will dwindle the amount of apartheid. That being a good thing is merely your subjective opinion, not a fact. 2. Downtrend the amount of duress used by the police. Again, your own, personal morals. Just because you, subjectively, believe it to be a good thing does not mean it actually is. Moral relativism. 3. Most of the populace, both police officers and civilians buttress the decision to enact body cameras. Which does not mean that it is right thing to do. As I stated earlier, argument on grounds that something is right simply because majority believes so, is illogical (ad populum). What is \"right\" can be decided by each culture, or individual himself. Now to your next arguments. \"this is going to be beneficial for the people of the United States\" Again, your personal opinion. You base this claim upon your own, personal values, which are just that- YOUR values. Dont try to pull them off as anything more than mere opinion. \"The opposition case in this debate will mostly be pointing out the ineffectiveness of these cameras\" No, I will not. I will point out that you are making claims in accordance to your own values and morals, which are subjective. Things which you and your society believe to be \"right\", \"moral\" and \"fair\" can be considered \"wrong\" \"immoral\" and \"wrong\" by someone else, and you really have no evidence to prove your set of morals to be objectively superior. What you are arguing here, is essentially to force your cultures and majorities values unto those who disagree.", "title": "Resolved: Police officers should be required to wear body cameras", "pid": "f4135ff7-2019-04-18T14:01:54Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 215.84706115722656}, {"text": "Today, my opponent did not answer the clear contention 1, which is morality of the cameras. This proves my 1st contention that it does invade privacy, and since my opponent did not answer, she agrees with the point. Also, she did not even touch on my 2nd contention that body cameras cost too much, which pads on to her agreement with my point. There are 2 points she agrees with the con, because she did not touch on. Let's look at her case. Value: She has no value what so ever, which adds on. Contention 1: \"Body cameras can help an investigation\" As said by my con contention 3, cameras can only see 2-D. As my contention 3 states, \"Yes, it might replace many witnesses, but witnesses are more reliable. Witnesses can see 3-D, a camera can only see 2-D. A camera can not provide sole truth for the event because we still need a fair, through investigation. A recording shows 2-D, which only shows around. What we do no know is what really happened because we still need second guessing, and it will take much longer. It also gives a lot of the playing of the should've-couldn't game and a lot of guessing, instead of real testimonies.\" As seen, we will have to play a lot of guessing games, as it can only see 2D. We cannot see the background or the situation the person was in and why they reacted that way. Witnesses are emotional, unlike cameras, and can see 3-D, which can then see more things, and prevent people from playing the guessing game. Also, a camera cannot always replace a full investigation, which my opponent refused to answer. Let's look at her next contention:\"it helps to keep innocent people out of jail. No more people will be wrongfully jailed, because direct evidence does not lie.\" Interesting. Witnesses do not lie, because they will have to swear they will tell the truth before their testimony. So with these reasons, my opponent does not have a value, while I have provided the true value of morality,and my value criterion is enforcement(i forgot to add), which she has not provided, has failed to answer to 2 of my contention, which suggests she agrees with them. She hasn't really proven any what so reason why cameras can see more clearly or why witnesses are inferior to cameras. So by what's obvious today, vote Con! `TheResistance", "title": "Police Officers should wear Body Cameras while on duty at all times.", "pid": "431b936a-2019-04-18T14:11:36Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.77975463867188}, {"text": "Although citizen video recording can prove indispensable in upholding police accountability, there are other means which introduce fewer hazards to members of the law enforcement community. For instance, mandating the use and effective archiving of footage from dashboard and lapel mounted recording devices would ensure that interactions with uniformed police officers, namely traffic stops, are properly documented.If citizens were given carte blanch to record law enforcement at will, laws prohibiting the outing of undercover officers couldn't be enforced. This could both compromise said officers' personal safety, as well as undermine important criminal investigations. Also, ambiguities exist pertaining to whether a specific interaction between a LEO and another citizen could be considered an 'interaction with police' for the purposes of this proposal. A criminal operation with enough resources could potentially monitor police activity to assist in evading detection. Another example is the use of digital means to expose traffic patrols among motorists, allowing reckless driving habits to go unchecked. This proposal would sanction practices like these as well as other criminal tactics that hamper law enforcemnt.A more prudent solution would be to afford immunity to those citizens who expose police wrongdoing, as well as the above-mentioned mandate on archiving police footage. While an outright ban on citizen videography is far from legitimate, for the protection of peace officers, confidential informants, and those in protective custody, it is important we allow individual communities to judiciously restrict these recordings in accordance with thier needs.", "title": "A law should be enacted that allows citizens to record interactions with police", "pid": "b655ce20-2019-04-18T16:46:49Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.7095947265625}, {"text": "Ken Garcia. \"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\". The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \"The people who complain about the use of cameras on the street say nothing about their presence in their corner store, the post office, the subway, Macy’s, Safeway or just about every commercial enterprise in existence. They’re now found in taxis, buses, trains and of course, airports, let alone public buildings, such as the one that played back the proceedings at the Police Commission for a cable TV audience.\"", "title": "Crime cameras violate privacy no more than corner store cameras.", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00073-000", "bm25_score": 215.19232177734375}, {"text": "Crime cameras place security over civil liberties.", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 215.18771362304688}, {"text": "When new crime cameras are being considered and installed in a city, it is typical that the media, civil rights groups, and skeptical citizens exaggerate the claims regarding the implications for privacy, civil liberties, and for the role of Big Brother. Years after the successful implementation of cameras, and with no privacy incidence or abuses, these initial protests appear for what they are - exaggerations and fear mongering.", "title": "Crime camera privacy, Big Brother concerns are exaggerated", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00072-000", "bm25_score": 215.15936279296875}, {"text": "Crime cameras are only the beginning of a host of violations of civil liberties on the part of government. While the objectives of surveillance may be modest in the beginning, they are likely to include in the future certain video ID schemes that track every individual's movements and actions at all times in search of suspicious or subversive behavior. The risks are real of crime cameras leading to the police state scenarios depicted in George Orwell's 1984.", "title": "Crime cameras lead to slippery slope of Big Brother surveillance.", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00078-000", "bm25_score": 215.07081604003906}, {"text": "I believe that CCTV cameras should be installed in every public space where possible; on the streets, inside public buildings and (ideally) in remote areas such as fields and forests. The end result would be a world where everything is recorded on camera except for events that take place within private property and homes. The benefits of this would outweigh any consequences for one pivotal reason: Any crime that takes place in public will likely be solved. The suspect has nowhere to run; the police can trace the suspect's movements right back to his home address, where they can visit and subsequently arrest him. Kidnappers, murderers, rapists -- everyone will be caught and brought to justice. You will be CON; you will argue that CCTV cameras should not be in every public location.", "title": "CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations", "pid": "c8b84b6-2019-04-18T16:36:47Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.057861328125}, {"text": "Ken Garcia. \"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\" The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \"I count myself among those opposed to more government interference in personal privacy, but that’s not really a big issue here. These cameras are going on public streets, not in bedrooms, and those who object are ignoring the obvious, ideology serving here as a highly effective blinder.\"", "title": "Crime cameras in public spaces do not really invade privacy.", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00071-000", "bm25_score": 215.05677795410156}, {"text": "Crime cameras violate privacy no more than corner store cameras.", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 214.94308471679688}, {"text": "Crime-ridden communities have right to demand and install cameras", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 214.92889404296875}, {"text": "Crime camera privacy, Big Brother concerns are exaggerated", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 214.92147827148438}, {"text": "Ken Garcia. \"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\" The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \"You can expect any issue that loosely covers the term civil liberties to bring out the masses in San Francisco [...] Yet, thankfully there was one argument that commissioners just couldn’t brush aside. And that is that people who live in and near neighborhoods rife with prostitution, drug-dealing, robberies and frenetic gang acti- vity desperately want surveillance cameras, and the more the better. It’s a cry that’s been heard for some time around town, and given the relatively paltry cost of the equipment. it seems but a trifle to fret over.\"", "title": "Crime-ridden communities have right to demand and install cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00070-000", "bm25_score": 214.86965942382812}, {"text": "It is a waste of police resources for officers to spend significant amounts of time watching surveillance cameras for signs of criminal activity. Their time would be better spent patrolling the streets.", "title": "Police should not waste time watching crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00085-000", "bm25_score": 214.8651123046875}, {"text": "San Francisco Police Commissioner Joe Alioto-Veronese said to the San Francisco Chronicle in March 2008: \"In their current configuration they are not useful, and they give people a false sense of security, which I think is bad.\"[5]", "title": "Crime cameras offer a dangerous false sense of security", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00063-000", "bm25_score": 214.82762145996094}, {"text": "Police typically patrol neighborhoods with a certain frequency. It is possible for police to reduce the frequency of their patrolling in neighborhoods with crime cameras. This is due largely to the fact that crime cameras help deter and reduce crime, reducing the demand for police patrolling in a certain neighborhood. In addition, newer crime cameras can help detect criminal activity and alert officers to attend to suspicious activities. This is why cameras are often viewed as \"extra crime-fighting eyes\". By helping reduce the need to patrol certain areas, crime cameras can help reduce the costs required to support such police patrolling.", "title": "Crime cameras help reduce frequency of community patrols.", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00081-000", "bm25_score": 214.8223114013672}, {"text": "Crime cameras are an intrusion on individual privacy rights", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 214.7888641357422}, {"text": "Crime cameras are too costly for too few benefits", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.77316284179688}, {"text": "Crime cameras lead to slippery slope of Big Brother surveillance.", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 214.76515197753906}, {"text": "In December, 2008, an armed robbery attempt in New Orleans failed after the victim, according to police, \"...advised the suspect that there were several surveillance cameras in the area,\" and walked safely away from the criminal.[4] The episode suggests that the victim felt that the cameras provided a critical layer of protection against the assailant. While law enforcers did not suggest that others pursue the same course of action as the victim in this story, it is clear that the crime cameras provided a real sense of safety for this man and probably for other members of his community as well.", "title": "Crime cameras help restore a public sense of safety", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00061-000", "bm25_score": 214.74664306640625}, {"text": "While security interests are important, security cameras wrongly place them over civil liberties. Constitutional principles surrounding civil liberties exist for a reason, and are meant to be immutable. Expediencies such as increased security should not be allowed to bend or break these important moral principles and lines.", "title": "Crime cameras place security over civil liberties.", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00080-000", "bm25_score": 214.70120239257812}, {"text": "Heather Knight. \"Crime cameras not capturing many crimes\". San Francisco Chronicle. March 21, 2008 - \"San Francisco's 68 controversial anti-crime cameras haven't deterred criminals from committing assaults, sex offenses or robberies - and they've only moved homicides down the block, according to a new report from UC Berkeley.\"", "title": "Surveillance cameras do not deter crime", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00056-000", "bm25_score": 214.6812286376953}, {"text": "Crime cameras offer conclusive, unbiased evidence in court.", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00022-000", "bm25_score": 214.6240692138672}, {"text": "I'll start off with my case, then my opponents case. And yes, I agree that this debate is specifically about the United States. On my number 1. What I am arguing is that public area are free of watch, and have less strict rules. Adding the cameras takes away this idea. On my number 2. I never said you have to provide a plan, all I am saying is that your plan will be too expensive. Also, in debate, you are supposed to persuade the judge or audience to vote for you, by stating why your world would be better than mine. And by not saying how much this will cost, or HOW it will be done, the judge can't know what will happen in your world. Also, guards cost less than cameras(Ill further explain in my number 4) On my number 3. First of all, don't listen to his argument of no counterplans. I am saying why surveillance cameras should not be substantially increased(Cost, and efficiency) And giving an alternative.(Linking back to my number 2) I am giving why cameras should NOT be substantially increased, and why guards should be, so disreguard this argument. Next, The cameras can show where they are. Thats it. They don't physically stop them. What if the viewing area for cameras is on the 3rd floor of a building, and the criminal is getting away THAT SECOND. Immediate action is needed! So in this case, guards do that. On my number 4. So lets continue this cost argument. For a Target that has, lets say, 2 cameras, you're going to need about 10 cameras, one for each corner, one near door, one near electronics, and others spread throughout. So if I agree that they cost around 2 thousand dollars(I do) Thats 2 thousand times 10, which is 20,000. Compare that to my 4760. Its a huge difference. My plan is more cost efficient. Also, cameras don't always keep criminals off. If they did, there would be no crime in places with cameras. Period. Which isn't true. In my area, there are flashing blue lights(Police cameras) around many corners, and are crimes committed? Yes. Guards would be more efficient. Also, his argument about no counterplans is abusive. He provides a plan/idea, and I counter it with disadvantages, and another plan/idea. Without my say in the debate, its not a debate, and not fair. I said why Surveillance cams should NOT be substantially increased, and what to do instead. This is fair. Now, to my opponents case. 1) You don't accomplish complete saftey. What trustworthiness do you get from a guard on the third floor, running after someone on a skateboard? And fine, for this part of the argument, I'll specifically talk about why cameras shouldn't be added, and don't help. 2)To keep security guards out, extend my number 2 and 3, stating that cameras are expensive, and don't stop the criminal. 3)His definition of substantial is right, but not appropriate for this debate Substantial-to a great extent or degree A set number of cameras isn't needed. All I am saying is explain why the number of cameras now isn't working, how to fix it, and how it will impact the company/place in a positive way. This is a Should resolution, yes. And with that, these answers are needed WHY should this happen? HOW is this going to help? HOW is this the BEST solution(Most important) The argument of why it is best will be key in this debate. If my opponent says that all computers should be white, I want to know why this needs to happen, why he wants this, and how white is better than black. Because of my definitions, my counterplan, and those questions(If not answered) I encourage a Negative Ballot. Thank you for a great debate so far!", "title": "Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased.", "pid": "8375938-2019-04-18T19:45:55Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.58253479003906}, {"text": "There has been much debate as to whether public surveillance or the existence of cameras in public places is an invasion of privacy. A few have made reference to the fourth amendment and its protection against unreasonable searches as a key element to discourage such practice. Nevertheless a tsunami of public cameras has flooded out neighborhoods, primarily used as a means of enhanced security especially in areas where police officers are not able to be present. In a recent article posted on cbsnews.com titled \"Surveillance cameras and the right to privacy\", law enforcement officials assert that an increase in high-tech tools such as cameras was a big reason why violent crimes nationwide decreased in 2010. Citizens should demand their rights to privacy! This is a claim that, like me, many others concur. However should we sacrifice our need for safety and security simply to avoid being featured on public camera casually walking down the block?", "title": "Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy", "pid": "4809e6cc-2019-04-18T13:30:35Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.57745361328125}, {"text": "Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy because they keep us safer. They survey public areas for illegal behaviour and often can be reviewed to identify criminals and other security threats. A lot of times, security footage is what incriminates suspects. Many people say that it is an invasion of our privacy to be spied on like this, but I think that if we don't do anything wrong we shouldn't have to worry about being seen by law enforcement. What do you think?", "title": "Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy.", "pid": "95d32768-2019-04-18T14:24:30Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.56236267089844}, {"text": "Crime cameras help reduce frequency of community patrols.", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.54595947265625}, {"text": "Ken Garcia. \"Debate over crime cameras brings out the clueless in S.F.\" The Examiner. January 20, 2007 - \"There’s no doubt that people with thick rap sheets don’t like them, and they’re the people who are really infringing on our civil liberties.\"", "title": "Cameras help protect citizens' liberties against crime.", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00074-000", "bm25_score": 214.5421600341797}, {"text": "It is one\"s right to walk around public places without worrying that a security camera is recording you. On the subject that security camera deter crime ...well, the millions or so cameras in public places has not stopped crimes. Advocates for security camera argued that criminals are less likely to commit crimes if they know that they are being watched. Well not true, criminals will move to another area where there\"s no camera to commit crimes. Ordinary, law abiding citizens are being filmed every second without their consent. People should not have their every move recorded when all they want to do, is go a mall or walk the street.", "title": "Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy", "pid": "4809e6cc-2019-04-18T13:30:35Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.53993225097656}, {"text": "Crime cameras are cost-effective only when used properly", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.529541015625}, {"text": "Routinely armed police reassure law-abiding citizens at a time when gun-related crime is increasing ...", "title": "Police Should Be Armed", "pid": "ac29a9a-2019-04-19T12:44:31Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.49929809570312}, {"text": "Surveillance cameras are often used by police to leer at women, instead of to fight crime. This unfortunate abuse is common, crude and undignified, and a distraction for police from their real duties.", "title": "Police abuse crime cameras, leering at women.", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00079-000", "bm25_score": 214.4938201904297}, {"text": "Police should not waste time watching crime cameras", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.4901123046875}, {"text": "I do not believe people should be entitled to privacy in public locations. A camera is essentially a silent police officer: would you walk up to a police officer and ask him to stop watching you walking down the street? It would be very suspicious to make that request. Freedom: \"The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants\" [1] Being watched does not harm your freedom. You can still act how you want to act. The only place where cameras will not be is in private property, but the beauty of having cameras everywhere else is that you can see who is going in and out of a house. If someone was murdered inside a house, you can watch who leaves the house and then follow their movements to find out where they go. Most crimes will be solved by observing their travels. If the power goes out, we are back where we started: no CCTV. This isn't a problem because it is no different from the situation we have right now. [1] - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...", "title": "CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations", "pid": "c8b84b6-2019-04-18T16:36:47Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.48670959472656}, {"text": "Jenny Rees. \"City cameras 'don't cut crime'\". Whales Online. April 25, 2005 - \"they allow police officers to respond to incidents more quickly, reducing the number of people who attend hospital accident and emergency departments.\"", "title": "Cameras speed up responses to crime and injuries.", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00047-000", "bm25_score": 214.41983032226562}, {"text": "Police abuse crime cameras, leering at women.", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 214.375}, {"text": "\"Under the Watchful Eye\". American Civil Liberties Union - \"Threat to Civil Liberties from Combined Technologies Government-run video surveillance can radically alter the relationship between law enforcement and the public. By itself, pervasive video surveillance threatens privacy rights. But even more disturbing, the threat multiplies when government combines cameras with emerging technologies such as automated identification software, face and eye scans, radio frequency identification (RF ID) tags, and databases accessible to law enforcement. In that context, video surveillance provides a critical pillar of a surveillance infrastructure. It creates the potential for the government to monitor people in public space, in a way envisioned only in futuristic novels.