Datasets:

inpars

/

fewshot-examples

like 1

45

ed49d9f8-2019-04-18T14:27:03Z-00004-000

Should the penny stay in circulation?

The United States Should Abolish the Federal Reserve I appreciate his perspective and will address his points specifically in the next round as was agreed in the structure. ThesisThe Federal Reserve should be abolished for many reasons, and I do not intend to outline all of them here because that could take a book's worth of pages. I intend to cover three main areas in which the Federal Reserve causes more harm than good. First the Federal Reserve wields an immense amount of power and has no oversight. Secondly the Federal Reserve intensifies and prolongs the business cycle, also known as the boom and bust cycle. Finally the Federal Reserve actually devalues our currency. For these reasons, which I will examine in the body of my argument, the Federal Reserve should be abolished. ArgumentC1. The Federal Reserve wields an immense amount of power and has no oversight. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 during the Progressive Era when the Income Tax and many new government institutions were created. Businesses in this time period were obsessed with forming cartels as a way to ensure profits for a select few while socializing any losses they would incur. The Banks of the time were no exception and were looking for a way to have a "lender of last resort" to bail them out in times of crisis. Since the Civil War the government worked tirelessly to defend the gold standard. This was troublesome for the banks because it prevented their ability to expand credit without limit. Gold was stable, from 1833-1913 the price of gold was almost constant, fluctuating between $18.90 and $18.98 per troy ounce. [1] Because of this reason, gold functioned like a regulator of the banking industry because it made the risks real for the banks, it prevented them from expanding credit beyond reasonable limits. If a bank faced bankruptcy it had nowhere to turn so its lending practices had to be responsible. The fact of the matter is that by having the central bank as a "lender of last resort" while also having them manage the interest rates means that the banking industry can profit off of the expansion of credit through loans and then when the bubble eventually bursts they can get bailed out by the Fed, socializing their losses. In November of 1910 high ranking members of banking's elite met at the Jekyll Island Club off the coast of Georgia with Nelson Aldrich, a close friend of John D Rockefeller to discuss this new central bank, discussion that led to the Federal Reserve. [2] To clarify, the men who drew up this plan were 2 related to JP Morgan, 2 related to Rockefeller, 1 from an incredibly influential investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Co and one economist. The beginning of the Fed was powerful bankers, powerful government backers and an economist to give a veneer of legitimacy of their work to centralize the monetary system of the United States. These corrupt beginnings lead into this very day where there is absolutely no oversight for the Federal Reserve. It answers to no one, not even congress. Timothy Geithner, former Federal Reserve Bank of New York president, is now president of Warburg Pincus, an investment firm on Wall Street. Former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke now works for Citadel, a hedge fund. Money is the most important tool of a civilization and it can cause them to rise and fall. We have entrusted ours with a shadowy quasi-public organization that serves the big banks at the expense of the people. They have the ability to print money at will, and manipulate the interest rate making credit cheap to fuel runaway expansions of credit. All of this power and no oversight. This is a dangerous combination and the people of the United States currently have little control over the organization's actions. C2. The Federal Reserve fuels the Business Cycle. Recent memory shows us that a boom of investment can cause disastrous consequences, especially if the areas of investment are risky. The "Great Recession" had caused the second highest unemployment rate (10%) and the highest long term unemployment rate (4.4%) of all recessions since 1948. [7] The business cycle, or boom and bust cycle, is greatly influenced by the availability of credit and money. In the most general terms the business cycle is generated by an unsustainable and excessive expansion of credit to business and individuals by the banking system. [8] This creation of credit makes it appear as though loanable funds have increased because of increased savings which isn't the case, it is newly created money and credit. This incentivizes longer term and higher risk investments. The Federal Reserve has a huge role to play in the business cycle as it is the central clearinghouse for money, it sets interest rates, and it governs monetary policy. It does not cause the business cycle, it intensifies it by lengthening the amount of time that fractional reserve banks can continue credit expansion. It essentially makes our lives worse by increasing the pain of market corrections by artificially increasing the size of the bubble before it bursts and expanding it from isolated bubbles to system wide bubbles. When interest rates were low banks lent money to any person for the purpose of buying houses. These are called subprime mortgages. Because credit was cheap, housing prices soared. The majority of subprime mortgages were adjustable rate mortgages, meaning the interest was variable. As interest rates rose so did foreclosures. Despite only accounting for 6.8% of all mortgages outstanding in the third quarter of 2007, ARM's accounted for 43% of all foreclosures. [10] As homes were repossessed the inventory of homes became greater than the demand and housing prices dropped, making it impossible for those struggling to pay their ARM's to refinance at a lower rate, intensifying the crisis. By May of 2008 25% of adjustable rate mortgages were 90 days delinquent. The housing crisis, fueled by cheap credit, was the main cause of the "Great Recession. " Other causes were the massive increase in consumer debt, commodity price gains and overproduction coupled with low demand. All of these causes are directly related to the business cycle and the Federal Reserve. C3. The Federal Reserve devalues the US Dollar. The Federal Reserve has the power to print money and control the supply of money to the fractional reserve banking system beneath it. Some might argue that this is a necessary function of Government, they would be wrong. Money is incredibly powerful because it makes up one half of every transaction in an economy. The fact that our money is built on paper is a problem in and of itself. Many great minds before us have criticized the role of a central bank and of paper money. Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet Common Sense was instrumental in spurring the country to revolution, had the following to say about paper money: "As to the assumed authority of any assembly in making paper money . .. a legal tender, or . .. a compulsive payment, it is a most presumptuous attempt at arbitrary power. There can be no such power in a republican government: the people have no freedom—and property no security—where this practice can be acted. "[3] Thomas Jefferson famously opposed a national bank, claiming that the constitution does not grant the government the ability to establish one. The fact that this organization which is not technically a government organization has a printing press is tantamount to counterfeiting. See Ben Bernanke's comments about using the printing press: "The U. S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U. S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of U. S. dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the U. S. government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation. "[9] Every dollar they print makes every dollar in your pocket worth less. There are a total of three crimes specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Piracy, Treason and Counterfeiting. [4] To the founding fathers counterfeiting was enough of a crime to be called out in the most important document in American history. Since 1913 when the Federal Reserve was founded the US Dollar has lost 96% of its value. [5] In the current political world there are calls for an increase in the minimum wage to something liveable. In 1964 the minimum wage was $1.25 an hour. Five quarters. If you took five 1964 quarters today they would be worth $13.80. [6] The money is broken because of the reckless monetary policy of the US Government and the Federal Reserve. Take note of the graph above. Since April 2007 the monetary base (BASE), or the sum total of all currency circulating and in bank vaults increased from $847 billion to it's current level of $3.996 trillion. This is troubling because the majority of this money is sitting in bank vaults waiting to be lent out. If the money is lent out we could see massive price increases and runaway inflation. An organization that is this reckless should not be trusted with our money. Sources[1]. http://www.nma.org...[2]http://www.bloombergview.com... [3]The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine, Philip Foner, ed. (New York: Citadel Press, 1945), pp. 405ff. [4]. http://www.heritage.org... [5]. http://goo.gl...[7]http://www.bls.gov...[8]http://www.econlib.org... III,Ch.19[9]Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke before the National Economists Club, Washington, D. C. , November 21, 2002. [10]. https://goo.gl...;