\"", "title": "Crime cameras with ID technology deeply violate privacy", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00077-000", "bm25_score": 214.37156677246094}, {"text": "Surveillance cameras do not deter crime", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00031-000", "bm25_score": 214.3529052734375}, {"text": "Heather Knight. \"Crime cameras not capturing many crimes\". San Francisco Chronicle. March 21, 2008 - San Francisco's 68 controversial anti-crime cameras haven't deterred criminals from committing assaults, sex offenses or robberies - and they've only moved homicides down the block, according to a new report from UC Berkeley.", "title": "Surveillance cameras merely shift crime to different areas", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00060-000", "bm25_score": 214.33218383789062}, {"text": "Cameras help protect citizens' liberties against crime.", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 214.32801818847656}, {"text": "Maintaining crime cameras costs too much.", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.32357788085938}, {"text": "Security Cameras stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals.", "title": "Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy.", "pid": "591c4589-2019-04-18T18:51:55Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.30374145507812}, {"text": "Brendan McCarthy. \"Crime-fighting cameras are the wrong focus, some say\". NOLA.com. March 26, 2007 - \"Major cities across the country that have launched crime-camera programs have seen similar results. [...] In both Baltimore and Chicago, two cities at the forefront of camera surveillance, police espouse their benefits, but prosecutors say the cameras rarely factor into courtroom proceedings.\"", "title": "Crime camera evidence is very rarely used in court cases.", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00066-000", "bm25_score": 214.24693298339844}, {"text": "Arming the police is a necessary step", "title": "arm the police", "pid": "2250950f-2019-04-15T20:22:46Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.24639892578125}, {"text": "Crime cameras with ID technology deeply violate privacy", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 214.2279815673828}, {"text": "My opponent only brought two arguments to this debate which did not actually support his resolution. He stated that security cameras are not an invasion of privacy because: \"Security Cameras stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals. \" These two contentions were not upheld with any empirical evidence so can already be discarded. However even if my opponent had backed up these contentions with evidence, they would not have helped his case. He did not show that even if security cameras helped to \"stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals\" this would not prove that they are any less of an invasion of privacy.", "title": "Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy.", "pid": "591c4589-2019-04-18T18:51:55Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.22581481933594}, {"text": "The idea for this challenge stems from a forum topic discussing the same issue: whether or not one is within their legal rights - or should be within their legal rights - to record interaction between civilians and police officers. As it stands, over a dozen states prohibit at least audio recording - if not both audio and video. In fact, many people have been arrested, charged and prosecuted with crimes for recording the police interacting either with others and/or themselves. The PRO advocacy is one in favor of personal freedom, while the CON presumably will defend the law's right to keep certain information private for safety and security reasons.", "title": "Recording interaction with police officers should not be against the law.", "pid": "9247b1e1-2019-04-18T19:02:31Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.2110595703125}, {"text": "I don't think they should be almost everywhere. That defeats the purpose of what America is based off of, which is freedom. As far as catching all the murders, and offenders, yeah it might work. But you also have to think that it keeps the population down. Also if all we know is good, how will we be prepared for the bad?", "title": "CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations", "pid": "c8b84b6-2019-04-18T16:36:47Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.2008056640625}, {"text": "Spending on cameras for a \"sense of safety\" is wasteful", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00025-000", "bm25_score": 214.17428588867188}, {"text": "Crime cameras in public spaces do not really invade privacy.", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 214.13943481445312}, {"text": "I'd rather reduce incidents of use of force with body cams rather than putting Leos and the public in danger. cams have been shown to reduce use of force 50%. http://www.policefoundation.org... The problems with brutality is perception. The media sensationalizes things. The public is unfamiliar with the use of force continuum , but mostly it's a public relations problem. Broken windows policing is used in most big cites and some small, causes a lot of blowback when not done hand in hand with the modern theories on \"community policing\". Mistrust in cops would dramatically decline, if community policing was more than just lip service. http://www.lesc.net... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... More trust means less resistance and Leo's not having to escalate the use of force continuum The study from 92 is valid because human psychology is the same as then.", "title": "Police officers should be more friendly", "pid": "e0dffbaa-2019-04-18T14:56:40Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.12078857421875}, {"text": "Crime cameras help restore a public sense of safety", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00026-000", "bm25_score": 214.08790588378906}, {"text": "The police themselves are calling for more routine arming, through both the unions that represent ra...", "title": "Police Should Be Armed", "pid": "ac29a9a-2019-04-19T12:44:31Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.0862579345703}, {"text": "Routinely arming the police is an effective deterrent to criminal behaviour; most countries in Europ...", "title": "Police Should Be Armed", "pid": "ac29a9a-2019-04-19T12:44:31Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.08407592773438}, {"text": "The argument that there is never a valid reason for a civilian police force to possess military technology is na\"ve. The problem lies not with the equipment but rather with judicious use thereof as well as with the quality of the our civic officers. I am not arguing that Keene, NH needs a tank (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) but not all militarization in the police force is bad or unwarranted.", "title": "The police are purchasing military equipment for use against the citizens of their community.", "pid": "e8129322-2019-04-18T15:46:19Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.08404541015625}, {"text": "If a person has nothing to hide, then there is no issue.", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 214.07891845703125}, {"text": "I agree vehemently. The police need to be armed; they are frequently placed in positions in which they need to defend either themselves or somebody else. If they are shot at, they need to be capable of defending themselves and/or those around them. While Tazers ought to encouraged, police ought not be limited to having them as the sole article in their arsenal.", "title": "Absolutely!", "pid": "dcd97b83-2019-04-19T12:44:22Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.0181427001953}, {"text": "Crime cameras offer a dangerous false sense of security", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00024-000", "bm25_score": 214.01455688476562}, {"text": "Hey! So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the safety value these lights. It makes some people safer, better drivers. And it makes others more of knuckleheads than they already were. The part where I disagree is the use of our police officers and adding other employees to monitor the cameras. For one, I think it is better to have real cops out taking care of other things, rather than having them sit near stop lights. Let them do other law enforcement duties that are more important than traffic duty. Suffolk cops make huge salaries and I would rather they were out to better use. And if a few more jobs are created by the camera venture, then I am cool with that. We need jobs! And the government needs money, so let them raise some funds by snagging a few redlight runners! PS - I hope the fire dept. or police test went well, I forgot which it was. But I hope it went well!", "title": "Traffic light cameras", "pid": "f89c38d5-2019-04-18T18:20:43Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.0130157470703}, {"text": "All of these declarations are related to what is considered an invasion of privacy, however they don't address why security cameras ARE an invasion of our privacy. Continuing on from my last argument, if people thought that being videotaped was intruding into their personal life, going out in public would be considered an intrusion as well. Security cameras are placed in public areas like human eyes are. We look at people, people look at us. If we don't want to be seen going about our daily life by cameras, then why don't we have a problem with humans? The one thing that is different about cameras is that they don't lie and they always remember what people look like and what time it was. Cameras are much more reliable in a police investigation than witnesses, because their memories of the events aren't forgotten or altered. If the only reason why people don't like security cameras is that they remember fine details down to the second, I think that those people are very aware and private about their actions, leading the average person to suspect something is up with them, and that it would be a good idea to indeed have that person taped.", "title": "Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy.", "pid": "95d32768-2019-04-18T14:24:30Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.01138305664062}, {"text": "This is a small step, as police officers are routinely armed already in a variety of situations, e.g...", "title": "Police Should Be Armed", "pid": "ac29a9a-2019-04-19T12:44:31Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.0084991455078}, {"text": "Crime cameras have not had a significant impact on crime rates", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00035-000", "bm25_score": 214.0060577392578}, {"text": "Removing police officers from traffic duty is bad, as skilled officers are much more able to detect and deal with dangerous driving than insensitive cameras, which will miss any driving offences committed below the speed limit. Cameras create an incentive for police forces to catch motorists out in order to profit from fines. This turns the police into petty bureaucrats milking the public rather than serving them, and creates bad feeling towards the police that is likely to produce problems in tackling real crimes.", "title": "Speed cameras are cost effective as they take highly paid police officers off traffic duty, allowing...", "pid": "869af6cc-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 213.99447631835938}, {"text": "Heather Knight. \"Crime cameras not capturing many crimes\". San Francisco Chronicle. March 21, 2008 - \"The cameras have been installed in phases on some of the city's roughest streets since 2005 with large concentrations of them in the Western Addition and Mission District and others in the lower Haight, the Tenderloin and near Coit Tower. [...] The cameras have contributed to only one arrest nearly two years ago in a city that saw 98 homicides last year, a 12-year high. The video is choppy, and police aren't allowed to watch video in real-time or maneuver the cameras to get a better view of potential crimes.\"", "title": "Crime cameras have not had a significant impact on crime rates", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00052-000", "bm25_score": 213.9615478515625}, {"text": "Good luck! ============================================== \"Security Cameras stop crimes and can identify dangerous criminals. \" ============================================== The resolution clearly states that \"Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy. \". You are pro which means that you must show why security cameras are not invasions of privacy. All you have written is that they can stop crimes and identify criminals. This does not show why they are not an invasion of privacy. I could say that keeping every person under 18 in the U. S. in prison cell filled with security cameras and guarded by security personel woud stop murders by people inder 18 but that hardly proves that it would not be an invasion of privacy and a violation of rigts. I await my opponent's response.", "title": "Security Cameras are not an invasion of privacy.", "pid": "591c4589-2019-04-18T18:51:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.94322204589844}, {"text": "\"If New Orleans' crime cameras are useless, cut them from the budget\". Times-Picayune. November 15, 2008 - \"New Orleanians have patiently waited for the Nagin administration and its contractors to deliver on promises to install up to 1,000 working crime cameras that would help convict violent offenders and reduce crime. [...] What residents have gotten instead is a program dogged by waste, technical problems and scant evidence that it's making a substantial difference in the fight against crime.\"", "title": "Crime cameras are too costly for too few benefits", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00084-000", "bm25_score": 213.93814086914062}, {"text": ":)", "title": "Resolved: Governmental implementation of surveillance cameras in public places are beneficial.", "pid": "df83ba5e-2019-04-18T15:01:49Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.9304962158203}, {"text": "Cameras can deter anti-social behavior such as littering", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00032-000", "bm25_score": 213.92349243164062}, {"text": "My last opponent never posted the debate, so this is really my first debate. I commend you actually sending the debate! :) OK, so I will bring up my case first, and then I will answer what my opponent brought up in his speech. I negate the resolution that Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased. I don't feel a need to put definitions, since my opponent set them out clearly. I. Surveillance cameras take out the idea of public areas. The whole idea of a private area is to be watched, and for rules to be set. Private areas have rules and regulations, so thats what makes it private. However, if cameras are put in these public area, it becomes private. This is because that whole idea of being watched is added in. Because of this, cameras should not be increased in areas. 2. Surveillance cameras can be expensive. These cameras will cost thousands of dollars. And if these are put in public areas like parks, then it will have to come from the community budget. This will cause communities to lose money, and possibly raise taxes, which makes the community less popular. 3. Surveillance cameras don't prevent the crimes, or stop the criminals. A camera can't stop a criminal in his/her tracks. All it can do is make the authorities in the area aware something is happening, and alert them to help. Becuase of this, surveillance cameras won't prevent the many crimes that can happen. If a criminal is running out of a store, and someone sees it on camera, now what? The criminal is gone. While if a guard was there, the criminal could be tazed, or stopped. 4. Thus, I submit this plan(Counterplan) Security Guards in public areas should be substantially increased. a) Security guards can protect, and still keep areas public. A guard can help protect, by, of course, stopping the criminal. However, they also fall under my definition of a public area. They don't have to watch people every second of every day, they can be near entrances, and exits, and stop the crimes. With guards, public areas are still public b)Guards are not as expensive as cameras 2 cameras can be thousands of dollars, while 2 guards can be about $20 an hour, or so. c)Guards prevent, AND stop the crimes. Not only can guards convince people to do the right thing, but they can also prevent the people who choose to do the wrong things from continuing so. Now, on to my opponents case 1) My opponent gives a clear definition of public, and surveillance, but doesn't solve for saftey. He states that: \"the whole point of making more surveillance cameras is to keep us even safer from those who could potentially hurt us. \" However, they don't stop the crimes. Cross apply my number 3. 2)My opponent also brings up the 3 S's. However, I solve for the 3 S's better. Saftey is safer with guards, security is better with guards, and stability can be maintained with guards. Cameras make aware, but don't protect. 3. ) Also, What is my opponents definition of substantial? It means that some cameras have been put into place now, but how many?", "title": "Surveillance cameras in public areas should be substantially increased.", "pid": "8375938-2019-04-18T19:45:55Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.90374755859375}, {"text": "Yes; I would ask the officer to stop watching me. I would find it uncomfortable. \"The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.\" Then I can act as I want, and speak and think that it is wrong. Do you not find it weird that people would always be able to watch you?", "title": "CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations", "pid": "c8b84b6-2019-04-18T16:36:47Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.89193725585938}, {"text": "New Orleans Mayor Nagin said in 2005 when unveiling his crime camera program: \"These cameras not only record crime, they are witnesses that cannot be intimidated.\"[6] Indeed, when crime cameras capture a crime, they expose the reality of those involved and the details of their actions. They reveal the truth, upon which justice relies. This stands in stark contrast with less detailed testimonies and heresy, making cameras particularly valuable to the justice system.", "title": "Crime cameras offer conclusive, unbiased evidence in court.", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00065-000", "bm25_score": 213.86839294433594}, {"text": "I eagerly await your reply.", "title": "Red Light Cameras need to go", "pid": "4e6308a9-2019-04-18T16:13:43Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.83657836914062}, {"text": "Cameras are there to protect the public. They are not in place to spy on people and have no interest in the personal lives of those on camera. The only interest is in the people breaking the law. If a person has nothing to hide then they should have no problem being filmed, they should be thankful that the authorities are trying to protec them and their peers.", "title": "If a person has nothing to hide, then there is no issue.", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00075-000", "bm25_score": 213.83160400390625}, {"text": "Crime cameras may help prosecutions, but don't reduce crime.", "title": "Crime cameras", "pid": "b9ef185e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00034-000", "bm25_score": 213.82513427734375}, {"text": "Security camera in public places are an invasion of privacy, feeling that your every move is being watched is not a good feeling. People should be free to travel or move a mall, street or a shop without being photograph or recorded. Being constantly watched is like being in jail and ordinary people are losing their freedom because of those security cameras. Another point to consider is, although law enforcement agencies claimed that only criminals should fear security cameras, one must keep in mind that some people have a fear of corrupt authorities who can use information obtain from security camera, in a twisted fashion to victimize others. Although, security cameras in high profile public places are a must, but the need to flood public places with cameras is not such a great idea, as it would cause more problems then it would solve.", "title": "Are security cameras in public areas an invasion of our privacy", "pid": "4809e6cc-2019-04-18T13:30:35Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.81776428222656}, {"text": "Extend.", "title": "Security cameras are not an invasion of our privacy.", "pid": "95d32768-2019-04-18T14:24:30Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.81356811523438}]}
{"idx": 48, "qid": "50", "q_text": "Should everyone get a universal basic income?", "qrels": {"4b2eea69-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00000-000": 0, "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00005-000": 2, "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00007-000": 0, "4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00000-000": 2, "4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00001-000": 0, "5520ff9a-2019-04-15T20:22:42Z-00000-000": 0, "57d5f0e9-2019-04-18T13:28:54Z-00008-000": 0, "59f8e74-2019-04-15T20:22:19Z-00005-000": 0, "69f9cd05-2019-04-18T20:00:23Z-00004-000": 0, "4b2eea69-2019-04-18T19:24:36Z-00002-000": 0, "74547446-2019-04-18T19:11:29Z-00005-000": 1, "89e52114-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00138-000": 0, "89e52114-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00159-000": 0, "89e52114-2019-04-17T11:47:41Z-00005-000": 0, "8adb8eec-2019-04-18T18:36:02Z-00004-000": 0, "99dfb988-2019-04-18T11:30:58Z-00000-000": 0, "b7051d6f-2019-04-18T11:25:14Z-00002-000": 2, "b1ae42c6-2019-04-18T19:53:25Z-00001-000": 0, "ac57a1f2-2019-04-18T16:02:56Z-00000-000": 0, "ac032197-2019-04-18T15:34:03Z-00001-000": 0, "7872f5d5-2019-04-19T12:47:52Z-00007-000": 1, "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00114-000": 0, "42f8393e-2019-04-17T11:47:34Z-00044-000": 0, "3fdb3710-2019-04-18T12:55:31Z-00001-000": 0, "260780d5-2019-04-18T15:27:35Z-00005-000": 1, "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00005-000": 2, "5f3eab31-2019-04-18T12:44:43Z-00001-000": 0, "68e62a4e-2019-04-18T13:14:27Z-00005-000": 0, "ffdf2e2e-2019-04-18T11:43:09Z-00006-000": 2, "ffdf2e2e-2019-04-18T11:43:09Z-00005-000": 2, "e3fe80a5-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00015-000": 0, "dd3e0a35-2019-04-15T20:22:38Z-00003-000": 0, "12cc98d3-2019-04-18T11:08:03Z-00002-000": 2, "da2dded4-2019-04-18T17:39:27Z-00002-000": 0, "8eeab760-2019-04-18T16:21:32Z-00007-000": 0, "da2ddeb5-2019-04-18T18:29:10Z-00000-000": 0, "bd73db05-2019-04-18T14:17:01Z-00002-000": 0, "ba23bc61-2019-04-18T16:33:13Z-00000-000": 0, "ba23bc61-2019-04-18T16:33:13Z-00002-000": 0, "b7051d6f-2019-04-18T11:25:14Z-00001-000": 2, "2e2049af-2019-04-18T20:01:30Z-00001-000": 0, "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00005-000": 1, "3cfe9d25-2019-04-19T12:45:35Z-00026-000": 0, "3ee50742-2019-04-18T17:49:57Z-00003-000": 0, "3fdb3710-2019-04-18T12:55:31Z-00000-000": 0, "4c68354c-2019-04-18T13:19:39Z-00000-000": 0, "4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00002-000": 2}, "bm25_results": [{"text": "This debate is for 1harder's Spring Regular Tournament. All the settings of this debate are in accordance with the tournament's rules. Resolution: The U. S. should replace existing welfare programs with a universal basic income (UBI). I propose that every adult receive an annual, basic income of $10,000. This income would be unconditional, earned whether one is employed or not. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare would be exempt as they aren't really considered welfare.", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 217.3303680419922}, {"text": "I accept", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 217.23045349121094}, {"text": "Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. I believe that the advancement of technology will decrease the workforce demand, Which will increase unemployment, Necessitating the need for a UBI in the near future.", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.9134521484375}, {"text": "I accept. Where is that debate?", "title": "The US ought to provide an universal basic income.", "pid": "b7051d6f-2019-04-18T11:25:14Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 216.76145935058594}, {"text": "Thanks for providing the opportunity for this debate. This isn't a subject i am particularly opinionated on but I am currently educating myself to form an argument. I look forward to hearing your first argument.", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.5753631591797}, {"text": "My opponent has forfeited.", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.51959228515625}, {"text": "Yo accepto el debate", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.4347381591797}, {"text": "Let's debate the merit, feasibility, And necessity of a Universal Basic Income. Heads up - this first post is quite long. My future arguments will be more succinct. It's a big topic so I'm looking for an opponent who's willing to put some time into this debate. ---A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky-sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work, Unlike welfare A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off; self-driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. ---A UBI would completely eliminate povertyBy providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to workThe modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperworkModern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthierBy providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3]A UBI makes the population smarterStudies have shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime ratesThe root cause of crime is desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures and are more likely to break laws. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation thus removing one of crimes biggest motivators. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. ---A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy; it may also be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.", "title": "Universal Basic Income is a good thing", "pid": "12cc98d3-2019-04-18T11:08:03Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.28439331054688}, {"text": "Hello ISDA, Before I proceed to point out the multitude of flaws regarding a USI system, I would like to point out that your opening argument is very broad and illogical. You define a Universal Basic Income system as '...the government [giving] EVERY citizen a base income of around $10 000.' Do you understand that for a country like America with a population count of over 323 million, the annual tax revenue, even if solely dedicated to provisioning a UBI system, would not be sufficient to provide every one of its citizens with that amount? Additionally, $10 000 a year is a completely insufficient amount for disadvantaged members of society. Even for the most basic living conditions (cheapest rent, cheapest food, etc.), it requires at least $30 000 annually to provide enough money for a non-working person to provide humane living conditions for themselves (providing they are mentally and physically healthy).", "title": "That UBI should be implemented in the western world", "pid": "530b96d7-2019-04-18T11:55:04Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 216.2532501220703}, {"text": "UBI is an undeniably good choice for the western world, as it eliminates extreme poverty and allows more economic freedom. For those who don't know UBI, or Universal Basic Income, it is where the government gives every citizen a base income of around $10,000 that you can spend on anything. The difference between this and normal welfare is that most public welfare goes by the system that you earn the amount of money from the welfare but any amount above and you lose said welfare, acting as a box as opposed to UBI which is a pedestal. This is because it acts as a base income that you can build off. This will be accomplished by abolishing most welfare projects. We must have UBI to ensure the ability of anyone to have a, although low, stable income.", "title": "That UBI should be implemented in the western world", "pid": "530b96d7-2019-04-18T11:55:04Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 216.21688842773438}, {"text": "A Universal Basic Income: is a periodic, Unconditional, Automatic, Guaranteed payment given to all citizens; regardless of their income. Universal basic income is one of the most ambitious social policies of our time. Over 15 countries are currently running UBI feasibility trials [1]. Why is it that so many scientists, Politicians, And economists are spending their time researching this wacky sounding idea? The key benefits of a Universal Basic Income are as follows: A UBI would completely eliminate poverty A UBI might pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost A UBI encourages people to work A UBI reduces bureaucracy A UBI makes the population smarter and healthier A UBI reduces crime rates --- It's not all altruism though. A UBI also addresses a dangerous threat to our world: The job insecurity created by automation. Job creation can't keep up with automation. While it's true that innovation creates new jobs, These don't compare with the number of jobs being eliminated by the same technological advancements. Automation has been blamed as the key reason why factory workers and miners are losing jobs. Job growth is tied down by corporate structures and politics. Technology doesn't care. As technology advances it makes things more efficient. This efficiency means employers can produce more stuff with less workforce. In a world where artificial intelligence can diagnose better than doctors, Compose classical music, Beat professional players at starcraft, Poker and go, People are worried that the pace of job growth will not be able to keep up with the advancement of technology. Take the self-driving car for example; Transportation is one of the largest industries in the world. Imagine the jobs lost and economic catastrophe if this industry became fully automated. This might not be long off - self driving cars have already shown to be at least as good, If not better drivers than humans. --- A UBI would completely eliminate poverty By providing all citizens with a basic living income we could end homelessness, Hunger and poverty overnight. A UBI could pay for itself by creating a massive economic boost In a recent study, A UBI of $1000/month in the USA was estimated to grow the GDP by over 12. 5% in 8 years [2]. Allowing poor people to spend more will increase overall economic demand. More people buying things means more tax revenue is generated and a stronger economy. This would offset the long-term cost of the program. A UBI encourages people to work The modern welfare disincentives people from getting jobs, Unemployment insurance and welfare cheques disappear when you get a job. UBI doesn't discourage jobs, Because people get to keep the money either way. Studies show that while some people initially quit their jobs, They often use the freedom UBI provides to find jobs that they are better suited for (increasing productivity), Going back to school, Or taking care of their family. A UBI reduces bureaucracy and paperwork Modern welfare systems are immensely complex. The UBI is simple. It doesn't require income verification, Tax departments, Eligibility checks, Identity checks, Or any other bureaucratic labor. A UBI makes the population healthier By providing everyone with the means for basic shelter and nutrition, We can reduce (the currently overwhelming) strain on most health care systems. With increased economic security, People are less prone to stresses, Disease, And self-destructive behavior. A UBI experiment in Canada saw hospitalization rates go down 8. 5%[3] A UBI makes the population smarter Studies has shown that the stress of poverty makes people much worse decision makers. The effect is not subtle, This study showed it was equal in a 13 point drop in IQ[4]. By eliminating the distress of millions we can create a smarter more rational society. A UBI reduces crime rates What is the root cause of crime? It is not ethnicity, Or culture, Or status. Crime is born out of desperation. Desperate people take desperate measures, And are much more likely to commit a crime. By lifting society out of poverty we would greatly reduce desperation, Removing one of the worlds biggest incentives for committing crime. This has the potential to greatly reduce crime rates everywhere. A universal basic income is not only good for society and the economy, It may be the only realistic solution to the near-term threat of automation.", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d1037f0-2019-04-18T11:08:29Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 216.20494079589844}, {"text": "I would like to start by saying that I agree with the motivations of this idea, They are noble ones. Technological unemployment => Less jobs => Less pay => Freezing cold economy => Scarcity + Inequality => Crime. But. . . At this very moment a UBI would prove to be more than prejudicial to our economy and society. To not distinguish between the working and the criminal in a world where work is the main source of value IS DANGEROUS. I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. More, If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? We are not at the point where we should be handing over our hard-earned money to the state to feed possibly unmotivated and disconnected people who might not be contributing to our development as a society or to our eventual future of abundance yet, This is precisely why welfare exists. Markets are marvelous engines for figuring out how to do things and transfer value really well and they will continue to be until the ones on the rich side reach \"climax\" abundance and turn tyrannical against the non-producing counterpart. A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology and welfare is not enough to provide a good and dignified standard of living to this half. It is in fact a good idea for when the paradigm shifts, The fact is the paradigm has not shifted and doesn't seem to be in crisis yet. As we stand, We still need much more technological advancement and abundance inequality for this to be a remotely plausible idea making it a \"bad thing\" for the moment.", "title": "Universal Basic Income is a good thing", "pid": "12cc98d3-2019-04-18T11:08:03Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 216.13006591796875}, {"text": "u know the rules. AC, NR, AR,2NR, 2Ar. no new args in 2ar", "title": "Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.", "pid": "d21a6c90-2019-04-18T11:39:37Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 216.12680053710938}, {"text": "For clarity I will be presenting my arguments on why we should not implement a UBI and then moving on to addressing my opponents point. With that out of the way I will move onto my arguments Contention 1: A universal basic income will not work. The New York Times(1) says that $1,000 a month to every American would cost around 3 trillion dollars a year. And $1,000 is a month is below the poverty line. 3 trillion dollars a year is almost the entire US budget and more than twice our discretionary funding. So we can see that A UBI is not feasible at all. Contention 2: A UBI would bring about a dystopian future. Imagine if you will a world where jobs are few and far between, those with jobs are locked in a competitive industry with few workers rights. The government is a tyrranical mess where the rights of the people are nothing.What I am saying is not some impossible nightmare, and as I will show you it is very possible. Subpoint A - Loss of jobs. Fox Business(2) says that because of increased automation, 22.7 million jobs will disappear by 2025. And CNBC(3) says that only with proper adaptability and commitment will the workforce ascend to the next level of work. Now what that means is that only with proper commitment by workers can we at least help to avoid rampant unemployment. And this is where UBIs comes in. According to the Foundation for Economic Education(4) giving handouts to every American would de-incentivize them to try and find a job. So as we can see a UBI will aid in a drastic rise in unemployment. In addition it will take away money and focus from useful systems such as a jobs guarantee which would solve the imminent unemployment at a much lower cost. According to The Atlantic(5) it would only cost 158 billion dollars a year, less than a 15th of the cost of a UBI program. So as we can see a UBI will exacerbate job loss and harm us greatly. Subpoint B - Loss of rights. According to Sapira(6) political rights are directly correlated with economic participation. She says \"And this is the real danger of a universal basic income it makes the citizens unnecessary to the government\" She also says that in societies where the state economy comes from sources that require only a small, fixed number of people to defend or maintain them, tend to develop autocratic regimes with little concern for the welfare of their citizens. To summarize, a universal basic income is a frivolous, expensive system that will cause a loss of our jobs and our political rights. Now I will respond to my opponents arguments. Entrepreneurship: In this argument my opponent presents that entrepreneurship will increase because people will have financial security. Now I have three responses to this. First, there seems to be a lot of different evidence tied together here. My opponent talks about the effects of entrepreneurship in India and Namibia, and talks about the danger of low economic security. But I would like to see the evidence that states that a UBI will fix this, and why. Secondly, There are more effective ways to do this. For instance a negative income tax, which I will talk more about later as my opponent mentions it, could remove financial insecurity. Which would in turn raise entrepreneurial spirit. Finally, this won't matter because we cannot pay for a UBI. Education/ College(I am combining my opponents second and third points because they deal with the same thing.): For these arguments my opponent presents that a UBI will decrease highschool dropouts and increase college and thus innovation. My responses to my opponents previous arguments apply here as well. I would like to see evidence specifically stating this and a negative income tax could do these things as well. And of course we just can't pay for it. Lower Work Hours: My opponent begins this argument by talking about benefits of lower work hours and then continues on to say that A UBI will lower work hours. But the crux here is that their evidence is about negative income tax not universal basic income. A negative income tax is very different from a universal basic income. Samuel Hammond and the Niskanen Center(7) published an article titled \"Universal Basic Income is just Negative Income tax with a Leaky Bucket.\" And in this article they explain what negative income tax is \"The NIT, popularized by Milton Friedman, is an extension of the progressive tax system into negative territory. Just as someone making lots of money pays a higher tax rate, those below the poverty line would pay an increasingly negative tax rate\"which is to say, the IRS would pay them.\" Now this is obviously not universal, and is not an income. So really my opponent has no evidence that supports their claim that a UBI will reduce global warming. Economic Inequality: So here my opponent talks about how a UBI will reduce income inequality. But their evidence talks about raising people out of poverty. Now this is different because the rich will also get payed more, meaning the gap will stay the same. Systems that would go towards reducing income inequality do exists though. Systems like a jobs guarantee or negative income tax would do this, however these are not we are debating the merits of. So it's clear, A UBI will, cost too much, take away our jobs, take away our freedom, and it's benefits can be better accomplished with other systems. This means that it is flawed and unnecessary. For these reasons I strongly urge a con vote. Sources: 1 - NY Times - Porter, Eduardo. \"A Universal Basic Income Is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty.\" The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 May 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/business/economy/universal-basic-income-poverty.html? module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Economy&action=keypress\"ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article. 2 - Fox Business - Lee, Laura. \"Automation Is Killing These Jobs.\" Fox Business, Fox Business, 30 Mar. 2016, www.foxbusiness.com/features/automation-is-killing-these-jobs. 3 - CNBC - Jr., Stephen Spinelli, and Jiffy Lube co-founder. \"1 Million US Jobs Will Vanish by 2026. Here's How to Prepare Workers for an Automated Future.\" CNBC, CNBC, 2 Feb. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/automation-will-kill-1-million-jobs-by-2026-what-we-need-to-do-commentary.html. 4 - Foundation for Economic Education(FEE) - Hunter, Britteny. \"The Top Three Arguments against a Universal Basic Income.\" FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, 8 Sept. 2017, fee.org/articles/the-top-three-arguments-against-a-universal-basic-income/. 5 - The Atlantic - Lowrey, Annie. \"Should the Government Guarantee Everyone a Job?\" The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 18 May 2017, www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/should-the-government-guarantee-everyone-a-job/527208/. 6 - Sapira - Sapira, Shai. \"Universal Basic Income and the Threat of Tyranny.\" Quillette, Quillette, 15 Oct. 2017, quillette.com/2017/10/09/universal-basic-income-threat-tyranny/. 7 - Niskanen Center - Hammond, Samuel. \"\"Universal Basic Income\" Is Just a Negative Income Tax with a Leaky Bucket.\" Niskanen Center, Niskanen Center, 13 July 2016, niskanencenter.org/blog/universal-basic-income-is-just-a-negative-income-tax-with-a-leaky-bucket/.", "title": "The US ought to provide an universal basic income.", "pid": "b7051d6f-2019-04-18T11:25:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.4699249267578}, {"text": "Every citizen, regardless of occupation, should receive the same wage an hour. The doctor should receive the same as the plumber. The reason being is that economic inequality is harmful and all work is a contribution to society as should be treated equally.", "title": "All people should receive the same income", "pid": "f266897a-2019-04-18T13:59:44Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 215.44052124023438}, {"text": "Con has been very specific with his wording limiting a variety of general objections to his position that are often considered when peeps discuss this. I'm stating this because it 'morally desirable' is a black hole of ambiguity and I do not want to lean on semantics so I will instead try to focus on what is morally desirable in a practical way and what that means in general using standard definitions. I'm not aware of anyone that receives payments in cash or anything that is uncondtional but I do not expect Cob to lean on these too hard. Many things are morally desirable. In a subjective moral world view you can justify torture (USA #1) or killing apostates. Utilitarians, rule based types or even absolutists could as well. It is obviously ideal to ensure that the worst off in our countries do not starve (reach a sub-subsistence level of existence.) The debate here is normally just about to what degree we will do this. We make 'cash' payments to provide roads, hospitals, food banks and shelters to anyone who bothers to use them. They do not get the check directly and That's the lame leg Con is trying to lean on. We already pay for a minimum standard of living just by paying taxes. We make sure all citizens have justice, are not subject to theft or murder etc. We subsidies farmers, factory workers and billionaires. This question has already been decided. Of course we make cash payouts every month to ensure that everyone reaches subsistence, aka doesn't die. It's only a question of degree. Con can only argue the degree to which we support eachother. By setting the bar at morally desirable all I have to show is that some moral code wants to stop people from dying due to poverty. We are all mutually interdependent and even those lacking empathy can appreciate that preventing others from starving to death or dying from the elements is helpful/desirable wherever it falls on their to do list. While, cash payments that benefit you directly vs those you receive directly are obviously different those that cannot use the funds, at least to reach, subsistence are normally subject to guadianship.", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d1037b2-2019-04-18T11:26:06Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.3206329345703}, {"text": "Con has been very specific with his wording limiting a variety of general objections to his position that are often considered when peeps discuss this. I'm stating this because it 'morally desirable' is a black hole of ambiguity and I do not want to lean on semantics so I will instead try to focus on what is morally desirable in a practical way and what that means in general using standard definitions. I'm not aware of anyone that receives payments in cash or anything that is uncondtional but I do not expect Cob to lean on these too hard. Many things are morally desirable. In a subjective moral world view you can justify torture (USA #1) or killing apostates. Utilitarians, rule based types or even absolutists could as well. It is obviously ideal to ensure that the worst off in our countries do not starve (reach a sub-subsistence level of existence.) The debate here is normally just about to what degree we will do this. We make 'cash' payments to provide roads, hospitals, food banks and shelters to anyone who bothers to use them. They do not get the check directly and That's the lame leg Con is trying to lean on. We already pay for a minimum standard of living just by paying taxes. We make sure all citizens have justice, are not subject to theft or murder etc. We subsidies farmers, factory workers and billionaires. This question has already been decided. Of course we make cash payouts every month to ensure that everyone reaches subsistence, aka doesn't die. It's only a question of degree. Con can only argue the degree to which we support eachother. By setting the bar at morally desirable all I have to show is that some moral code wants to stop people from dying due to poverty. We are all mutually interdependent and even those lacking empathy can appreciate that preventing others from starving to death or dying from the elements is helpful/desirable wherever it falls on their to do list. While, cash payments that benefit you directly vs those you receive directly are obviously different those that cannot use the funds, at least to reach, subsistence are normally subject to guadianship.", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d1037d1-2019-04-18T11:25:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 215.3206329345703}, {"text": "So we both agree that a UBI would be a good thing if automation takes over the job market. Good, Then let's discuss the pros/cons of a UBI on modern society. The average wage has remained stagnant worldwide while the cost of living has skyrocketed. We are already feeling the effects of automation. Modern welfare in most countries doesn't even cover the basic cost of living. This is why it's imperative to explore massive changes to our social nets with ideas like UBI. I think one of the best effects of UBI is that directly addresses wealth inequality. We all know that rich corporations are only getting richer, While the poor seem to be getting poorer. A UBI empowers poor employees to demand better working conditions and higher wages. Lower income employees enter the middle class at the expense of large corporations, Effectively bridging the wealth divide. Rebuttals\"If the UBI exists does the welfare end? If yes, Are people who are just lazy living well to the detriment of those with disabilities that require more funds to control or cure? \"Yes, UBI replaces welfare. The problem with welfare is that it discourages work - welfare payments stop after someone gets a job. UBI payments do not. For this reason, A large portion of these \"welfare bums\" actually reenter the job market. ---\"I understand that a salary is still due to the ones who choose to work under a UBI but it would cease to be a good enough motivation since you are allowed to be lazy and still live fairly well. \"Do people quit their jobs after given a UBI? Well we've tested it. It turns out that most people would rather be wealthy the lazy. A portion of the population does initially quit, But most of them go further their education or find better jobs that are actually in their field. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend program has been in place for the past 25 years, With money distributed from the oil reserve royalties earned in the state. The unconditional cash payments amount to $2, 000 per Alaskan resident. \"The researchers found that the unconditional payments to residents had no real impact upon full-time employment levels (whether positive or negative), Although they did find that part-time work increased by about 17%. \" [4]----\"A UBI would be a good idea only when and if a TRUE job crisis arises, Where something like 50% or so of the population is in fact unemployed due to the advancement in technology\"The problem here is that technology advances exponentially, while politics and the job market advance slowly and linearly. I would argue that something THIS DESTRUCTIVE, Cannot be dealt with reactively, It must be dealt with proactively. If we wait until half the population is unemployed we've waited far too long. That's why we're running early trials now.", "title": "Universal Basic Income is a good thing", "pid": "12cc98d3-2019-04-18T11:08:03Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 215.31198120117188}, {"text": "Full resolution: The United States should begin to convert existing welfare programs into a universal basic income (UBI). There are about 126 different welfare programs that are currently on the books.1I am arguing that we should begin to replace these programs with a UBI. Note that I do not need to argue that these existing 126 welfare programs must be eliminated immediately, but rather I will argue that these programs should eventually be phased out and a transition to a universal basic income should begin. First round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. I will outline my UBI proposal in the arguments section.I have made this debate impossible to accept. Accepting without permission will result in a forfeit of all seven points.1. http://object.cato.org...;", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.26559448242188}, {"text": "Abolishing income tax increases individual incentive to work.", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 215.14158630371094}, {"text": "IntroductionAn unconditional, individual, and universal basic income would indisputably boost the economy and allow many low-income Americans to climb the ladder of social mobility. It would not only lift people above the poverty line and reduce income inequality, but create jobs, lower school dropout rates, improve health, and raise overall economic output. A UBI would enable, rather than trap, those with unfortunate financial situations as it would provide *everyone* money to work with; all would have the fiscal leverage to progress forward when they otherwise wouldn’t.Our current welfare programs, in contrast, do the opposite of what they’re intended for. They encourage passive behavior and inhibit productivity. The means-tested programs withdraw benefits as soon as a certain income is reached, and are burdened with high marginal tax rates so long as their income is below a certain level. Others require people to exhaust nearly all their assets until they become eligible for aid. With so many strings attached, and the overall counter-productive nature, welfare programs simply are inferior to a UBI, and have too many downfalls.Economic/Societal ImpactsThere are several instances of cash transfers, or UBI trials, working. The following examples turn up multiple benefits:Namibia tried out a UBI program, the Basic Income Grant, in 2007-2012. After just one year into the program, household poverty rates dropped from 76% to 37%. Other effects were noted too: income-generating activities rose from 44% to 55% over the time period. Parents were enabled to purchase school uniforms, afford school fees, and encourage attendance because of this problem, and as a result, school dropout rates dropped from 40% to nearly 0% in a year [2].India tried a cash transfer project from 2013-2014 too. The result was that sanitation improved, medicine could be afforded, clean water became more accessible, and participants could eat more regularly [3].Uganda’s UBI trial enabled participants to invest in skill training. The findings were that “relative to the control group, the program increases business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%” [4]. Kenya has an ongoing trial, and it has so far reportedly let to increased happiness and life satisfaction, and reduced depression and stress [5].If we are to quantify the effect this would have in the US, we should look at the current poverty levels. Currently, the poverty level is a $12,140 income for individuals [1]. With my proposed UBI of $10,000, this would pull everyone with an income of a few thousand or more above the line. That’s potentially *millions* of people. The Failure of Welfare ProgramsThe current welfare programs do *not* provide overall work incentives. Most are means-tested, meaning that if you demonstrate that your income and capital are below specified limits, you’re eligible. This can lead to what some call the “cliff effect”: once someone passes an income threshold, that aid is withdrawn, and climbing further up the income ladder becomes more difficult. This issue is maximized when we understand how disadvantaged the poor are tax-wise under welfare. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, “[found] that the marginal tax rate climbs to 40 percent when a worker earns slightly more than about $12,000, and then to nearly 50 percent in the mid-$20,000 range.” [6] These programs impose high marginal tax rates, essentially trapping these recipients into a large income hole that they can’t climb out of. To put this into better perspective, here’s a graph [7] that shows tax-less income in respect to income earned: These welfare programs are creating a clear poverty trap. Under a universal basic income, this wouldn’t happen. A UBI would extend to *every* person, regardless of what their incomes are, enabling them to have more social mobility than they would under the incredibly flawed welfare programs that are burdening so many lower-income people.But that’s not all. Many welfare programs also have asset limits, meaning that one must have almost no assets to be eligible for benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have asset limit ranges from $1,000 in states like Georgia and Texas to $10,000 in Delaware [8]. This is problematic because it discourages the importance of saving and self-reliance; only those who exhaust just about all of their assets become eligible for aid. Savings are very important because they provide cushion against anything that goes wrong. Just having under $2,000, for instance, is enough to protect against eviction, missed meals, or the loss of utilities during a financial setback. To force such recipients to go to the point of being broke to receive benefits in no way incentivizes them to increase their income.To sum, a UBI would (1) significantly reduce poverty and boost economic output, and (2) incentivize people to work in ways our current welfare programs cannot. Thus, I affirm.=Sources=[1] https://www.healthcare.gov...[2] http://www.bignam.org...[3] http://sewabharat.org...[4] https://www.povertyactionlab.org...[5] https://www.princeton.edu...[6] https://www.urban.org...[7] https://www.economist.com...[8] https://www.americanprogress.org...", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 214.84783935546875}, {"text": "Abolishing income tax empowers families", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00009-000", "bm25_score": 214.69631958007812}, {"text": "Ok, I understand that I will not do my last speech then, for round 4, correct? Well, I will just assume so. Anyways, moving on...(and all sources will be in round 4 speech) I stand in firm affirmation of the Resolved: The United States Ought to Provide a Universal Basic Income Observation 1: Definition Basic income has 5 characteristics... A basic income is a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement. That is, basic income has the following five characteristics: Periodic: it is paid at regular intervals (for example every month), not as a one-off grant. Cash payment: it is paid in an appropriate medium of exchange, allowing those who receive it to decide what they spend it on. It is not, therefore, paid either in kind (such as food or services) or in vouchers dedicated to a specific use, as well as any form of benefit (such as disability or food stamp). Individual: it is paid on an individual basis\"and not, for instance, to households. Universal: it is paid to all, without means test. Unconditional: it is paid without a requirement to work or to demonstrate willingness-to-work Observation 2: Grounds The negative must prove that Basic Income does NOT benefit the citizens of the US, as well as prove that the US ought not to provide a basic income, instead of the countries ability to do so, as the resolution states ought. Framework: My Standard for evaluating morality for this round is upholding the Kantian Social Contract due to the principle of generic consistency. We can\"t know what others want [Kant, 1] Since people differ in their thinking about happiness and how each would have it constituted, their wills with respect to it cannot be brought under any common principle and so under any external law harmonizing with everyone's freedom. [Kant, 2]No one can coerce me to be happy in his way. Instead, each may seek his happiness in the way that seems good to him, provided he does not infringe upon this right of another.We, as humans, don\"t know what other people want in their pursuit of life. Therefore, laws that promote a certain type of happiness violate the individual\"s individuality. Since all people are inherently rational beings, this violates their rights as beings and is against a-priori reasoning. Society in decisions [Kant, 3] For what is under discussion here is not the happiness that a subject may expect from the institution or administration of a commonwealth but above all merely the right that is to be secured for each by means of it, which is the supreme principle for which all maxims having to do with a commonwealth must proceed and which is limited by no other principle. The \"public well-being' that must be taken into account is lawful constitution which secures everyone his freedom by laws, whereby each remains at liberty to seek his happiness in whatever way seems best to him. What Kant is saying is that societies govern to secure each person the right to achieve happiness and self-fulfillment. Therefore, to infringe upon someone\"s rights is to deny that person their right to happiness. Since this is only violating the rights of one person, it is a violation of the goals of a state \" and by extension of society. Contention 1: UBI Promotes Freedom 1. UBI Means Freedom to Pursue What One Wants (1) The objective of basic income is to transform the deprivations linked to non-employment and poorly remunerated employment into \"real freedom\" (1995). Real freedom requires not just the abstract right but financial resources to make freedom a lived reality. Furthermore, by securing individuals\" \"power to say no\", basic income reduces the vulnerability of poor and working people to exploitative relations in labor markets. And, According to Rutger Bregman, (2) UBI would allow both our employment and leisure time to become more fulfilling. Currently, millions of people are employed in work that serves no real purpose, and is simply a way to fill time and provide salaries. Under UBI, Bregman believes we would have the financial freedom to pursue useful and worthwhile work. 2. UBI Creates Economic Freedom Among Citizens Jason Murphy states that\" There has also been a growing focus on how basic income could be implemented to address gender inequality. He points to a rape shelter in Vancouver that has voiced support for UBI, in part because it would give women the economic freedom to escape abusive relationships. Murphy also stated that\" A monthly stipend and reduced working hours would give both parents the freedom to commit to domestic chores, while still being able to invest in professional careers. Women carry the burden of emotional labor\"the childcare, support, and household work, which largely goes uncompensated. According to Bregman, \"This unpaid work is valuable and\"UBI is recognition of that.\" Contention 2: Poverty Internal Link Basic Income Eliminates Poverty (3) The human rights case for a basic income: Poverty is not a natural tragedy like cancer or earthquakes. Poverty is a human caused tragedy like slavery or government oppression. These types of tragedies can be ended by recognizing that humans have the right not to be subjected to tortuous conditions imposed by other. And humans have a right not to live in poverty. A basic income is not a strategy for dealing with poverty; it it the elimination of poverty. The campaign for a basic income is a campaign for the abolition of poverty. 1. Drug Abuse (4) It seems sort of obvious that bad times might result in more drug abuse, as people suffering from economic despair self-medicate. Researchers from Vanderbilt University and the University of Colorado Denver published a paper showing an undeniable inverse relationship between drug abuse and the economy overall. According the data, when one sinks, the other rises. \"There is strong evidence that economic downturns lead to increases in substance use disorders involving hallucinogens and prescription pain relievers\"\" Drug treatment policies get significantly cut during economic downturns, which seems like precisely the wrong move at the wrong time. In short, increased rates of income leads to a decrease in drug use, and moreover abuse. More deaths, illnesses and disabilities stem from substance abuse than from any other preventable health condition. Any chance to decrease drug abuse should be taken to value the lives and welfare of humanity. 2. Healthcare (5) For most people, a single doctor\"s visit can be a financial obstacle course. Many patients throughout the year pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in premiums. Then, at the doctor\"s office, they are faced with a deductible, and they may need to pay coinsurance or make a copayment. If they have prescriptions, they\"ll likely fork over cash for those, too. And that\"s just for basic primary care for one person. Repeat that process for an entire family; add in any labs, referrals, specialists, emergency-room visits, and surgeries; and the result for even healthy families is dozens and dozens of payments, and often thousands of dollars. If the UBI were to be implemented in the U.S., people would have to worry less about the expensive payments that must be made because of illness or injury. If people\"s income increased, they could purchase more healthcare. Less disease and injuries leads to less widespread death and harm. 3. Education (6) UBI keeps kids enrolled in schools. By providing an income cushion, it would increase workers\" bargaining power, potentially driving up wages. It would make it easier for people to take risks with their job choices, and to invest in education. In the U.S. in the seventies, there were small-scale experiments with basic-income guarantees, and they showed that young people with a basic income were more likely to stay in school; in New Jersey, kids\" chances of graduating from high school increased by twenty-five per cent I stand in firm affirmation.", "title": "Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI", "pid": "ffdf2e2e-2019-04-18T11:43:09Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.6900634765625}, {"text": "Currently there's a lot of inequality worldwide. The richest 1 percent of the world has the twice the amount of money as the poorest 50 percent. And there's said that inequality is growing(World Inequality Report). I think if people out of every country have the chance to educate themselves, the global world will have a huge advantage out of it. Because if inequality shrinks then poor countries can join more in the world trade, which offers new opportunities. With this topic I don't want to say that everyone should earn the same amount of money. But I want to say that every child should have the same start from birth on, or anyway a more equal start. And this should maintain the same rights for everyone. If everyone around the globe could have the same start, great talent could rise and it would give an opportunity to countries to invest more in other problems as climate change. If you have a different opinion on this topic please share it.", "title": "Everyone should have an equal and fair start in life.", "pid": "c905620-2019-04-18T11:23:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.67031860351562}, {"text": "Income Tax is unjust - none of it goes to any public service", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00014-000", "bm25_score": 214.59793090820312}, {"text": "IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d1037b2-2019-04-18T11:26:06Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.55262756347656}, {"text": "Income tax is the price we pay for living in an equitable society", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.4778289794922}, {"text": "Abolishing Income Tax will grow the economy", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00010-000", "bm25_score": 214.44073486328125}, {"text": "I. IntroThis was an excellent debate, and I appreciate Varrack proposing the topic. Admittedly, before the debate I knew very little about UBI. This debate has been a great way to educate myself on a very interesting topic. Varrack, if you win this round, good luck in the rest of the tournament. If I win know that this was, as I said, an excellent debate and I'd like to debate you more in the future. With my remaining round I will be presenting voting issues, why they matter, and why they mean that I have won this debate.II. UBI and CapitalismIn my case, I demonstrated how without offering a living wage, UBI means that individuals will still have to work. Per Pro's own evidence, the poverty rate is $12,000 per adult. Pro's plan offers $10,000, meaning individuals will continue to be forced to participate in the market. This means that employers will be able to drive down wages and more \"buIIshit jobs\" will be created, causing many workers to be in worse conditions and have less satisfaction.Pro's attempt to dissuade voters from evaluating this point was to say I created a straw man out of the purpose of a UBI (in decommodification of labor). However, the purpose is irrelevant, the effects will remain the same. Just because Pro isn't attempting to decommodify labor with his plan doesn't mean we won't see the decrease in wages. Prefer my analysis from leading economists from Cambridge and The London School of Economics to Pro's bare assertion.The ramifications of this are as follows: we strip Americans of their current welfare plans. The government provides a universal basic income of $10,000. Employers see this as supplemental income. Wages are reduced. Americans are far worse off than before. Because UBI will not work unless as a subsidy for a business, this alone is reason to negate. Pro essentially dropped this point, which alone negates the entire case.III. The Current Welfare SystemIn my defense of the current welfare system, there were two repeated themes. The first one was that the \"negative incentives\" of our current system aren't legitimate challenges faced by those receiving welfare in the United States. To challenge this, Pro mentions his CBO analysis. However, I offer my own source, in which a Forbes contributor comments [6] on analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). [9] The CBPP analysis proves that the American poor are encouraged to work (through collectivization) more than their more affluent counterparts, and is based on a more recent CBO report (2015.) [10] Pro literally uses an older publication (2012) [11, Pro's Source 6] from the exact same group to attempt to disprove my argument.These \"negative incentives\" don't exist. Prefer my argument because Pro and I use the same source, but mine is more recent, and in turn more accurate.The second talking point I had was that the poverty rate does not actually reflect what it claims to. It does not account for your income post-welfare reception. I used an incredibly simple example in R3 to show how someone who does end up receiving more than $12,000 a year (between income and welfare) would still be considered \"below\" the poverty line. This means that any analysis of the current welfare system measuring its effect on the poverty rate is irrelevant. As I have proven, the American system is an excellent safety net with positive incentives toward financial growth. Pro essentially avoided my argument about how inflated our poverty rate was, which is evident in the UC Davis evidence he uses in the closing round.IV. ConclusionIt is clear that you should be voting Con in this debate. In my opening round, I pointed out that because of the incompatibility between UBI and capitalism, Pro must prove that 1. This is not true or 2. Capitalism will be phased out. He did neither of those things, therefore failing to fulfill his burden. I win on these grounds alone. However, if you need an additional reason to vote Con, look at the successes of our current system. We have helped far more people than our inflated poverty rates would lead you to believe, all while providing incentives for those below the line to break through it.Therefore, I negate the resolution. Thank you.Again, thank you Varrack for this debate. I have learned a lot and have enjoyed a stimulating conversation. Thank you voters for taking the time to read this. Thank you 1harder for hosting.V. Sources[9] https://www.cbpp.org...[10] https://www.cbo.gov...[11] https://www.urban.org...", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.4274444580078}, {"text": "Good luck! !! The basis of my opponents proposal stems from the idea that what makes him/her happy is what should make us all happy, as if to say happiness is a \"one size fits all\" kinda thing. An idea that mediocrity should be good enough for everyone. I challenge my opponent to explain why someone whose idea of happiness is financial success or even endless wealth, is somehow immoral. What pedestal does my opponent get to stand on to claim that wealth is not a valid form of happiness, or ones pursuit of wealth somehow adversely affects everyone else? As long as those endeavors are done by legal means, then those pursuits do not affect others! It seems to me the United States has been trying to provide a universal basic income since the great depression, mostly by means of a minimum wage. Not to suggest that the minimum wage is the only factor that causes prices to rise, but it is the most effective factor to cause prices to rise. When the minimum wage goes up, then the cost of production goes up which then is past on to the consumer. I challenge my opponent to explain how causing prices to go up is an effective tool for helping those with lesser incomes. Furthermore, minimum wages can cause employers to have to forego hiring new employees. When the cost of production goes up, it causes business owners to go elsewhere for production. In the end, raising minimum wages only proves to make American workers less competitive on a global scale which causes jobs to disappear. I fail to see how stifling job growth is good for anybody. Many point to the industrial revolution as if it was a sad period for the American worker and point out the disproportionate nature of wealth distribution, yet they conveniently forget that it was an unprecedented achievement that took place. At no other point in written history has so many people been brought out of poverty so quickly. There were no minimum wages, so prices were low and so was the cost of living. Right now, China is on an industrious endeavor that could prove to dwarf the achievements of the industrial revolution. When production is left alone, it can prove to be very effective in bringing wealth to the masses. I noticed this is my opponents first debate on this site. I welcome you to the DDO community and good luck! !", "title": "Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.", "pid": "d21a6c90-2019-04-18T11:39:37Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.41909790039062}, {"text": "As my opponent predicted, I will be running a counter-plan:Replace the current welfare system -- implement a federal \"Workfare\" system for the unemployed, and rely on Earned Income Tax Credits (EITCs) to subsidize the salaries of the employed.There is a single, crucial difference between Workfare and UBI -- the $10,000 will not be granted unconditionally. Under the Workfare system, the unemployed recipients will be required to either (1) work on government-sponsored community service & public works projects, (2) receive government-sponsored vocational education, or (3) engage in some combination of both. For the purposes of this debate, it is unnecessary to formulate a detailed system of specific requirements, but that is the general framework which the requirements will follow. If the requirements are met, then the recipient will receive $10,000 for each member of his/her household. If the requirements are not met, then no hand-out is granted.As for employed people, we already have an EITC system in place, although I advocate making it substantially more generous, so that no employed household will be earning less than $15,000 per member. Note that EITC *does* target people who actually need their salaries subsidized, but also contains a specialized system for calculating the amount paid in order to minimize phase-out work disincentive effect my opponent described [1].With that established, I will now proceed to go over the benefits of my counter-plan.(1) Welfare DependencyMy plan would vastly reduce dependency. Under both the UBI and the status quo, unemployed people are faced with a choice. Either (1) they don't work but still receive enough money to survive, or (2) they DO work and earn/receive substantially more money. Ideally, welfare recipients will be motivated to choose Option 2 due to the financial opportunity cost of Option 1. However, in reality, many people value the benefit of leisure time over the cost of a lower income, and the result of that is welfare dependency -- a social malady which needlessly eats up tax dollars, creates a large population of economically unproductive people, and has been empirically proven to exacerbate crime rates. And it's a widespread problem too -- in the United States, there are *14 million* Americans who are classified as welfare-dependent [2].Both UBI and Workfare significantly increase the costs of not working (because $10,000 is way less than even a minimum wage salary). However, Workfare also eliminates the *benefits* of not working -- by forcing recipients to spend the majority of their time either working or getting trained, there is no leisure time to be found in remaining unemployed. Therefore, under my plan, the choice that unemployed people face becomes a simple one between an income of $10,000, and an income of at least $15,000 -- they will have to work either way. This creates a much stronger work incentive than UBI does. No rational person who is capable of getting a job is going to abstain from doing so, and that alone will cause an enormous reduction in welfare dependency. Look to Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reforms as a case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- as soon as work requirements were implemented, welfare caseloads declined by an astonishing 60% [3]. Some critics of work requirements attribute that decline to favorable macroeconomic conditions, but a carefully-controlled analysis by the NBER revealed that Clinton's welfare reforms were, in fact, directly responsible for the decline [4]. It is obvious that the Workfare system will result in a drastic reduction in welfare dependency and its associated harms.(2) Public WorksA major part of Workfare is employing people in the construction of public works, and public works (as the name implies) benefit the public. Look to President FDR's Works Progress Administration another case-study in the efficacy of Workfare -- it employed 3.3 million people, bringing about the construction of \"roads, bridges, schools, courthouses, hospitals, sidewalks, waterworks, and post-offices ... museums, swimming pools, parks, community centers, playgrounds, coliseums, markets, fairgrounds, tennis courts, zoos, botanical gardens, auditoriums, waterfronts, city halls, gyms, and university unions. Most of these are still in use today\" [5]. Not only do such endeavors make society a more generally pleasant place to live in, but they also create jobs (from their maintenance and operation), and can serve as sources of government revenue.Moreover, Workfare provides a means for the US to start working on the declining quality of its infrastructure -- \"The American Society of Civil Engineers has released its annual infrastructure report card, and the prognosis for the country's roads, bridges, and public facilities isn't good. America's infrastructure has been in bad shape for years, and things don't seem like they will get better anytime soon. Of the 16 categories ASCE graded, all but one got Cs and Ds\" [6]. There is more than enough work which needs to be done, and implementing Workfare is an ideal way to go about doing it.(3) Vocational EducationAnother big part of Workfare is having unemployed people receive vocational education -- in other words, providing them with the skills they need to become employed, rather than just throwing money at them. Not only is this better for the long-term interests of the recipients, but it's also crucial for the future of the economy. It's quite well-known that we are currently facing a trade skills shortage due to the decline of vocational education -- far too many people are getting trained for high-skilled jobs thanks to our undue emphasis on collegiate education, and as a result, there aren't nearly enough of the medium-skilled workers which trade schools used to produce [7]. One study from Northeastern University reported that employers in manufacturing & service industries \"overwhelmingly prefer to hire graduates from VTE schools or vocational programs ... More than 90% of employers see a need to increase the number of vocational high school graduates\" [8]. Workfare is a potential solution to this problem -- it may not be possible to convince college-bound students to settle for a trade school certification, but unemployed people will gladly go for such an offer. By making government-sponsored vocational education one of the options that unemployed people can choose from, Workfare will inevitably produce a large number of the medium-skilled workers which there is so much demand for, thereby filling in the job market's void.UNDERVIEWMy counter-plan is clearly preferable to Pro's UBI plan. -- It keeps most people above the poverty line -- It minimizes wasteful government spending by reducing welfare dependency & targeting EITC hand-outs -- It maximizes society's economic productivity by producing skilled workers & reducing welfare dependency-- It keeps unemployed people occupied (i.e. away from crime)-- It benefits society by providing a variety of public works & improving the quality of its infrastructureOut of all of these, only the first benefit can be said to apply to UBI.The resolution is negated.[1] http://money.howstuffworks.com...[2] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[3] http://www.brookings.edu...[4] https://aspe.hhs.gov...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.businessinsider.com...[7] https://www.bostonglobe.com...[8] http://www.northeastern.edu...", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 214.36141967773438}, {"text": "There are multiple objectives a welfare program should achieve. Economist Ed Dolan offers the following four criteria in which to evaluate welfare programs:1 1) A good welfare program leaves few, if any, people below the poverty line; 2) Whether or not the program is targeted for those who need it most; 3) A good welfare program would keep work incentives intact, at least as much as possible; 4) A good welfare program would reduce administrative costs and waste. The UBI accomplishes all of these goals except for one, but I will explain this in a moment. M specific UBI involves a minimum income of $10,000—unconditional, you earn it whether or not you are working—and all welfare programs (even EITC!) except social security (would be phased out, I will elaborate if my opponent brings up costs), medicare, and medicaid. This would eliminate all poverty for families of two or more, and eliminate poverty for the vast majority of single person households. The reason I would not abolish medicare and medicaid is because the UBI would likely not be high enough to cover both their welfare and medical needs. We would also eliminate most middle class and upper class loopholes and tax credits in order to increase the UBI funding pool. The UBI benefit will outweigh the loss in credits for most middle class families. 1. A UBI would leave few, if any, people below the poverty line A properly crafted UBI would leave virtually everyone above the poverty line. My proposed UBI would keep anyone who earns just a few thousands dollars a year—something that can easily be done doing odd jobs occasionally—above the poverty line, and people who earn $0 would be only a little shy of it. All households with more than one person would be lifted above the poverty line. A UBI would fulfill this goal. 2. A UBI would not be targeted—and that’s a good thing! This is the only criteria a UBI does not meet, but this is actually a good thing. Why? Because means-tested programs focus on targeting. It focuses on giving aid to only those who need it. But the consequence of this is a decline in work incentives because means tested programs phase out over time and impose high marginal tax rates on the next dollar earned, thus discouraging work effort. Not only that, but an untargeted welfare program increases administrative efficiency because you do not need workers to make sure each family receiving benefits needs it—the untargeted aspect of the UBI means it can be administered through the tax system and be calculated by a computer algorithm. 3. A UBI would preserve work incentives overall, and do so better than any means tested system Implementing a UBI to a society where welfare did not exist at all would reduce work incentives. But a society without assistance for the needy is not desirable. Free markets have made us so wealthy that it is not only feasible to eliminate poverty, it is desirable because no one should starve in a wealthy society like as ours. The UBI would significantly increase work incentives compared to a means-tested welfare system because there is no phase-out of benefits. Phase-outs work the same as high marginal tax rates. In other words, for every extra dollar a poor person earns, they gain less than a dollar of disposable income. Let me give an example. Say we have a phase out of 0.75 cents per dollar earned. This means if I make one extra dollar from work, I lose 0.75 cents in benefits, and only get 25 cents. This means my marginal tax rate is 75%, which clearly disincentivizes work. Is the extra 25 cents worth it? Is it worth working for an extra dollar to only receive 25 cents? For some people, the answer is yes. But for others, the extra work may be worth one dollar, but the extra work is not worth 25 cents. Thus, a means tested system is destined to significantly reduce work incentives. This is not the case under a UBI. People will obtain the $10,000 benefit no matter what—if they earn a million dollars or $2,000 dollars, they will still get $10,000 in benefits each year. There is no phase out. No tax levied on every extra dollar earned. To further analyze this, let's look at economic theory. There are two effects of a UBI (and welfare in general) on work incentives: the income effect and the substitution effect. The income effect generally reduces work. As disposable income rises, people tend to use more of that money to go on vacation and work less. The substitution effect generally increases work effort. As disposable income rises, the opportunity cost of not working grows larger. This increases work effort. Both of these effects work simultaneously. How would it work under a UBI? Look at the following graphic.2 Now assume we are at arrow one before the red and green lines cross (green = UBI, red = means tested, blue = no welfare). For this group of people, the income effect and the substitution effect simultaneously increase work incentives because the opportunity cost of not working grows with an added UBI and the income effect increases work effort. The reason the income effect actually increases work effort here is because having more disposable income means more leisure time in the future, but as you are poor in this part of the graph you cannot afford to take time off. So both of these effects under a UBI serve to increase work effort more than they do under a means tested program. Now look at arrow 2: a person’s income a little above the crossover point. The substitution effect is stronger under a UBI than under a means tested regime because there is no longer a 0.75 cent reduction in benefits for each dollar earned (in fact, the marginal tax rates under the current welfare system often exceed 100%, so by using 75% I am being generous).3 Now the income effect is greater under a UBI at this point of the graph than under a means-tested regime, but the substitution effect is likely much larger than the income effect at this point because it will only be as large as the difference between the UBI and the means tested regime—the income effect between no welfare and a UBI is fairly large here, but that is because earned income is a lot higher under UBI than under nothing. At this point in the graph, the difference in disposable income between a UBI and means tested is not very large, so the positive work incentives will outweigh the negative ones here. Now look at arrow 3. This represents people who wish to work less and qualify for government assistance instead of losing benefits and hopping onto the blue line (which is how it works in the U.S. right now because the phase out eventually ends up being zero). The UBI would remedy this because no phase out means no working less in order to qualify for a benefit—you always get the benefit—so, at this part of the graph, the UBI would enhance work incentives. Now jump to arrow 4. At this point, a means tested system ceases to offer benefits because they have been phased out—the individual at arrow 4 is middle to upper class. At this point, a UBI only has an income effect compared to a means tested system. This means, for the upper and middle class, a UBI would reduce work effort. However, the effects are going to be small because the higher the income, the smaller percentage of that income will come to a UBI. So while it will disincentivize work for these people, the effect will be small, and virtually zero for the rich. Thus, economic theory dictates that a UBI would increase work incentives compared to a means tested system. As Ed Dolan argues, a UBI “would substantially increase work incentives for low-income households while having small disincentive effects, if any, for middle- and upper-income households.”2 For this reason, Dolan believes work effort will be higher on aggregate under a UBI than under a means-tested system. 4. A UBI would reduce administrative waste This is the clearest and least disputable benefit of the UBI. A UBI would require no verification of personal characteristics. A means tested system would: you have to determine whether or not a person actually needs assistance. A UBI would just be integrated into the tax code and calculated by a computer. A person who made $0 would receive the money no questions asked. For people who earn $1 - infinity, you would receive the $10,000 minus taxes due. So a person earning $1 owes essentially no taxes, so he would get $10,001. But a person earning $100,000 will earn $110,000 minus taxes due. The only welfare program that is simple enough to virtually eliminate administrative costs is the UBI. Failures of the current welfare system A UBI is so important because the current system does not work. The poverty rate has remained virtually the same since the War on Poverty was declared, despite trillions in welfare spending.4 As noted in round 1, we have 126 different welfare programs. Each of these programs simply add to the red tape, and with no decrease in poverty since the late 1960s, these programs seem to add little to no benefit. My opponent will likely be providing a counterplan, as the failure of the current welfare state is fairly obvious. The failures of the current welfare system require that we get something done, and an unconditional UBI best protects work incentives, reduces administrative waste, and reduces the number of people below the poverty line 1. http://www.economonitor.com... 2. http://www.economonitor.com... 3. http://www.forbes.com... 4. http://object.cato.org...", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 214.36141967773438}, {"text": "I. Intro Thank you to Varrack for what promises to be a stimulating discussion, and 1harder for the tournament. II. Cost As of 2012, means-tested welfare in the United States was comprised of 79 programs which cost $927 billion. [1] We can assume it has increased since then, so as a generous figure, we can suppose it currently costs roughly $1.1 trillion. Under Varrack\"s plan, each adult in the United States would receive $10,000. Kids Count Data Center estimates that as of 2016, there were approximately 249.5 million adults in the United States. [2] Providing each of these adults with a UBI would cost approximately $2.5 trillion annually, and this excludes all bureaucratic costs. It\"s clear to see that the cost is well over double the cost of the current welfare system. Not only does Varrack have to prove that his plan is superior to the current welfare system, he also must prove that it is worth the astronomical increase in the cost of welfare. There is also the negligible harm that it provides an extra $10,000 to individuals who do not need it. Images of Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates receiving this guaranteed income is ridiculous, but the same principle can be applied to individuals making a fraction of what the super-rich make. A family with a combined income of $500,000 may find that an extra $20,000 is nice to have, but hardly necessary. I\"m the first to admit that this isn\"t a significant harm to the plan, but a harm nevertheless. III. Capitalism is not compatible with UBI Proponents of UBI often argue that UBI is the first step on the path toward de-commodifying labor and allowing citizens the freedom from work that a utopian society promises. However, in order to do this, citizens must be paid a sum high enough to allow them freedom from work. If not, they will be forced to continue working to reach a living wage. According to Professor Daniel Zamora of Cambride, employers know this and will be able to drive down wages, effectively turning this plan into a subsidy for businesses. [3] According to David Graeber, Professor at the London School of Economics, implementation of the UBI without first transitioning away from capitalism would only exacerbate many of the issues capitalism presents, and increase in the number of \"buIIshit jobs.\" [3] Rather than working in the intended manner, UBI would cause businesses to pay less, and end up causing Americans to work less fulfilling jobs just to maintain the same level of comfort that they had before the UBI was implemented. IV. UBI is ineffective Let\"s say we implement UBI in the United States. Though Varrack has provided examples of UBI being implemented in other nations, none are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States. Instead, we should look to the micro-implementation case study done by the think tank \"Compass\" in the UK. By implementing a smaller version of Varrack\"s plan, the impact was devastating. Child poverty actually increased by 10%, poverty among pensioners by 4%, and among working class families by 3%. For Varrack\"s more comprehensive plan, the analysis points to slight reductions of poverty (7% for children, 1.9% for working age people, and 0.8% for pensioners.) [3] In order to do this, as stated earlier, the United States would have to pay approximately $2.5 trillion, which is over 12.5% of US GDP. [4] 2012 estimates on the price of eradicating poverty put the cost at around 1% of GDP. [5] If we can do so much more for so much less, why don\"t we? V. The American System and The American Dream Though individuals on both sides of the aisle attack the current state of welfare (albeit for entirely different reasons) by pointing to poverty rates, what isn\"t often taken into account is that this statistic ignores reception of in-kind welfare. It doesn\"t consider food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers, and the like, when these really put people in a much better situation than what the \"poverty rate\" implies. Impoverished Americans are, on average, far better off than their European counterparts. [6] Furthermore, the negative incentives \"discouraging impoverished Americans from working\" simply does not exist. Americans that earn less actually have a greater incentive to work than those in higher tax brackets. Their \"marginal tax rates\" or losses of benefits due to increased income, are actually significantly lower than the rest of the workforce. An individual below half the poverty line faces a marginal tax rate of approximately 14%. A person from 50-100% of the poverty line has a marginal tax rate of about 24%. Individuals with higher incomes faced a marginal tax rate of about 34%. [6] This phenomenon that Varrack and many pundits tout is actually nonexistent. VI. Conclusion To summarize, our current system works. Critics use inaccurate statistics to discredit a system that is doing wonders. In contrast, the idea of UBI has never been tried in a developed country with a largely market economy, and without first dismantling capitalism, UBI would serve only to subsidize corporations to lower wages. Varrack must prove that 1. UBI is worth the massive increase in welfare costs 2. UBI could be implemented successfully within a capitalist economy and 3. That the limited testing in developing nations would be able to translate into the developed world. VII. Sources [1] http://budget.house.gov... [2] http://datacenter.kidscount.org... [3] https://www.jacobinmag.com... [4] https://data.worldbank.org... [5] http://prospect.org... [6] https://www.forbes.com...", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 214.3433837890625}, {"text": "Thanks, Con. I’ll use this round to defend my case and crystallize.Trialsa) Con alleges that the countries that had UBI trials in are incomparable to an American-implemented UBI because they’re considerably poorer, more corrupt, and less stable than the United States is. However, Con doesn’t illustrate *why* this matters, and expects us to assume that, because a country is less developed, any UBI trial conducted is going to be invalid. This string of assumptions is really going to hurt Con, and I’m going to show why.The underlying principle of a UBI is that an increase an income is inherently beneficial, as money is the basic means that we use to provide for ourselves. This principle doesn’t change in a country with proportionally less poor people. Even if we buy Con’s assumption that “each of these nations have significantly more room for improvement than the United States does, so the effects will be amplified”, there’s no reason to believe that a UBI *won’t* be effective. Given that the U.S. has 43 million people living under the poverty line [12], the U.S. *absolutely* has room for improvement, and indeed has room to see a benefit from a UBI. Con’s premise is essentially that a country needs to be poverty-free in order for a UBI to be ineffective. Because a UBI would exist for the very purpose of reducing poverty, this point is nonsensical.Con doesn’t show how corruption or instability is relevant to a UBI. How would the basic principle of more income increasing financial leverage be confounded by more corruption or instability? Furthermore, “instability” isn’t defined by Con. He wants us to outright buy his assumptions that such would “amplify” the results of a UBI trial, and that such amplification results in in conclusive evidence that a UBI would have no effect whatsoever in the United States. We have no reason to buy either of these assumptions, so this point is negated. b) Con contends that my trials are limited, and are thus incomparable to the U.S. on a national level. But again, he gives us very little reason to dismiss my evidence; trials for cash transfers haven’t yet been done on that immense of a level, and in the absence of such, we should buy my pieces of evidence prima facie. Con gives us no instances of a UBI working, beyond a “model” in the UK (which I demonstrated to be flawed in R3), whereas I provide 4 instances of *actual* conducted trials, all of which pointed to UBI benefits. Additionally, Con admits that his model is a micro-implementation of an actual scenario, so *even* if his example is valid, we should dismiss it by Con’s own admission.Current Welfare Programsa) Yes, we have a progressive tax system in the sense that the poor pay marginally fewer taxes from their ordinary income. They are, however, taxed more when unrealized capital gains are added [13]. When one considers state and local taxes in addition to ones on the federal level, the illusion of the progressive tax system vanishes. In fact, a study [14] from the Institute on Taxation and economic policy found that “Overall, the poorest 20 percent of Americans paid an average of 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes and the middle 20 percent of Americans paid 9.4 percent. The top 1 percent, meanwhile, pay only 5.4 percent of their income to state and local taxes.” [15] The poor simply do not have less incentives to move up the income ladder, contrary to Con’s claim. He also dropped the CBO report I cited, so extend that.b) My asset cap point is pretty much dodged. Con insists that asset caps exist because some people just don’t need welfare programs. But he concedes that “there is definitely an argument to be made” in raising that cap. That’s exactly the argument I’m making: the caps are dangerously low, which discourage self-reliance and saving. Con is supposed to be defending the welfare programs as they stand right now, yet he admits that they might not be ideal. This can’t be good for him; I don’t see how he can simultaneously defend the status quo and agree that the status quo may not be idea.c) Con asserts that the poverty rate isn’t taken into consideration for in-kind welfare programs. How is this relevant? They do, in fact, take into consideration things like income and total assets. Con doesn’t show why this matters.I've shown how (1) multiple examples prove that a UBI works, and that (2) it reduced poverty, which Con has essentially conceded. Thus, I affirm.Sources[12] https://poverty.ucdavis.edu...[13] https://www.alternet.org...[14] https://itep.org...[15] https://www.cnbc.com...", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.2801055908203}, {"text": "I'll deal with my opponent's arguments first and proceed to defending my own case.He says that a UBI is enormously expensive and as of now we can not afford such a program. Four responses to this. First, according to Matthew Ygleias of Vox in an exact rebuttal towards said New York Times article, UBI would put US spending to about where France and the Scandinavian social democracies are. Foreign nations easily do similar levels of welfare as the projected costs of a UBI. Additionally, the article my opponent cites is off on the projected cost by 600 billion dollars or so. Second, according to David Morris of Fortune, studies by the Roosevelt Institute indicate that a basic income would grow the economy by 12.5 % and shrink the federal deficit, meaning that a UBI would help the overall economy and goverment, not hurt it. Third, consider the cost of poverty on society, as children struggle through school as they work, as homeless people live on the streets, and many struggle to meet ends meet. Are they truly doing the best for our country impoverished. Millions who could be potential engineers, doctors, and scientists are currently wasting their potential, through no fault of their own, merely by the virtue of their social class. Forth, social programs in the status quo have spent billions of dollars with little to nil result. We could simply cut money from those programs in order to help fund a UBI. He says that people will become lazy and won't want to work. However, this is key to help mitigate the problems of climate change as proven by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, will nil adverse effects as countries throughout Western Europe have had similar levels of work for decades on end. Additionally, this isn't unique to UBI, as the status quo already does exactly that. He says that a job gurantee would solve the problem of unemployement, but I must ask; Where are these jobs? Where is the US going to magically sploof up several million jobs. How exactly is this a permanent solution, as at some point AI and automation will simply be better. It is incredibly unlikely that every single American will somehow find the time and money in order to better educated themselves in the new age of technology, meaning that we would likely have these problems regardless.He says that the dollar is key to political rights, however, it only takes one part in the overall goverment. There's democratic activities such as voting, running for office, protesting, civil disobidience and such which all allow nationals to take part in their goverment. I'll now deal with my opponents rebuttal.UBI gurantees that regardless of the circumstance, there will always be a net underneath you. If a business fails, the entrapener won't be sleeping on the streets. Same too applies for financial insecurity. If one wishes to quit their job, they have the ability to do so, as they have a source of income independent of their job. If my opponent needs to see the evidence where exactly this will occur, I simply suggest clicking on the article cited beforehand. If he needs further, may I suggest Scott Santeens' Medium article entitled Inequality and the Basic Income Guarantee. It goes both into entrepreneurship and education.On lower work hours, simply refer to what my opponent himself said in how he argued that a UBI would lower overall work hours. He's contradicting himself in saying there's no evidence to say UBI would lower work hours while only a few paragraphs above saying the exact opposite. Welfare programs lower the need to work, it's as simple as that. An UBI or NIT would bring forth the same basic effect, however, it would be greater under a UBI as it is provided to everyone, not simply those below the poverty line (or whatever thresehold one wishes to set it at). It wouldn't just be the poorest of the poor not working, many