2

e7eb3b95-2019-04-19T12:47:53Z-00004-000

Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?

Safe Sex Education in Schools Parents don't have absolute rights over their children, society has an important stake in their upbr...

2

bd9b4af8-2019-04-18T16:00:27Z-00003-000

Is vaping with e-cigarettes safe?

Marijuana Is Less Harmful than Alcohol Health Effects The overdose argument was not my only argument. However, considering it's much easier to die or sustain serious health problems from taking too much alcohol than from taking too much marijuana, I'd consider alcohol more harmful. The health problems that my opponent says that marijuana causes are either misunderstandings, or not as bad as the health effects of alcohol. For example, marijuana's supposed effects on the brain were taken out of context, "Research is full of nuance, and nuance sometimes gets lost in the conversation. The collective freakout over this study had to do with its findings: Certain regions of the brains of people who smoke marijuana are structurally different than people who don't. That got interpreted, at least in headlines and ledes, as marijuana changes your brain. .. The conclusions were modest in the paper " we never say marijuana causes these changes. .. The media may have given that impression in headlines, but the study doesn't show causation. "[1] As for apathy, a ridiculous amount of other drugs cause this, so it's hardly groundbreaking. Finally, the supposed marijuana/lung cancer link is exaggerated as well. "Findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use. "[2][3] Legal Issues My opponent makes a critical miscalculation here. Even assuming his argument is valid (people taking marijuana consciously choose to get high at the risk of getting arrested, so for them, it isn't harmful), there are more arrests related to marijuana. About 12.5% of only drug related incarcerations concern marijuana (including manufacturing and distribution), while, "According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), 37% [of all convicted] of almost 2 million convicted offenders currently in jail, report that they were drinking at the time of their arrest. " So in other words, as I mentioned in the first round, alcohol causes a lot of people to commit crimes. Therefore, marijuana may be illegal, but alcohol gives people an easier time committing crime they wouldn't normally commit. Further, most marijuana arrests are not for life, whereas alcohol related arrests (for murder, rape, or other life crimes) can easily be for life. [4][5] And actually, marijuana has a large number of uses outside of being a recreational drug. It has numerous agricultural benefits, including weed suppression, soil improvement in crop rotation, and less need for dangerous pesticides; It can be used to make paper, rope, carpets, caulking, cement, insulation, and many other products. [6] On top of that, there are the medical considerations, which my opponent overlooks. It can be used to treat and prevent glaucoma, it can help control epileptic seizures, it may decrease anxiety, can help people decrease drinking, and more importantly, contains chemicals that stop cancer from spreading, slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease, ease the pain of multiple sclerosis, and improves the symptoms of lupus. It also spurs creativity in the brain. So marijuana has a large number of uses in the medical field, including helping treat things better than other current drugs on the market. [7] Therefore, my opponent's arguments either fail or backfire completely. Marijuana has a large number of uses in both industry and medicine, with considerably more than alcohol in the latter. Further, while taking marijuana itself is illegal, alcohol removes the inhibitions people have with committing crime, making it easier for them to commit crime themselves, oftentimes much worse than simple drug possession. In fact, life in prison is much more likely with alcohol-related crimes than they are with marijuana crimes. Further, alcohol clearly causes more and worse health problems than marijuana does. It is easy to see that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, both in health effects and potential crime potential. Sources [1]: . http://mic.com... [2]: . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3]: . http://news.thoracic.org... [4]: . http://norml.org... [5]: . https://ncadd.org... [6]: . http://www.420hwy.com... [7]: . http://www.businessinsider.com...

3

41e8d87f-2019-04-17T11:47:37Z-00000-000

Should insider trading be allowed?

Carbon emissions trading Emissions trading can disproportionately pollute poor countries

22

3aef71f-2019-04-18T18:02:16Z-00002-000

Is a two-state solution an acceptable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

The international community should actively support the creation of a Palestinian state I would like to thank ConservativePolitico for accepting this debate which happens to coincide with the latest Israeli military offensive on Palestinian-Arabs which the Israeli government has disingenuously titled "Operation Pillar of Defense". At the time of writing, Israeli news agency Haaretz is reporting "Since the begging {sic} of Operation Pillar of Defense, 35 Palestinians were killed, some of them civilians. On the Israeli side three civilians were killed on Friday in a rocket attack." Meanwhile the BBC reported a Hamas source which stated "Militants and civilians, including at least seven children, have been among the Palestinians killed during Israeli strikes in recent days." (1,2) In the light of this obscene bloodshed, I invite my opponent to join me in unreservedly condemning all acts of violence which are deliberately targeted at civilian populations in Israel and Palestine, whether they be rockets launched by Palestinian militants into Israel or air strikes launched by the Israeli armed forces on Gaza. Now I would like to expand this debate by firstly looking at the recent history of Israel / Palestine. The following is reproduced from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website (3): "Foreign Office November 2nd, 1917 Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. 'His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.' I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour" This declaration eventually led to the creation of the state of Israel within Palestine's borders in 1948, which prior to that time, was a British Mandate However, the Zionists were given an inch but took a mile. "Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied...most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948....In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution." (4) Thus the Israelis embarked on a programme of ethnic cleansing. Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Guiron, said "With compulsory transfer we (would) have a vast area (for settlement)...I support compulsory transfer. I don"t see anything immoral in it" (5) The Israelis forced Palestinians out of their homes and off their land on a wholesale basis and, in the process, created six million refugees. (6). But even this wasn't enough for the Israelis. Even Zionism on the Web admits: "the Israeli Cabinet decided on June 4th to proceed with a preemptive strike. Israel attached on June 5th 1967 by destroying Egypts {sic} airforce as it sat on the tarmac." (7) This offensive was the beginning of the Six Day War, by the end of which Israel had grabbed land not just from Egypt but also Jordan and Syria. The United Nations position on this issue is clear. Referring specifically to Jerusalem it states: "The 1967 war, which resulted in the occupation by Israel of East Jerusalem (and Israel has) invested vast resources into changing the physical and demographic characteristics of the City. The Israeli claim has not been recognized by the international community which rejects the acquisition of territory by war and considers any changes on the ground illegal and invalid." (8) Regarding the plight of refugees, the UN states that: "The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." (8) With reference to the continued Israeli land-grabs the UN states: "The building of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory began soon after the 1967 War. That policy has accelerated since the beginning of 1990. The Israeli Government encourages settlers to make their homes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The establishment of Israeli settlements has been the subject of various resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly." (8) Palestine does not control its own borders, air space or ports and the movement of civilians within the West Bank and Gaza is controlled by the Israelis, who also collect tax on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. The UN has this to say about the situation regarding customs and borders; "The General Assembly, for its part, has reaffirmed its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders." And life for those Palestinians still remaining in Israel is not much better. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel states: "The Arab citizens of Israel are discriminated in almost every aspect of their lives " employment, allocation of educational resources, housing, land distribution and planning rights " and they do not have equal representation in most state bodies and institutions. In recent years, there has also been an upsurge of racism in Israel against Arab citizens. ACRI struggles against the discrimination of Arab citizens, through legal, educational, and public advocacy efforts." Despite all this, the Israelis are determined to strengthen their stranglehold on the the illegally-occupied Palestinian Territories. "MK Yariv Levin (Likud), chairman of the Knesset"s House Committee, told Arutz Sheva on Wednesday that he has a bill that calls to apply Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) that is ready to be submitted for Knesset approval." (10). But the Israeli government have the support of the Jewish public. A recent poll published in the Israeli newspaper Haeretz showed: "Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank. The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries." (11) In conclusion, the international community has a moral and legal duty to act to protect persecuted Arabs in Israel / Palestine and the time to act is now. Thank you. (1) http://www.haaretz.com... (2) http://www.bbc.co.uk... (3) http://www.mfa.gov.il... (4) Henry Cattan, "Palestine, The Arabs and Israel." (5) Israel historian, Benny Morris, "Righteous Victims." (6) http://www.globalexchange.org... (7) http://www.zionismontheweb.org... (8) http://unispal.un.org... (9) http://www.acri.org.il... (10) http://www.israelnationalnews.com... (11) http://www.haaretz.com...