of the near and middle class would join in, guaranting that the intended effects would be brought forth.On inequality, I'll simply offer an anology. Envision a room full of 100 children (hopefully not locked up by ICE) where 1 has 101 candies and 99 have 1. If the 1 child had to give everyone else 1 candy, then everyone would have at 2 candies, and be a much more equal society. By the sheer virtue of the population size of the lower and middle class compared to the upper class, they will get a great deal more. Effectly, UBI is a great equallizer for a society, lowering overall inequallity.For these reasons I strongly urge voting for the motion.", "title": "The US ought to provide an universal basic income.", "pid": "b7051d6f-2019-04-18T11:25:14Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.21359252929688}, {"text": "Ok sure", "title": "Every job should have the same wage.", "pid": "fb355df6-2019-04-18T18:00:14Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.18997192382812}, {"text": "Well that's great. The problem with your argument is it is impossible to everybody to be equal. Every single person is born different, Into different cultures, Families, And wealth classes. In a capital country like the United States, There will always be inequality. There is always going to be a permanent upper and lower class. But let's look a few years into the future, When the US will likely be a mostly socialist country. Kind of like these. China Denmark Finland Netherlands Canada Sweden Norway Ireland New Zealand Belgium Don't make me get into the fact that nearly every socialist country ever created leads to communism. Aside that, Our current governments aren't fit for equality, And when we do have equality, Lazy people will try to break the system. Now I have a request. Tell me one way people are not already equal, And why they should be.", "title": "everyone should be equal", "pid": "cf0f015c-2019-04-18T11:07:50Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.15618896484375}, {"text": "FF and failure to provide additional arguments/rebuttals~~Vote CON.", "title": "All people should receive the same income", "pid": "f266897a-2019-04-18T13:59:44Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 214.14349365234375}, {"text": "Reduces the price of goods", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 214.0843505859375}, {"text": "Income Tax is a cause of inequity in society", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00011-000", "bm25_score": 214.07730102539062}, {"text": "Indirect tax, such as VAT or sales tax, is fairer", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00016-000", "bm25_score": 214.04806518554688}, {"text": "Take money out of Politics", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 214.0306854248047}, {"text": "Let's start things off with the basic factor that I should get out of the way, I don't disagree with the idea that individuals should be receiving equal treatment, Along with equal opportunities, But what I do disagree with is that every individual, No matter the background, Should be equal to everyone else. In theory, Many would like to assume that this idea is pushing towards the pinnacle achievement of supporting minorities and the ones in peril as many people in the world don't have the fortunes that some have acquired through the means of family benefit or heritage. It's important to implement the necessary means in helping these people but to allow some individual groups to acquire certain benefits that are easily abusable to certain people I think is dangerous and should be taken down without much hesitation. Since this is the start I would like my views a bit broad since I do not wish to reveal my strong arguments yet, Along with the reason of allowing open opportunities for plausible arguments. Thank you. The floor may go to the Opposition.", "title": "Laws supporting certain individual groups shouldn't be implemented permanently.", "pid": "bc8970dc-2019-04-18T11:07:28Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 214.0257568359375}, {"text": "Ive only done one debate before, but I'll do it!", "title": "The US Federal Government should implement universal college for all.", "pid": "23e3f28-2019-04-18T12:54:58Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.9830780029297}, {"text": "NC: https://docs.google.com... Attack: looking over my opponent's case, all she talks about is minimum wage, this is non-topical because UBI has nothing to do with minimum wage. A topical aff would be plan providing aid. Theory Shell on Topicality A: MY opponent must be topical B: Violation C: Standards 1. Ground: In order for my to be able to argue the resolution, My opponent must be topical so that the debate is fair. 2: Predictability: I cannot run DAs or CPs if I do not know Aff's ground. This makes it unfair D: voters Vote off of fairness because Aff makes it impossible for me to win because I do not have any ground. Thus, I negate", "title": "Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income.", "pid": "d21a6c90-2019-04-18T11:39:37Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.89015197753906}, {"text": "Since my opponent has fore-fitted this round I will take this opportunity to voice my opinions on the topic without sources. I feel the first 2 sources were compelling enough in my opening statement. I feel that there is a bias of social class when it comes to health care to begin with. The low income jobs that actually offer benefits are very few and far between. That being said when benefits are offered to low income individuals the premiums(in my experience) take roughly 1/10 of income for decent coverage. Along with the minimum wage guidelines it would be near impossible to maintain a steady household with insurance and other necessities. Basically I'm saying that if you have a high income job you probably have great coverage on insurance. Therefore never having to worry about if you get hurt. If you were to become ill without insurance you pay an astronomical bill. It's a system of maintaining the social classes with minimal opportunity for advancement.", "title": "The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens.", "pid": "3ffe2bd6-2019-04-18T18:54:44Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.86935424804688}, {"text": "Debate accepted. Now, as Pro has left his opening argument rather short I will likewise do the same with mine (assuming that this round is *not* for acceptance, as Pro hasn't specified the terms.) -->>ArgumentOne major reason why everyone should not receive equal pay is because of the *very* prevalent difference(s) in what people's jobs actually are~~and the amount of experience and educational credit that they require. For example, to become a doctor in most countries, you have to complete at least seven years of studying and an additional three years is often required. However, taking the example of someone who may want to become a beauty therapist~~it will take no longer than two years for them to become fully qualified, and if they exclusively want to work as a manicurist, that can take as little as six months, and no university education is required. A doctor, however, will have a hugely significant sum for their degree(s) and training, and can have debts up to 60,000 in places such as the U.K. once they've completed their education and become qualified. [1.] http://www.theguardian.com...Moreover, they are providing a *vital* service to people. Those in other job sectors (such as the example of a beautician) are technically not. They may be providing a desirable service, but it is not one of demand and necessity. To use Pros example, obviously a doctor should not receive the same as plumber as again, the plumber has not had to attend university for several to ten years and spend such vast sums of money. In addition, they certainly do not have to retain the same kind of information as a doctor. In fact, the two jobs are entirely different. This brings one to main point which is that people should be paid according to skill/education and based on what the job IS. I would agree with Pro in that there is inequality relating to pay and that those in certain jobs should receive more, however, it's senseless to presume that everyone regardless of what the work is should receive exactly the same. For Pro to make a case, he/she will have to answer these following questions: -How would this fixed sum be defined? -Is it really justified for someone who say is, a waitress/waiter to get paid the same amount as a doctor or a lawyer? -Wouldn't this actually be damaging to the economy in the long-term? Possibly Pro could argue that more people would be inclined to work (but this is assuming the sum is reasonable/decent.), would it not be detrimental if so much was being spent on equal pay for each working individual? -Would this not create a more financially destitute society? I.E~~most governments would not be prepared to give everyone large equal pay, and if so: they would make it a small sum, so wouldn't those who become doctors, politicians, etc. not be able to pay for their university fees? Exactly how would they pay off their debts? Technically, both #3 and #4 (the questions) would ultimately damage the economy and society. But I will leave it to Pro to provide an answer for each one.", "title": "All people should receive the same income", "pid": "f266897a-2019-04-18T13:59:44Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.83200073242188}, {"text": "Ignore bsh1's stuff, standard rules apply for this debate. Please forgive heavy formating issues, as files are having troubles on my computer. This is written near verbatim from original sources which will be listed below. Contention 1 is Innovation As according to the US Department of Energy, clean energy innovation is the solution to climate change, being key to unlocking new technologies and low-cost clean energy breakthroughs needed to rapidly bend the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions. innovation drives the cost reduction necessary to transform global energy markets. However we don\"t have the luxury of waiting for new technologies to emerge. We need to rapidly accelerate the pace of innovation to meet the challenge of limiting global temperature. UBI is linked to increased innovation in three ways. 1. Entrepreneurship According to Scott Santeens of the Medium, entrepreneurship is currently on a downward trend and businesses are also closing their doors faster than new businesses are opening them. This is because of risk aversion due to rising economic insecurity. When people are financially insecure, they worry more about going from paycheck to paycheck rather than innovation and startups. Incomes adjusted for inflation have not budged for decades, and the jobs providing those incomes have gone from secure careers to insecure jobs, part-time and contract work, and gig labor, decreasing economic security. Decreasing economic security means a population decreasingly likely to take risks. Because of UBI, the fear of impoverishment hunger and homelessness is eliminated. And with it, the risks of failure considered too steep to take a chance on something. Additionally, a basic income is also a basic capital, enabling people to create a new product or service. Such effects have been observed in Nambia and India where markets have flourished thanks to the tripling of entrepreneurs. 2. Education According to Dannielle Douglas Gabriel of the Washington Post, researchers at the Urban Institute found that nearly a third of the 563,000 teenage dropouts left school to work. On average, these teenagers earned almost a quarter of the money their families needed to live, keeping 42 percent of households from falling below the poverty line. UBI helps lower the overall dropout rate by ensuring teens\" families are guaranteed a basic income, building up a base for a future generation of innovators who otherwise wouldn\"t have the skills go into STEM fields. 3. College UBI provides funds for higher education, increasing innovation as more students become college educated. Contention 2 is Lower Work Hours According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, western European countries have significantly reduced work hours while the US has not. Western Europe had about the same hours worked per person as the U.S. in the early 1970s, but by 2005 they were about 50 percent less. This choice between fewer work hours versus increased consumption has significant implications for the rate of climate change. Studies indicate shorter work hours are associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions and therefore less overall global climate change via lowering levels of consumption, the impactof reducing work hours by an annual average of 0.5 percent in the US would eliminate about one-quarter to one-half of global warming. If work hours decline even slightly, climate change is averted as american consumerism falls. As Western Europe has had lower work hours than the US for decades on end, it proves that lower work hours don\"t draw any significant negative consequences. According to Alicia Munnell, in the late 1960s and 1970s thee federal government sponsored four large-scale social experiments on the negative income tax a basic income program, the largest of whom including 4,800 families over an 11 year span. The experiments caused reductions in work effort, among women 17 percent and among men 7 percent. NIT basic income experiments have empirically decreased overall work. If done at a national scale, UBI would substantially decrease work hours and helping solve global warming through lower overall levels of consumption. Contention 3 is Economic Inequality Income inequality has been extensively correlated with environmental degradation, with] negative correlation between income inequality and environmental sustainability. higher the income inequality the worse the environmental indicators such as biodiversity loss and environmental composite indices [like ones ecological footprint. from an economic perspective income inequality reduces pro-environmental public spending via a \"relative income effect\" which causes shifts in the preferences of those with below average incomes in favour of greater consumption of private goods instead of public ones. Using data on 19 OECD countries studies found] that wider income inequalities were associated with lower environmental expenditure. According to Dylan Matthews of Box, researchers estimate that UBI would cut the poverty rate for all persons between 40 and 84 percent. Helping eliminating structural violence and poverty and making those formerly poor equals in society. Overall UBI first, increases innovation by increasing entrepreneurship, lowering dropout rates, and increasing higher education, second lowers working hours and by extension carbon emissions, and third, decreases overall inequality. all of whom link back to solving global warming. For these reasons I urge voting for the motion. Sources US Department of Energy, (December 5, 2015), \"How We Solve Climate Change\", https://www.energy.gov... Scott Santeens, (November 30, 2016), \"Universal Basic Income Will Accelerate Innovation by Reducing Our Fear of Failure\", https://medium.com... Danielle Douglas-Gabriel, 4-16-2015, \"An alarming number of teenagers are quitting school to work,\" Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com... Center for Economic and Policy Research (February, 2013) \"Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change \" http://cepr.net... Alicia H. Munnell (N/D) \"Lessons from the Income Maintenance Experiments: An Overview\" http://www.bostonfed.org...", "title": "The US ought to provide an universal basic income.", "pid": "b7051d6f-2019-04-18T11:25:14Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.8004150390625}, {"text": "Con appears to be interlacing his case with rebuttals of my case; hence, I’ll address them jointly.R1) CostCon states that a UBI would cost $2.5 trillion annually, but none of his sources say this. He references a paper showing the cost of current welfare programs, but there’s absolutely nothing on the cost of a UBI.Estimates that do put the cost of a UBI as high as in the trillions tend to be about the gross cost as opposed to the net cost. The net cost is the one that matters because it subtracts what the receivers of a UBI would pay for it (taxes) from what they would receive. When we subtract government revenue from the overall cost of a potential program, we find (according to Forbes) that it would be $200 billion less than the current system. Another study found that a poverty-level UBI ($12k per year) would have a net cost of $539 billion [10][11]. That’s less than 3% of the total GDP [10], far lower than Con’s estimate.R2) Goal of a UBICon creates a straw man of what he believes my UBI’s purpose is, but I never stated its purpose was to de-commodify labor. My proposal’s end goal would be to (1) prevent or reduce poverty and (2) increase equality among citizens. There is no need to move away from labor at all to improve peoples’ financial conditions; a UBI would only compliment the market. The rest of Con’s point, that employers would drive down wages, lies on the same faulty assumption that a UBI’s end goal would be to control the market. Moreover, this is a slippery slope fallacy in that it assumes a UBI would lead to such; there’s no reason to say a UBI is a step in the direction of a tightly controlled economy.R3) Trialsa) The trials I cited are dismissed because “none are comparable to the market tendencies of the United States”, but no explanation is given as to how those countries’ markets differ in meaningful enough ways to suggest that they are not comparable. Why doesn’t the basic principle I’ve highlighted of increasing fiscal ability via a constant, minimum income not apply to these cases as well. I extend these examples.b) Con’s UK examples would have only given participants a monthly income of $392 and $380, respectively [his 3rd source]. My proposal of $10,000 a year would equate to $833 a month, more than double the incomes his examples used. In that case, it’s not surprising that the first model, which replaced all means-tested welfare programs with that basic income, would result in negative outcomes. The second model, which had existing welfare programs side-by-side with the UBI, did see an improvement in those outcomes, albeit not as strong as they would have been had an income closer to my proposal been implemented.R4) Current welfare systemThis point is just a loose string of bare assertions. Con states that in-kind welfare programs are of a greater benefit than they’re given credit for, but gives no detail as to why this is true. He asserts that Americans are better off than their European counterparts, but his source merely states that we have lower taxes and lower redistribution systems. Neither of those how our welfare systems are “better”, it just means ours are less socialized. Additionally, the U.S. having a better welfare system doesn’t imply that it isn’t in need of reform, or that it doesn’t trap people below the poverty line. Con states that the poor are in a lower tax bracket, and thus pay less taxes. This isn’t the case because welfare programs tack on more taxes, which cause their effective tax rates to soar. I’ve already demonstrated that the CBO has confirmed that their tax rates are as high as 50% [6], which Con ignored. Sources9. https://www.forbes.com...10. https://works.bepress.com...11. https://www.progress.org...", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.779296875}, {"text": "Universal health care should be open to all citizens. The United States has made health care for many residents unaffordable; even through businesses. People who are sick are not focused on getting better anymore, they are focused on whether or not they can pay for treatment. Doctors as well are also focusing on whether or not they will receive payment for this treatment. Knowing that many other areas in the world have universal health care shows it's not impossible for the United States to inquire; the transition may be a tough one as well as a shock to many, but it is definitely something the United States can do.", "title": "The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens.", "pid": "3ffe2c14-2019-04-18T18:54:28Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.77842712402344}, {"text": "Yes Reasons", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 213.77566528320312}, {"text": "I think you need to better explain what you are trying to say. . Living equality? Economic equality? The list could go on.", "title": "everyone should be equal", "pid": "cf0f015c-2019-04-18T11:07:50Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.76402282714844}, {"text": "Well, if they care about their health then they would pay for their healthcare. and Can the United States afford to? Universal health care is what is called an entitlement, like Social Security or Medicare. If we have the government start providing our health care be prepared for long waits for treatments and tests as well as the possibility of being denied treatment on the basis of economic feasibility by a government bureaucrat.", "title": "should the us government gurantee health insurance for all residents", "pid": "d1d84be8-2019-04-18T19:46:13Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.7546844482422}, {"text": "Disincentives to spend spell economic disaster", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.75341796875}, {"text": "Indirect taxes allow us to modify public behaviour", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00015-000", "bm25_score": 213.7379150390625}, {"text": "Indirect taxes are unenforceable", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.6894989013672}, {"text": "are you playing?http://www.youtube.com...;", "title": "The United States should implement a flat tax, regardless of income.", "pid": "e1bc5fbb-2019-04-18T17:55:48Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.68814086914062}, {"text": "Thanks for the pleasantries. I am against universal health care, but not because it doesn't sound nice. It certainly does. We're all liberals at heart. In fact universal housing, food, clothing, cars, college, income, etc.(etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam) also sound very attractive. The only problem is this: no one has a right to any of it. This country currently confiscates gobs of money from its rightful owners to provide a plenitude of unearned goods and services to undeserving and largely ungrateful recipients. Do we really need one more form of wealth redistribution in this country? Might we stop before there is nothing left to distinguish us from your average European country?", "title": "Universal healthcare", "pid": "a76b7e0f-2019-04-18T19:48:00Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 213.68814086914062}, {"text": "Absolute equality is rather unrealistic but as a practical matter, It is important to relieve poverty and eastablish an equitable standard of living, Maybe not socialism but a heavily regualted version of capitalism like northern europe", "title": "everyone should be equal", "pid": "cf0f015c-2019-04-18T11:07:50Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.6866912841797}, {"text": "-->>Rebuttals: A little more is required from Pro for them to actually *affirm* their resolution and provide a convincing case, merely answering to the questions that I've provided is not quite satisfactory and Pro should (technically) extend their main arguments further. Anyway, I will respond to each of Pros answers in full: #1 'It should be defined by the government in accordance with the pricing of economic output. For example, if all employed citizens got an income of $25 an hour, which would mean $4000 a month on average over the course of a year which would be $48,000 a year would be effectively eliminated because everyone who has a job will be able to pay their bills and satisfy their needs and, to a degree, their desires including savings in which people can become successful by merely saving such income. Thus, employed people would no longer live in poverty.' Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that governments (especially those in poorer countries, as Pro didn't say anything about this being exclusive to the U.S) would be able to afford $25 per hour, specifically when taking into account all of the resources that governments must prioritize~~such as health care, education, etc. While these areas are not presently ideal, they would suffer even more as a result of businesses/governments paying such high wages for each working individual. In fact, millions would inevitably be spent and the ultimate result would likely be recession and extreme debt. Also, there is very limited justification for a the previous example (a beauty therapist) receiving the same amount as a doctor. In addition, on the contrary to Pros assertion that $48,000 a year would enable people to be debt-free and able to pay their bills~~it would likely actually lead to further spending (and more debt) from those who are not able to manage their wages wisely. #2 'That is subjective, however both individuals are contributing to satisfying the desires and needs of the population and thus should get paid the same amount an hour. And you might think this would be a disincentive, however this is not the case. For one, you would still have to work to earn a wage and a lot of people, and if not they took an oath to do it until they die, enjoy their work. As a result, not many doctors would leave because they still get paid and still work more hours thus they would make more than the McDonalds employee. A doctor who works 12 hours a day will earn 300 more dollars than the McDonalds employee. Not to mention, this actually would expand job growth to some level because if you're going to quit your job because you aren't getting paid a certein amount, you must hate it in the first place and thus you probably are terrible at it. This actually opens up more people to work in other vital industries such as agriculture and food distribution, and other jobs for people who want that particular one. A lot of people would happily work for a hospital for FREE, and many people would also work as a lawyer for next to no pay. People do things and like to do things, and open access to higher education free of tuition would make this a lot better and expand economic growth overall. So not only would this resolve many of the pyschologically destructive nature of economic inequality, this would also bring us closer to a moneyless society. Not to mention, ceterin economic preconditions such as establishing democratic workers self-management in industries would create a bigger incentive to work.' Pro asserts that my question is somehow 'subjective' when there were two different (clearly objective) options given~~moreover, they have failed to explain *why* it was subjective. As indicted in round one by myself, Pro is taking an extreme approach to a problem that requires addressing moderately. As well as that, they have made claims about there existing further incentives to work without supporting them. Clearly Pro is failing to see the 'realities' that would be involved. Regarding hospital workers, to suggest that you can have (untrained) staff assisting people's medical requirements is nothing less than absurd and *if* actually ever practiced, ultimately very dangerous. To qualify as a nurse, one must receive training and have the correct mental competence. They cannot just be anybody doing the job because they simply feel like that~~standards and technicalities exist in order for someone to actually be (proven) as capable. #3 'Your third question, I baisclaly anwsered this. However, my official position is there should be a minimum and maximum ratio of pay (a universal minimum and maximum wage if you will) in regards to the difficulty and time put into a job but if should slowly move into equal pay for all.' Pro has essentially contradicted their own argument(s) as they did specify that any minimum/maximum wage would apply. Rather, they explicitly stated that all people would receive $25 per hour, regardless of education/experience/job. #4 'In regards to your last question, I believe fees for human rights such as education should be paid by taxes. Also, we speant trillions on nonsense like increasing military speanding. We have the money for this, we just don't use it wisely.' Pro makes a valid contention regarding military spending (one that I personally agree with), however, this still doesn't answer why everyone should receive the same wage~~especially a high one. And while improvements should be made, taxes already go towards things like education. I will reiterate once more that I understand Pros main point~~which is that people should be treated equally, and that the poor should be looked after, etc. In fact this is a belief that I mostly share, however, there are more balanced and financially sensible methods of approaching such a reform.", "title": "All people should receive the same income", "pid": "f266897a-2019-04-18T13:59:44Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.66961669921875}, {"text": "I accept.", "title": "Everyone should be treated equally.", "pid": "3e6e1f09-2019-04-18T14:11:20Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 213.63299560546875}, {"text": "over NINETY percent of Americans think we should EXPAND Universal Background Checks on ALL Gun Purchases, if you disagree with that, you're in a TINY minority. WE have MORE of a RIGHT to LIVE and NOT be SHOT than YOU have to have your \"precious gun\"!!!!!", "title": "Universal Background Checks are NEEDED on ALL gun purchases both Public AND Private", "pid": "d2e4616f-2019-04-18T13:01:18Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.62640380859375}, {"text": "Income Tax encourages illegal behaviour", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00017-000", "bm25_score": 213.6178436279297}, {"text": "I think i made my point by equal i mean equalish", "title": "everyone should be equal", "pid": "cf0f015c-2019-04-18T11:07:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.6031494140625}, {"text": "VAT is an empowering tax", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00012-000", "bm25_score": 213.5780487060547}, {"text": "so someone who continues to use guns to kill and do violence should get access to a gun? where do you draw the line if any? shouldn't a line be drawn? they've killed and abused the right before. it's like exceptions to the first amendment that are well estabslihed, there can be some reasonable exceptions to the right to bear arms. so con insists that one hunred percent of people who are denied a gun will go out and get one? that is quite a claim. it's an all or nothing argument, which at least usually are known to be fallicious. can you clearly state that for the record?", "title": "there should be universal background checks on gun sales", "pid": "93ac182e-2019-04-18T14:29:45Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.57305908203125}, {"text": "The government should only protect the basic rights of people, to protect the pursuit of happiness and prevent theft. Murder is stealing another's life and scams steal people's money, but who steals when one becomes ill? No one. Many governments will do more than protect its people's rights; they do charity work by giving people things they never worked for. Now I'm all for charity work if you are a charity organization or you are a person willingly giving up money to another out of compassion. However, what dignity is gained by giving money unwillingly to the government so that the government may act out its people's charity. Univ. healthcare is a charity in that the government takes more money from the rich to pay for the healthcare of the poor. Univ. healthcare is not free, it will in fact be more expensive. The healthy will pay the burden of those living less-healthy lifestyles, i.e. smokers. Finally, its such a complex process that will never be efficient and is better left alone.", "title": "The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens.", "pid": "3ffe2c14-2019-04-18T18:54:28Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.5450897216797}, {"text": "IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. This is a re-do of the original debate: http://www.debate.org...TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No \"kritiks\" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. In each round, both debaters will wait until at least 48 hours have elapsed on the argument clock before posting their arguments (the only exception being the first two speeches, which should be posted as soon as possible)12. Both debaters' first speeches will be identical to the ones they posted in their original debate (linked above)13. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d1037d1-2019-04-18T11:25:50Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.52862548828125}, {"text": "I negate resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. CP Counterplan: The US will provide a basic income, excluding felons, violent criminals, FBI watchlist members and legal immigrants who have lived in the US for less than 10 years. Through the CP, the neg solves for all the aff impacts of economic equality, gender equality, drug abuse, health care, and education. However the CP isn't advocating for universal basic income, as according to my opponent and common definitions of the term, UBI is both universal and unconditional. UBI shouldn't have any restrictions or bounds on who receives a basic income; otherwise it wouldn't be universal and cease to be a UBI. Framework I agree with my opponent's standard of the Kantian Social Contract, however, this is better upheld under the negation as I'm aren't supporting mass immigration nor crime. Instead of the principle of generic consistency, rather we should determine ethical actions through the basis of consequentialism. Overall, I solve all the aff impacts, and I better support his framework. Observations I fulfill my opponent's observations as he says I must prove a basic income wouldn't help the common american, while the resolution is based on universal basic income. Instead he must prove how UBI would better support the average american compared to merely a basic income. Contention 1: Crime and Terror Under the CP, basic income isn't supplied towards violent criminals and felons. Imagine a world where criminals such as those in the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, Sinaloa Drug Cartel, Barrio Azteca, or the Surenos, had, just for the sake of argument, $10,000 for every member annually. Just for a smaller group like Tango Blast, which boasts 19,000 members, the US money would indirectly give the organization through its members $190,000,000 dollars annually, for whatever means they so wish. The impact is an increase in overall crime, especially in the case of transnational organized crime groups. What could occur if say a known terrorist organization It could very well be said that if criminals have funds given to them? In the case of domestic shootings, terrorists could buy larger and larger weaponry, with the potential of gaining military hardware through the black market. Imagine the outcome of say, the Orlando Massacre if Mateen had say an M-16, grenades, or such. Contention 2: Welfare Magnets As aforementioned, UBI has to provided towards everyone regardlessly. If such a welfare state was created, where just by existing people can get a basic income, it would decisively be regarded as utopian in nature. Anyone and everyone would wish to go there. Mass immigration would soon occur, as everyone attempts to join the welfare state. Much like how many immigrants in the status quo receive food stamps through their naturalized children, a similar phenomenon would occur with UBI. I negate resolved.", "title": "Resolved: The US ought to provide a UBI", "pid": "ffdf2e2e-2019-04-18T11:43:09Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.52259826660156}, {"text": "Indirect taxes can be used to motivate change", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00013-000", "bm25_score": 213.5081329345703}, {"text": "(Okay, I guess then I'll start. Sorry if I don't post fast enough, because I won't be on 24/7. This is also my first debate, so tell me if I did anything wrong.) I think that all people should be equal. I think that Communism is good, because everyone gets equal amount of pay, no matter what job they have. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) If you say, \"but then that isn't fair, because for example, doctors get the same amount as a fast food cashier\" I think that if you like the job that you have, then why should it matter? Capitalism today feels like a race to see who can get the most money, and I think that's sad, don't you agree? I also think that with Capitalists judge each other from what job or how much money they have, while with Communism you really can't judge with how much money you make. I also feel that with Communism there will be less people in poverty. (I'll end it there. Your turn.)", "title": "Communism", "pid": "6d8dec29-2019-04-18T11:32:09Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.50404357910156}, {"text": "There simply isn't enough money in the treasury to pay people who don't have work and people who find work. Work should be an incentive in itself. The vast majority of people on benefits have no desire to stay on them. It leaves very little to live on, and it carries a social stigma that people want to avoid. There is no need to further incentivize work. The benefits system is necessarily complex because people have different needs, such as incapacity benefit, child benefit and unemployment benefit. If we reduced this to a single flat rate, then some people would lose out.", "title": "It would be much simpler and fairer", "pid": "217e4b71-2019-04-19T12:46:16Z-00008-000", "bm25_score": 213.43946838378906}, {"text": "Income taxes are progressive", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.4286651611328}, {"text": "con is being far fetched and radicalradical cause he puts the far fetched scenario of government take over over the present actual reality of gun violence.far fetched. he suggests that one hundred percent of people who are denied a gun will go get one when they might commit a crime. not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. con just says if you want a gun you can get it. he ignores that i pointed out that not everyone will. if you dont have a gun when you might commit a crime due to a background check, a crime would have been prevented. studies show that more guns in an area means more overall death. that means it's more than just popele will kill with whatever they get like knives,,, they are more likely to kill with a gun. sure it's the person who is the problem more than the gun, but when it's so direct, it's fair to say the gun is the problem too.http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...;http://www.motherjones.com...;", "title": "universal background checks r a common sense solution to gun violence", "pid": "f0d16280-2019-04-18T14:18:39Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.42010498046875}, {"text": "I. Intro Thank you Varrack for the rebuttal. I\"d also like to apologize for my constructive having issues with use of apostrophes. I\"m not sure why it\"s replacing apostrophes with quotation marks. I\"ve encountered this issue on mobile but never on my laptop, so I\"m not sure how to fix it. Hopefully it won\"t continue this round. Regardless, I apologize to Varrack and the readers, since it likely causes at least some minor irritation. II. Re: Economic/Societal Impacts As briefly mentioned in my constructive, the examples used in Pro\"s case are not indicative of what would occur in the United States, due to the differences between the US and each of the countries. These nations are significantly poorer than the United States. According to the CIA Factbook, the United States poverty rate is 15.1%. The nearest of the three countries Varrack mentioned was Uganda, at 19.7%. [7] This means that each of these nations have significantly more room for improvement than the United States does, so the effects will be amplified. They are all significantly more corrupt than the United States, based on Transparency International\"s research. The United States is 16th in the world with a score of 75. Namibia is 53rd with a score of 51, India is 81st with a score of 40, Kenya is ranked 143 with 28 points, and Uganda is 151st with a score of 26. [8] They are also all in more unstable regions and have less developed economies. They\"re still developing. Best case scenario, it\"s as if you\"re looking through a kaleidoscope at the effects of UBI. Worst case scenario, they aren\"t comparable at all. These countries also have very limited trials. We\"d have a very difficult time applying the micro tests to a country that is very different, be it in poverty rates (and what the poverty level actually is), corruption, economic development levels, or national sovereignty and security. Prefer my tests from the UK, which is much more similar to the US on every count. III. Re: Failure of Welfare Programs Cross-apply Section V. of my case. Though means-based welfare programs have \"negative incentives\" for earnings, they are at a much lower rate than the rates for individuals who are making more money. I discussed in my case how individuals who make below half the poverty rate (approximately $6,000) have a marginal tax rate of 14%. Individuals who make 50%-100% of the poverty rate (roughly $6,000-$12,000) have a marginal tax rate of 24%. People who make more than that faced a rate of 34%. This means that people that receive means-tested welfare are actually facing far fewer \"negative incentives\" than those who are making, say, $70,000 a year. To say that they are decentivized due to these marginal tax rates is ludicrous, else we would see the same issues at higher rates among those with greater incomes. We simply do not. Furthermore, an asset cap isn\"t necessarily an issue. If there is no asset cap, we face the issue posed in my case: individuals who don\"t need aid will receive it anyway, wasting funds. Again, a person who makes a comfortable wage may find an extra $10,000 nice, it is far from necessary. Even an individual making $30,000 (assuming no dependents) may be fine without an extra $10,000. If Pro wants to argue for a higher asset cap, there is definitely an argument to be made. However, an asset cap is not a bad idea, as it avoids allocation of resources to those who do not need it. Finally, as stated in case, the issue with considering the \"poverty rate\" in the United States is that it doesn\"t account for in-kind reception of welfare. As an incredibly simplified example, let\"s assume I make $11,000 per year and the poverty line is at $12,000. If I receive $1,001 worth of food stamps, my income is effectively $12,001 per year, above the poverty line, but I would still be counted as below the poverty line. Measuring the effectiveness of the current welfare programs by analyzing the poverty rate is absolutely pointless, because most of the welfare programs aren\"t accounted for in the measure of the poverty rate. IV. Conclusion UBI is a pipe dream in the United States. Without first eradicating capitalism, it will do nothing but drive down wages and act a subsidiary to businesses. There have been no tests of UBI that can be applied to the United States which point toward a success. Each of the studies offers a myriad of issues that separate it from America. Meanwhile, the current welfare system is working, contrary to what analysis of the incomplete poverty rate would indicate. It is putting Americans well above their European counterparts. UBI is neither plausible, needed, or likely to be effective. V. Sources [7] https://www.cia.gov... [8] https://www.transparency.org...", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d103793-2019-04-18T11:35:54Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.39772033691406}, {"text": "Every job should have the same wage. Whether you are a doctor or a rubbish collector, all jobs need doing, so why are some paid more that others. Who works harder, the rich lawyer, or the humble, hard working rubbish man that is up every allocated morning to do the dirty work for you. Just think what would happen if for one year, one rubbish truck didn't work and one lawyer didn't work. What would have more of an impact on our society.", "title": "Every job should have the same wage.", "pid": "fb355df6-2019-04-18T18:00:14Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.39010620117188}, {"text": "My stance on this is that all people are born equal considering we were all made the same way, we came came to the world in generally the same way, we have initially the same genetic make-up, we all live on the same planet, and we all are human beings, and therefore we are all equal.", "title": "Everyone deserves equal rights", "pid": "42a23628-2019-04-18T16:46:48Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.3870391845703}, {"text": "MOST Americans believe that SINCE we have to REGISTER our CARS, gun owners SHOULD have to REGISTER their guns. SINCE we have to acquire car INSURANCE, gun owners SHOULD have to acquire GUN insurance, SINCE we have to pass a WRITTEN and a PHYSICAL test to be ALLOWED to drive, gun owners SHOULD HAVE to go through (and PASS) a Written and Physical TEST to be ALLOWED to get a Gun LICENSE (which you should Also HAVE to get)", "title": "Universal Background Checks are NEEDED on ALL gun purchases both Public AND Private", "pid": "d2e4616f-2019-04-18T13:01:18Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.36854553222656}, {"text": "Mr 12jPerry, I disagree with you that people under the age of 18 should not be taxed. But I see that you disagree about having Flat.Fair. Tax. I believe that is the best way to improve our economy, middle class, the poor and etc. Paying income tax I believe should not be used. People work hard to earn their money and we take a huge chunk of what they make? Our Government should not be able to take money from our income period. They should have just a flat tax and sales tax is ok. Then taxing under the age of 18. I think it depends. Kids are maturing real fast and that they are working harder for a lot of money as well. I think that if you have a job then you should pay taxes. You are a working person now and you should pay the flat tax, not the income tax..as I stated income tax should be abolished. To close my opening argument, I believe that having income tax is wrong. We should have a flat tax, and teens who have a job should be taxed.", "title": "Income taxes should be abolished. Flat/Fair tax should be in.", "pid": "afb5c7b0-2019-04-18T19:54:26Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.3517303466797}, {"text": "When someone becomes ill whether it be with the flu or a disease and doctors or hospitals turn them away because they can't pay, wouldn't that be stealing someone's life? For someone who worked their entire life and can finally retire and, yet can't pay for medical coverage then has to get another job in case they get sick what type of country is that we live in? Your attacking the fact that they are only taking money from the rich to provide for the poor, they take from every class; upper class, middle class, and yes in fact the lower class contributes as well. When all is said and done we can look at the countries now that have universal health care, none of them have went bottom up and the \"upper class\" has never complained they were taxed more heavily. Also when looking at it when everyone is covered it would be cheaper then the health care system we have now. Universal health care is the belief that all citizens have access to affordable high-care medical service; i.e. smokers etc.", "title": "The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens.", "pid": "3ffe2c14-2019-04-18T18:54:28Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.34637451171875}, {"text": "ok", "title": "USA should have universal background checks", "pid": "978935e9-2019-04-18T15:59:13Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.34327697753906}, {"text": "It gave me a chance to look up some interesting information. I hope I had intrigued some interest somewhere along the way. Thank you.", "title": "The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens.", "pid": "3ffe2bd6-2019-04-18T18:54:44Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.3407745361328}, {"text": "I will lay out parameters for acceptance into tuition free colleges, because giving 1.5 GPA students access to colleges will not give us any advantages.", "title": "The US Federal Government should implement universal college for all.", "pid": "23e3f28-2019-04-18T12:54:58Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.3309326171875}, {"text": "A sales tax is regressive", "title": "Basic income tax should be abolished", "pid": "2e784eb9-2019-04-19T12:45:17Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.32862854003906}, {"text": "You sick bastard...", "title": "Everyone should be treated equally.", "pid": "3e6e1f09-2019-04-18T14:11:20Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.32498168945312}, {"text": "Alright, I shall respond to the questions as a refutation. \"How would this fixed sum be defined?' It should be defined by the government in accordance with the pricing of economic output. For example, if all employed citizens got an income of $25 an hour, which would mean $4000 a month on average over the course of a year which would be $48,000 a year would be effectively eliminated because everyone who has a job will be able to pay their bills and satisfy their needs and, to a degree, their desires including savings in which people can become successful by merely saving such income. Thus, employed people would no longer live in poverty. \" Is it really justified for someone who say is, a waitress/waiter to get paid the same amount as a doctor or lawyer?