7

ed449e61-2019-04-18T15:13:37Z-00005-000

Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?

Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. 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

41

9d3685a4-2019-04-18T19:13:30Z-00002-000

Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?

Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives. Answers to her previous questions: Free Trade AGREEMENTS [between countries] are part of the Free trade value, correct? Yes. Can a government impose taxes? They can but should they? Do any countries of the current day use free trade? If so… State All Nations. Yes they work with other countries. Look to Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA) - 31 July 1975- renamed 2 November 2005 ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) AANZFTA ASEAN Plus Three African Free Trade Zone (AFTZ) East African Community (EAC) Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Southern African Development Community SADC) Southern African Customs Union (SACU) Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) Dominican Republic – Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) - 5 August 2004 Central American Integration System (SICA) Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC) Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) West African Monetary Zone (WAMZ) European Economic Area (EEA) European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Agreement (CISFTA) - 15 april 1994 Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) - 29 March 1996 Greater Arab Free Trade Area (GAFTA) - June 1957 Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Latin American Integration Association (ALADI) - 18 February 1960 Andean Community (CAN) G-3 Free Trade Agreement (G-3) Mercosur (Mercosul) Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA) South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA)… all of these agreements and unions are currently operating under free trade. Even if we aren't using economic sanctions, specifically, government still has the power to control trade, correct? It depends on what trade you are considering. Are we talking legal trade or illegal trade? They could have the power, however they do not have the authority because they are the government and trade is part of the economic sector of the United States. If the government were to control all trade we would be nothing more than If SOME countries are harmed by free trade, does this mean there is a negative potential for free trade? Who said some countries were harmed by free trade? Everything has negative potential. However the degree to which the negative potential is seen is what matters most. Free Trade has a lesser degree of negative potential than what economic sanctions have. So therefore free trade is a better option. What if free trade has negative impacts on the environment, jobs, and/or, government funding? Government funding would not be affected because free trade has no government interference. If anything free trade would create jobs and help the environment. How does free trade achieve foreign policy objectives? By having free trade we allow all countries to grow to some degree and we eliminated unstable governments. By having all stable governments we will be able to achieve what we need without having to worry about the random country that is about to fall back into communism…you know who you are. How would government's control of trade cause harm to the trade realm, specifically? Also, how much is it [trade] affected? (I am looking for a statistic, or other example.) Do business owners/companies seek to obtain profit? Do business owners/companies try to evade/eliminate competition? If entrepreneurs seek to invest money to the most profitable industry will this not harm other industries as well? No because industries are different from the one you are talking about. I am going to guess you meant business. However to answer your question, the trade will be done throughout the entire world. The investment of a few entrepreneurs into one industry will be miniscule compared to the entire world. How does that "undermine Castro's authority"…? it does so by allowing the citizerns of cuba to gain the money they need and freely trade with the united states to be able to purchase the materials they wish at a cheaper price than having to go through the castro himself. How would removing economic sanctions eliminate socialism? What is the link there? it would in Cuba because as previously stated we would allow the citizens to purchase goods that are cheaper from other countries and just by doing that, we are taking away income from the castro himself. By taking away a majority of his income we will then continue to criticize his government until it finally collapsed. Why would Cuba accept Democracy, out of nowhere, just because we lifted the embargos present? (Did any diplomat, preferably Castro himself, say this would be true?) Because as I stated in my case we would undermine his authority and as previously stated we would criticize his government. Within time the citizens of Cuba would overthrow his socialism and replace it with a much more stable form of government. Democracy is the most common kind of government with the most benefits. It is also one of the most stable forms too. And of course I got a quote from the Castro himself, I went to Cuba asked him and he gave me a quote about his demise. It was especially hard because in the current embargo one cannot travel to Cuba unless they are of Cuban decent. And I am merely German. A nation seeks to eliminate threats of other nations, correct? Depends on the nation. ____________________________________________________________ Now time ask questions :) What exactly is a right reason? Do economic sanctions affect the citizens of the country that they are imposed upon? Having children die from sanctions is ok, as long as its not as many men that die from wars? Are all laws just and right? Do you believe there are more violent countries that should have sanctions upon them? Do you agree that economic sanctions themselves are not enough?