\" That is subjective, however both individuals are contributing to satisfying the desires and needs of the population and thus should get paid the same amount an hour. And you might think this would be a disincentive, however this is not the case. For one, you would still have to work to earn a wage and a lot of people, and if not they took an oath to do it until they die, enjoy their work. As a result, not many doctors would leave because they still get paid and still work more hours thus they would make more than the McDonalds employee. A doctor who works 12 hours a day will earn 300 more dollars than the McDonalds employee. Not to mention, this actually would expand job growth to some level because if you're going to quit your job because you aren't getting paid a certein amount, you must hate it in the first place and thus you probably are terrible at it. This actually opens up more people to work in other vital industries such as agriculture and food distribution, and other jobs for people who want that particular one. A lot of people would happily work for a hospital for FREE, and many people would also work as a lawyer for next to no pay. People do things and like to do things, and open access to higher education free of tuition would make this a lot better and expand economic growth overall. So not only would this resolve many of the pyschologically destructive nature of economic inequality, this would also bring us closer to a moneyless society. Not to mention, ceterin economic preconditions such as establishing democratic workers self-management in industries would create a bigger incentive to work. Your third question, I baisclaly anwsered this. However, my official position is there should be a minimum and maximum ratio of pay (a universal minimum and maximum wage if you will) in regards to the difficulty and time put into a job but if should slowly move into equal pay for all. In regards to your last question, I believe fees for human rights such as education should be paid by taxes. Also, we speant trillions on nonsense like increasing military speanding. We have the money for this, we just don't use it wisely.", "title": "All people should receive the same income", "pid": "f266897a-2019-04-18T13:59:44Z-00002-000", "bm25_score": 213.31329345703125}, {"text": "con acts as if taking away gun rights can't be part of the punishment. sometimes, someone might be bad enough to not get gun rights, but not so bad they should spend the rest of their life in jail. it's not an either or situation. then of course there are those who are too mentally unstable to get guns. we should have checks just for those people, at the least. you can't just define yourself into a victory here with saying criminals who use guns will just go get one illegally. this may be true, but if we stop some people who might otherwise commit crimes with a gun, we will have prevented some crime and death. the simple act of having a gun causes some people to be more likely to commit a crime. if they didn't have the gun to begin with, they wouldn't commit the crime. or, do you unequivically deny that that would be the case? again either the all or nothing stuff if you disagree.", "title": "there should be universal background checks on gun sales", "pid": "93ac182e-2019-04-18T14:29:45Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.31008911132812}, {"text": "His plan increases the “income effect” compared to a UBI The entire premise of my opponent’s argument is that everyone will get at least $15,000 and full employment. The differences between a UBI and a means tested program are not significant under the current system, as far as income effects go, for poor people, and both programs retain work efforts at the lowest income levels. My opponent’s plan, however, provides an extra $5,000 in income at this level for those in the private sector. The difference between no assistance and assistance under Con’s plan is more than it would be under a UBI, meaning his plan would reduce work incentives compared to a UBI. EITC reduces work incentives for many groups Con claims the EITC has mechanisms which reduce the negative effects of the phase-ou. Economic research has demonstrated that the EITC significantly discourages work for many demographics, especially women. Women in the phase-out portion of the EITC become 5% less likely to work, and for women who are already working, women work 20% fewer hours per year.[1] Another study came to the same conclusion, and discovered evidence of a negative impact on many females. “[T]he EITC explains 71 percent of the decline in low-educated married mothers’ desire to work between 1988-1993 and 1994-2010…While the “welfare to work” reform was designed to do bring welfare recipients into the labor force, the reform could have had the opposite effect on the “weaker” nonparticipants by shifting them from a program with some connection to the labor force (welfare) to a program with no connection to the labor force (disability insurance).”[2] Wage subsidies, like the EITC, introduce multiple distortions in the labor market. These distortions are favorable to low-wage industries, making domestic production costs lower. This means imports are negatively affected, which distorts trade, and hurts the economy.[3] By making the EITC more generous, we would be increasing the work disincentives for women. A more generous EITC would also increase distortions in the labor market. The issue with public works and education Con’s plan is trying to create a quasi-universal basic income system, but instead through providing employment and job training. This solution is problematic. The way Con sets up his plan would negatively affect the private sector. There are two scenarios for poor people: either they get nothing, work for the government/educate and get a $10,000 UBI, or work for the private sector and at least earn $15,000. This plan creates a whole new level of bureaucracy and would drastically increase spending--Con’s claim that this would somehow reduce spending is insane. The plan causes thousands if not millions of new people to work for the public sector. The issue with this is that there would be a “crowd out” effect. Many tasks the government completes could be provided for by the private sector if the government wasn’t providing them. While government expands, the private sector retreats.[12] We must weigh the two effects. The crowd out effect would affect all industries, because my opponent’s plan has to be able to, at full capacity, be able to employ the entire country. Every industry will experience some type of crowd out. The cost of his job guarantee for low-income people in order for them to obtain welfare is extremely large. This is essentially his plan: People are poor. People need assistance. They must work in order to get assistance. The government should offer work to those who are currently idle. Thus, he basically is ensuring work for anyone who wants it. It is implied that the government should be able to, at maximum capacity, provide work for 300 million people. But this means the government would have to get involved in all industries: fast food, technology, yard work, etc. The reason is because we only have so many construction projects, and many construction projects are already done efficiently by the private sector. When public roads are fixed, all public buildings repaired, and all museums erected, what then? What if the demand for these new products (like museums) wane over time? Or a recession strains the system and it cannot handle the influx of workers? The simple fact is these public works programs would not be doing traditional public construction jobs after a period of time, and the government would be forced to distort the market by entering formerly private industries in order to ensure employment. The cost of such a program would be enormous. Under a UBI, you simply hand over the check. Under a job guarantee/workfare regime, you have to pay managers, supervisors, and other bureaucrats in order to supervise work projects. You would have to pay for the education programs, the teachers, and administrators. You would require a large number of other employees to make sure everyone receiving benefits needs it; the increase in administrative complexity and costs would be enormous. Under a UBI, administrative costs would be virtually zero. Nothing about the UBI restricts or inhibits public work programs. As I already explained, the UBI increases work incentives, on balance, even for those who are at the bottom of the income ladder. This means implementing a UBI would expand the size of the labor market and it would be easier to staff public work programs. A study in Germany predicts a UBI would increase the labor supply and increase work incentives.[4] The U.S. is considered the most innovative economy because of its “cut throat” capitalism and private sector innovation.[9] By making the government the largest employer and heavily distorting private markets, the U.S. economy would be destined to become less innovative and productive. It would be much more efficient to allow the private sector to deal with education and employment. Marco Rubio has an education plan that promotes and encourages vocational training using private sector mechanisms.[5] The research on vocational training is ambiguous, with the GAO saying any “positive impacts [from vocational training tend] to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.”[17] A 2008 study found no difference in employment, wage, and economic outcomes for those who have gone through work training programs compared to those who had not.[18] Did workfare work in the past? Con claims the welfare reform act of 1996 dramatically reduced welfare rolls and increased work incentives. This argument is flawed because welfare rolls were falling before the implementation of workfare. One study found only “15 percent of the decline [in welfare rolls] is due to welfare reform, the rest to the significant expansion of low-wage work during the 1990s.”[6] In other words, economic growth reduced welfare rolls. Another study published in the American Economic Review argues 50% of the decline in welfare roles was due to a reduction in number of people receiving welfare.[7] This has important implications for those who interpret welfare reform as a success. A reduction in the number of families receiving welfare may have negative impacts on those at the bottom of the income ladder. Indeed, of those who have been kicked off of or became ineligible for welfare, “most are in poverty.”[6] Economists who have reviewed the literature also note how only about one third, at best, of the reduction in caseloads is due to welfare reform.[8] The benefits of my opponent’s counterplan are overstated Keeping people out of poverty is a benefit of both of these plans, according to Con. But as I noted, the significant distortions in the labor market caused by his plan may make the situation worse, and require that the U.S. becomes the largest employer in the country. In the long term, this would reduce not only U.S. but also global economic growth and innovation. His plan would not reduce wasteful spending. A UBI would eliminate administrative costs. His plan increases costs, because not only are you giving money to people, you are also doling out paychecks to thousands of extra unnecessary employees that oversee the public works. A UBI program is affordable.[10][11] My opponent’s plan would undoubtedly increase costs. The production of skilled workers is much better suited for the private sector, mainly due to the massive public costs of ensuring education for every poor person if they wish to pursue it (and by artificially increasing the amount of skilled workers, the value of education would fall and reduce wages for those who are already educated). Crime rediction is nonunique. Poor people, who are more likely to commit crime, often do so in order to make a living. One way to fix this, as my opponent notes, is to give them a job. But a UBI would have the same effect: by reducing financial hardship, a motive for crime would be substantially weakened; a UBI would also increase social cohesion. In Nambia after a UBI was implemented, crime fell by 42% due to an increase in cohesion.[13] In India, UBIs increased economic activity and school attendance.[14] Obtaining unearned income makes people more sociable. When people earn small lottery winnings, the ones close to UBI level, it has been found “that unearned income improves traits that predict pro-social and cooperative behaviours… as well as reduce individuals' tendency to experience negative emotional states.”[15] A UBI would have the same effect, meaning a UBI would positively impact our society. When the government does more, the private sector does less, and oftentimes the crowd out effect is larger than the benefits of increased public works. An research suggests increased infrastructure spending is a poor economic stimulus and the crowd out effect more than cancels out the benefits of increased infrastructure spending.[16] Creating other public goods, if there is no demand for them, is a net-negative because the taxpayer has to pay for these institutions. http://bit.ly...", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d103774-2019-04-18T13:49:55Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.2914276123047}, {"text": "Scrapping all existing income tax and replacing them with a single \"flat tax\" is a very simple idea. But does it work? Anyone willing to participate will be taking the for side of this debate. I will let you make the first point.", "title": "We should introduce a flat tax.", "pid": "a80a5cfa-2019-04-18T12:54:14Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.2559356689453}, {"text": "Everyone: (pronoun) Every personTreat: (verb) Behave toward or deal with in a certain wayEqually: (adverb) 1- In the same manner. 2- To the same extent or degreeI completely disagree that everyone should be treated equally. To be treated equally strips a person of their individuality and personal achievements. Certain individuals deserve to be recognized above others and also deserve to have their achievements awarded. If everyone were treated equally then the rapist would be just as worthy of glory as the couple who is trying to fight world hunger, and the chef who spends his free time cooking for the homeless is no better than the murderer killing children in their own beds. Equality is not as nice as it sounds. Equality doesn't guarantee that everyone is treated in a proper manner. Equality is a guarantee that everyone is treated in the same manner, whether it is good or bad. In order to have a society in which people agree that they are being treated fairly and properly there needs to be diversity in how these people are treated, which is to be in direct reflection to the actions of the individual. This is where the concept of Communism goes awry. If the lazy farmer gets paid just as much as the hard-working farmer, then why should the hard-working farmer put forth so much effort if it is not to be rewarded? When an individuals achievements are not recognized, then the individual stops trying to achieve. Eventually, these individuals produce the collective bare-minimum, and the total quality of life goes down. Basically, total equality puts the entire strength of the rope at the weakest thread. Those that are stronger are not allowed to compensate because the weak thread cannot hold up to the same expectations. Equality isn't as good as it may seem to be.", "title": "Everyone should be treated equally.", "pid": "3e6e1f09-2019-04-18T14:11:20Z-00007-000", "bm25_score": 213.24818420410156}, {"text": "You may do whatever you want, but if you look in the comments you will see why.", "title": "Everyone should be treated equally.", "pid": "3e6e1f09-2019-04-18T14:11:20Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.24647521972656}, {"text": "con is arguing unheard of points about governmet involvement with guns, here is is talking about if the government has the power to decide who can have a gun then they have a power to take it away from those with rights. the problem is con is trying to make gun rights absolute, and there are very few aboslute rights. all amendments to teh constitution even have exceptions. so con contineus to take far fetched scenarios more seriously than the current reality of gun violence that is out of control. con doesn't respond to the idea that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. con just says if you want a gun you can get it. he ignores that i pointed out that not everyone will. if you dont have a gun when you might commit a crime due to a background check, a crime would have been prevented. studies show that more guns in an area means more overall death. that means it's more than just popele will kill with whatever they get,,, they are more likely to kill with a gun. sure it's the person who is the problem more than the gun, but when it's so direct, it's fair to say the gun is the problem too.", "title": "universal background checks r a common sense solution to gun violence", "pid": "f0d16280-2019-04-18T14:18:39Z-00003-000", "bm25_score": 213.2392578125}, {"text": "I accept!", "title": "Guaranteed Minimum Income", "pid": "c5aa5ce3-2019-04-18T15:10:25Z-00006-000", "bm25_score": 213.23321533203125}, {"text": "Health care is a right for all Americans, the Preamble of the US Constitution states that one of its purpose is to \"promote the general welfare\" of the people. Just as all Americans have the right to a public education to help them in their future careers, they should have the right to health care because that promotes a healthier life. The United States is one of the few, developed nations in the world that does not guarantee health coverage for its citizens. Also by providing all citizens the right to health care it will stimulate growth for economic productivity. When people have access to health care, they live healthier and longer lives, they can then add to society for a longer time. The wait time would not be an issue if we had universal health care, once we start it everyone will be healthier because they have coverage so down the road fewer people will need to be waiting because they will be healthier from the start.", "title": "The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens.", "pid": "3ffe2bf5-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.21514892578125}, {"text": "The US Government should grant universal healthcare to its citizens", "title": "Universal healthcare", "pid": "a76b7e6c-2019-04-18T18:55:02Z-00004-000", "bm25_score": 213.2064666748047}, {"text": "con mostly focuses on the politically unrealistic nature of universal checks. but this doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. that is the whole point of the resolution, that it should be done, not that i can be realistically done. to add checks to the measures, sales from family friends or the street should be done with a check, or the sale is illegal. even con admits some checks could feasibly be accomplished that aren't already done. given those, and given the checks that should be done even if they can't feasibly be, checks would accomplish SoME people to not buy guns. it might not deter everyone, but some is enough. not everyone is a black hoodie who will stop at nothing to get a gun. and thus, some increased checks will result in some reduced gun violence.", "title": "there should be universal background checks on gun sales", "pid": "93ac180f-2019-04-18T14:33:39Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.1832733154297}, {"text": "I apologize if I am a bit informal in my debate.. :) In all reality, backround checks will not save millions, thousands, or even hundreds of lives. I honestly doubt it will save any. If a criminal wants to get a gun, he will get a gun. Pure and simple. I have never heard of any criminal dumb enough to try to purchase a firearm legally, knowing his name will be run through a database. And say he were dumb enough to attempt to purchase a firearm legally. He would simply be turned away. This will not deter said criminal. There are easier and cheaper ways of buying a gun, whether you are a criminal or not. The only people that will submit themselves to backround checks are law-abiding citizens, so this 'solution' doesnt solve any problems. Backround info could be made public. And it would not be 'rare' for it to happen. Any database is susceptible to being hacked. Lets take this scenario to a very realistic conclusion: The US enforces backround checks, and builds a database, which includes everyone who owns a gun and what gun they own. If that database were to be hacked (and it would be) that information would be extremely useful for criminals interested in burglary. Said criminals would feel very confident breaking into houses that they know arent armed. I dont see a benefit in having a database on gun owners. There is no pro, but there are many cons.", "title": "the USA should have universal background checks on gun sales", "pid": "52b6e397-2019-04-18T14:31:20Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.17958068847656}, {"text": "Not a problem at all. We all understand when stuff like that comes up.", "title": "The United States should adopt Universal Healthcare", "pid": "5ffcbbf3-2019-04-18T14:33:01Z-00001-000", "bm25_score": 213.1745147705078}, {"text": "I can do WHATEVER I WANT, it's called AMERICA, and the FIRST AMENDMEND, which is WAY more important than you GUN obsession! Long story short, EVERY country in the world that has STRONG gun control measure has WAY less gun injuries and deaths!", "title": "Universal Background Checks are NEEDED on ALL gun purchases both Public AND Private", "pid": "d2e4616f-2019-04-18T13:01:18Z-00005-000", "bm25_score": 213.1735382080078}, {"text": "I. IntroThis debate is not merely about the degree to which we help others, but also how we help others. The resolution is calling on Pro to advocate for a specific policy, namely UBI, as the means through which he will, in his own words, \"ensure the worst off in our countries do not starve. \" By using this as his metric to weigh policies, Pro has established a consequentialist moral framework for the round. I would like to note now, however, that Pro's first round lacks substance. He provides no data to demonstrate that UBI is effective at achieving its aim of reducing poverty. Merely stating that reducing poverty is UBI's intent is insufficient to justify UBI as a poverty. One could argue that Hitler's intent through the Holocaust was to better humankind, but that does not justify his actions in the slightest. Therefore, it is dubious as to whether Pro has or will meet his burden in this debate. He must use his additional rounds to put forward arguments sufficient to affirm, or he will be unable to meet his burden. II. The Flaws of UBIA. The Cost of UBIEstimates suggest that UBI would cost $3 to 4 trillion per year, totaling $30 to 40 trillion over a decade. That sum \"amounts to nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government. \" [1] Projections show that US federal tax revenue for 2019 is estimated to be $3.422 trillion, potentially less than this single policy alone [2]. It is not plausible that the US could sustain a policy of UBI while also maintaining the various other services and projects it administers. Even if UBI were to replace other welfare programs, the savings from eliminating these programs would not offset the costs of UBI. Currently, welfare not including Social Security and Medicare costs about $1 trillion; Social Security and Medicare similarly cost about $1 trillion [3, 4]. That makes $2 trillion in total current welfare spending. If all of these welfare programs were to be eliminated and replaced with UBI, UBI would still add $1 to 2 trillion dollars to the federal budget (increasing the budget by 67%). However, it would be naive to think that UBI could replace all existing welfare programs--programs to help parents with childcare costs or to cover medical bills would need to be retained in some form in order to ensure the wellbeing of children and those without insurance, with poor insurance, or with sky-high medical bills. Thus, the actual amount that UBI adds to the budget is likely to be larger than the $1 to 2 trillion just calculated. And not only does it balloon the budget, but UBI is ultimately self-defeating. To afford UBI, individuals would need to be taxed at rates of 35 to 40 percent. This means that UBI would cost a taxpayer more in taxes than that taxpayer would receive in benefits, rendering the policy net-harmful. [5]B. Workforce ParticipationUBI is likely to reduce workforce participation. It stands to reason that if everyone receives a salary irrespective of whether or not they have worked for or earned that salary, that people will be less eager to work. This logic is borne out empirically. \"In four controlled random assignment experiments across six states between 1968 and 1980, the comparable policy was shown to reduce yearly hours worked among recipients significantly. For each $1,000 in added benefits, there was an average $660 reduction in earnings, meaning that $3,000 in government benefits was required for a net increase of $1,000 in family income. \" [6] This has several impacts. Firstly, for UBI to have its intended benefits, payouts will need to be unreasonably large. The goal of UBI is to bring people up to a subsistence threshold. Suppose that threshold is $10,000. To meet this goal, UBI cannot simply payout $10,000, because that will only functionally provide benefits of $3,300. Instead, to functionally provide $10,000, UBI payouts will need to be $30,000. This places Pro in a double-bind. Either he can't achieve a subsistence minimum or he triples the overall cost of UBI, adding to our national debt and magnifying its self-defeating nature. Secondly, UBI leads to the pernicious and repressive effects of dependency. When people become dependent on welfare, they don't take the steps (steps which are often burdensome in the short term) to better themselves in the long-term. This traps recipients in a kind of near-poverty, which is not only degrading to them but also keeps their quality of life low. Thirdly, UBI is socially destructive. \"Individuals gain not only income, but meaning, status, skills, networks and friendships through work. Delinking income and work, while rewarding people for staying at home, is what lies behind social decay. \" [7] This could be phrased similarly in the statement that by cutting down participation in one of our primary social contexts, we also cut down the social bonds and experience which are integral to a well-functioning cooperative society. Fourthly, UBI is individually destructive. \"Work is at the root of a meaningful life, the path to individual. .. flourishing. It is also the distinctive means by which men concretize their identity as rational, goal-directed beings. \" [8] \"Self-esteem, in the sense of having a perception of the worth of one's own existence, is bound up with the recognition one receives from others of one's competences, achievements and contributions. \" [9] Work, by being a central mechanism through which people contribute to society, is crucial to our own self-esteem, self-image and self-respect. Thus, I negate. III. Sources1 - . https://www.cbpp.org...2 - . https://www.thebalance.com...3 - . https://www.budget.senate.gov...4 - . https://en.wikipedia.org...5 - . https://fee.org...6 - . https://www.heritage.org...7 - . https://www.irishtimes.com...8 - Younkins, Edward W. \"Capitalism and Commerce: Conceptual Foundations of Free Enterprise. \" Lexington Books, 2002.9 - . https://theconversation.com...", "title": "Universal Basic Income", "pid": "4d1037d1-2019-04-18T11:25:50Z-00000-000", "bm25_score": 213.16705322265625}]}