16

89785dfc-2019-04-18T17:48:41Z-00004-000

Should prescription drugs be advertised directly to consumers?

the whole political system is flawed You say that all politicians lie, so I will provide you with a list of politicians, and you can only win if you prove that every single one of them has lied to their constituents, according to the resolution. Alabama 1 Jo Bonner R Alabama 2 Martha Roby R Alabama 3 Mike Rogers R Alabama 4 Robert B. Aderholt R Alabama 5 Mo Brooks R Alabama 6 Spencer Bachus R Alabama 7 Terri A. Sewell D Alaska At Large Don Young R American Samoa Delegate Eni F. H. Faleomavaega D-NV Arizona 1 Paul A. Gosar R Arizona 2 Trent Franks R Arizona 3 Benjamin Quayle R Arizona 4 Ed Pastor D Arizona 5 David Schweikert R Arizona 6 Jeff Flake R Arizona 7 Raul M. Grijalva D Arizona 8 Gabrielle Giffords D Arkansas 1 Eric A. Crawford R Arkansas 2 Tim Griffin R Arkansas 3 Steve Womack R Arkansas 4 Mike Ross D California 01 Mike Thompson D California 02 Wally Herger R California 03 Daniel E. Lungren R California 04 Tom McClintock R California 05 Doris O. Matsui D California 06 Lynn C. Woolsey D California 07 George Miller D California 08 Nancy Pelosi D California 09 Barbara Lee D California 10 John Garamendi D California 11 Jerry McNerney D California 12 Jackie Speier D California 13 Fortney Pete Stark D California 14 Anna G. Eshoo D California 15 Michael M. Honda D California 16 Zoe Lofgren D California 17 Sam Farr D California 18 Dennis A. Cardoza D California 19 Jeff Denham R California 20 Jim Costa D California 21 Devin Nunes R California 22 Kevin McCarthy R California 23 Lois Capps D California 24 Elton Gallegly R California 25 Howard P. McKeon R California 26 David Dreier R California 27 Brad Sherman D California 28 Howard L. Berman D California 29 Adam B. Schiff D California 30 Henry A. Waxman D California 31 Xavier Becerra D California 32 Judy Chu D California 33 Karen Bass D California 34 Lucille Roybal-Allard D California 35 Maxine Waters D California 36 Jane Harman D California 37 Laura Richardson D California 38 Grace F. Napolitano D California 39 Linda T. Sanchez D California 40 Edward R. Royce R California 41 Jerry Lewis R California 42 Gary G. Miller R California 43 Joe Baca D California 44 Ken Calvert R California 45 Mary Bono Mack R California 46 Dana Rohrabacher R California 47 Loretta Sanchez D California 48 John Campbell R California 49 Darrell E. Issa R California 50 Brian P. Bilbray R California 51 Bob Filner D California 52 Duncan Hunter R California 53 Susan A. Davis D Colorado 1 Diana DeGette D Colorado 2 Jared Polis D Colorado 3 Scott R. Tipton R Colorado 4 Cory Gardner R Colorado 5 Doug Lamborn R Colorado 6 Mike Coffman R Colorado 7 Ed Perlmutter D Connecticut 1 John B. Larson D Connecticut 2 Joe Courtney D Connecticut 3 Rosa L. DeLauro D Connecticut 4 James A. Himes D Connecticut 5 Christopher S. Murphy D Delaware At Large John C. Carney Jr. D Florida 01 Jeff Miller R Florida 02 Steve Southerland II R Florida 03 Corrine Brown D Florida 04 Ander Crenshaw R Florida 05 Richard B. Nugent R Florida 06 Cliff Stearns R Florida 07 John L. Mica R Florida 08 Daniel Webster R Florida 09 Gus. M. Bilirakis R Florida 10 C. W. Bill Young R Florida 11 Kathy Castor D Florida 12 Dennis A. Ross R Florida 13 Vern Buchanan R Florida 14 Connie Mack R Florida 15 Bill Posey R Florida 16 Thomas J. Rooney R Florida 17 Frederica S. Wilson D Florida 18 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen R Florida 19 Theodore E. Deutch D Florida 20 Debbie Wasserman Schultz D Florida 21 Mario Diaz-Balart R Florida 22 Allen B. West R Florida 23 Alcee L. Hastings D Florida 24 Sandy Adams R Florida 25 David Rivera R Georgia 01 Jack Kingston R Georgia 02 Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. D Georgia 03 Lynn A. Westmoreland R Georgia 04 Henry C. Johnson, Jr. D Georgia 05 John Lewis D Georgia 06 Tom Price R Georgia 07 Rob Woodall R Georgia 08 Austin Scott R Georgia 09 Tom Graves R Georgia 10 Paul C. Broun R Georgia 11 Phil Gringrey R Georgia 12 John Barrow D Georgia 13 David Scott D Guam Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo D-NV Hawaii 1 Colleen W. Hanabusa D Hawaii 2 Mazie K. Hirono D Idaho 1 Raul R. Labrador R Idaho 2 Michael K. Simpson R Illinois 01 Bobby L. Rush D Illinois 02 Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. D Illinois 03 Daniel Lipinski D Illinois 04 Luis V. Gutierrez D Illinois 05 Mike Quigley D Illinois 06 Peter J. Roskam R Illinois 07 Danny K. Davis D Illinois 08 Joe Walsh R Illinois 09 Janice D. Schakowsky D Illinois 10 Robert J. Dold R Illinois 11 Adam Kinginger R Illinois 12 Jerry F. Costello D Illinois 13 Judy Biggert R Illinois 14 Randy Hultgren R Illinois 15 Timothy V. Johnson R Illinois 16 Donald A. Manzullo R Illinois 17 Robert T. Schilling R Illinois 18 Aaron Schock R Illinois 19 John Shimkus R Indiana 1 Peter J. Visclosky D Indiana 2 Joe Donnelly D Indiana 3 Marlin A. Stutzman R Indiana 4 Todd Rokita R Indiana 5 Dan Burton R Indiana 6 Mike Pence R Indiana 7 Andre Carson D Indiana 8 Larry Bucshon R Indiana 9 Todd C. Young R Iowa 1 Bruce L. Braley D Iowa 2 David Loebsack D Iowa 3 Leonard L. Boswell D Iowa 4 Tom Latham R Iowa 5 Steve King R Kansas 1 Tim Huelskamp R Kansas 2 Lynn Jenkins R Kansas 3 Kevin Yoder R Kansas 4 Mike Pompeo R Kentucky 1 Ed Whitfield R Kentucky 2 Brett Guthrie R Kentucky 3 John A. Yarmuth D Kentucky 4 Geoff Davis R Kentucky 5 Harold Rogers R Kentucky 6 Ben Chandler D Louisiana 1 Steve Scalise R Louisiana 2 Cedric L. Richmond D Louisiana 3 Jeffrey M. Landry R Louisiana 4 John Fleming R Louisiana 5 Rodney Alexander R Louisiana 6 Bill Cassidy R Louisiana 7 Charles W. Boustany Jr. R Maine 1 Chellie Pingree D Maine 2 Michael H. Michaud D Maryland 1 Andy Harris R Maryland 2 C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger D Maryland 3 John P. Sarbanes D Maryland 4 Donna F. Edwards D Maryland 5 Steny H. Hoyer D Maryland 6 Roscoe G. Bartlett R Maryland 7 Elijah E. Cummings D Maryland 8 Chris Van Hollen D Massachusetts 01 John W. Olver D Massachusetts 02 Richard E. Neal D Massachusetts 03 James P. McGovern D Massachusetts 04 Barney Frank D Massachusetts 05 Niki Tsongas D Massachusetts 06 John F. Tierney D Massachusetts 07 Edward J. Markey D Massachusetts 08 Michael E. Capuano D Massachusetts 09 Stephen F. Lynch D Massachusetts 10 William R. Keating D Michigan 01 Dan Benishek R Michigan 02 Bill Huizenga R Michigan 03 Justin Amash R Michigan 04 Dave Camp R Michigan 05 Dale E. Kildee D Michigan 06 Fred Upton R Michigan 07 Tim Walberg R Michigan 08 Mike Rogers R Michigan 09 Gary C. Peters D Michigan 10 Candice S. Miller R Michigan 11 Thaddeus G. McCotter R Michigan 12 Sander M. Levin D Michigan 13 Hansen Clarke D Michigan 14 John Conyers, Jr. D Michigan 15 John D. Dingell D Minnesota 1 Timothy J. Walz D Minnesota 2 John Kline R Minnesota 3 Erik Paulson R Minnesota 4 Betty McCollum D Minnesota 5 Keith Ellison D Minnesota 6 Michele Bachmann R Minnesota 7 Collin C. Peterson D Minnesota 8 Chip Cracaack R Mississippi 1 Alan Nunnelee R Mississippi 2 Bennie G. Thompson D Mississippi 3 Gregg Harper R Mississippi 4 Steven M. Palazzo R Missouri 1 Wm. Lacy Clay D Missouri 2 W. Todd Akin R Missouri 3 Russ Carnahan D Missouri 4 Vicky Hartzler R Missouri 5 Emanuel Cleaver D Missouri 6 Sam Graves R Missouri 7 Billy Long R Missouri 8 Jo Ann Emerson R Missouri 9 Blaine Luetkemeyer R Montana At Large Denny Rehberg R Nebraska 1 Jeff Fortenberry R Nebraska 2 Lee Terry R Nebraska 3 Adrian Smith R Nevada 1 Shelley Berkley D Nevada 2 Dean Heller R Nevada 3 Joseph J. Heck R New Hampshire 1 Frank C. Guinta R New Hampshire 2 Charles F. Bass R New Jersey 01 Robert E. Andrews D New Jersey 02 Frank A. LoBiondo R New Jersey 03 Jon Runyan R New Jersey 04 Christopher H. Smith R New Jersey 05 Scott Garrett R New Jersey 06 Frank Pallone, Jr. D New Jersey 07 Leonard Lance R New Jersey 08 Bill Pascrell, Jr. D New Jersey 09 Steven R. Rothman D New Jersey 10 Donald M. Payne D New Jersey 11 Rodney P. Frelinghuysen R New Jersey 12 Rush D. Holt D New Jersey 13 Albio Sires D New Mexico 1 Martin Heinrich D New Mexico 2 Stevan Pearce R New Mexico 3 Ben Ray Lujan D New York 01 Timothy H. Bishop D New York 02 Steve Israel D New York 03 Peter T. King R New York 04 Carolyn McCarthy D New York 05 Gary L. Ackerman D New York 06 Gregory W. Meeks D New York 07 Joseph Crowley D New York 08 Jerrold Nadler D New York 09 Anthony D. Weiner D New York 10 Edolphus Towns D New York 11 Yvette D. Clarke D New York 12 Nydia M. Velazquez D New York 13 Michael G. Grimm R New York 14 Carolyn B. Maloney D New York 15 Charles B. Rangel D New York 16 Jose E. Serrano D New York 17 Eliot L. Engel D New York 18 Nita M. Lowey D New York 19 Nan A. S. Hayworth R New York 20 Christopher P. Gibson R New York 21 Paul Tonko D New York 22 Maurice D. Hinchey D New York 23 William L. Owens D New York 24 Richard L. Hannah R New York 25 Ann Marie Buerkle R New York 26 (Vacant) - New York 27 Brian Higgins D New York 28 Louise McIntosh Slaughter D New York 29 Tom Reed R North Carolina 01 G.K. Butterfield D North Carolina 02 Renee L. Ellmers R North Carolina 03 Walter B. Jones R North Carolina 04 David E. Price D North Carolina 05 Virginia Foxx R North Carolina 06 Howard Coble R North Carolina 07 Mike McIntyre D North Carolina 08 Larry Kissell D North Carolina 09 Sue Wilkins Myrick R North Carolina 10 Patrick T. McHenry R North Carolina 11 Heath Shuler D (http://www.usconstitution.net...) Good Luck)!

18

c5ba2ffc-2019-04-18T16:06:55Z-00001-000

Should churches remain tax-exempt?

Churches Should be Taxed 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!

31

62bec489-2019-04-18T16:04:02Z-00001-000

Is obesity a disease?

Veganism is better than eating animal products It's true that we need to eat a balanced diet and that's exactly what a vegan diet is. Vegans get their protien from: beans, tofu, tempeh, seitan, lentils, buckwheat, quoina, rice, soy beans, peanut butter, and spinach(just about all foods have protien). I myself am vegan and I'm perfectly healthy and very rarely get sick nor have I never been anemic. I get my protien, iron, and calcium without trying hard at all. As for you're argument that humans have always eaten animal products, humans are not designed to eat meat. Our intestines are much longer than a carnivore's and that is why when we eat meat, it takes a long time processing and begins to rot(causes colon cancer). You said, " The only reason that vegans are healthier is because many foods in the food industry that contain too much fat or salt/sugar are often animal products." that's exactly my point so... Vegans are just overall healthier in general. Obesity in America is a health epidemic. 1 in 3 people are obese in America. In studies, countries with the higher obesity, cancer, and type 2 diabetes rates consumed more SAD(standard American diet) food like meat and animal products than other countries did such as plant based islands. Cholesterol rates are extremely low compared to SAD eaters. When you"re on a plant based diet you get a minimum of cholesterol because plants and fruits don"t have any! Heart disease and cancer are at a bare minimum because plant based foods don"t alter hormones in your cells or clog your arteries because they don"t naturally contain high levels of fats accept for avocados and such that have the healthy fats. Another point that you made was, if people eat the "proper amount of food" they will be healthier. If by this you mean eating less, I eat at least 8 bananas for breakfast and I'm healthier than a large majority of population. Transferring to a vegan lifestyle is not hard. Meat can be substituted for veggie burgers like Boca burgers, milk can be substituted for soy or almond milk, butter for Earth Balance butter, cheese for soy cheese like Daiya, even mayonnaise can be made vegan. Veganism makes you feel good too, not just because you're healthier but because you know that your food doesn't have a mom. The vegan lifestyle is cruelty-free and that should be reason enough. For starters, milk is a product of rape. Cows are impregnated by the farmer injecting them with bull semen. Just a few hours after giving birth, calves are torn away from their mothers and if they're female they become property of the dairy industry or if they're male they are sent to a veal farm and kept in cages to keep their meat tender. Does this sound right? Eating meat is consuming rotting, decaying flesh from a sweet, harmless animal. So if you want to be healthy and if you have any ethics at all, veganism is the way to go.

49

6cbdf87a-2019-04-18T17:46:54Z-00000-000

Should body cameras be mandatory for police?

Homework should be mandatory. Many children these days want to pursue their dreams in his or her individual lives. If a student can truly understand and connect with a subject, they will go out and learn more about it on their free time because it interests them. By forcing high amounts of homework, teachers are forcing their students to like everything. That sounds an awful lot like communism to me. There won't ever be anybody out there who enjoys doing everything in life. Another main fact is that homework does not at all improve the grade a student gets on the test. There have been accurate studies that support this idea. So what is the point of wasting the children's time on what they won't be doing for the rest of their lives when they can be doing what they love?

1

2345fbf4-2019-04-18T14:09:46Z-00004-000

Should teachers get tenure?

Teachers Should be Paid More You have argued that more funding should be allocated to teachers in order for them to achieve more of their goals and yet more than enough funds have been allocated to the education department for that purpose. In such countries as Zimbabwe, some kids dont even have a clue as to what a computer looks like and yet they have the highest literacy rate in Africa. Now if you compare the funding of the United States to that of Zimbabwe you find that we actually have an excess of funds and there really arent any needs to match those. Why should government waste resources on satisfying contented wants of the teachers. There is no need to augment the wages of the teaching staff. What they do is out of passion and not the love of money. So what if Floyd is earning $83k per sec. Its his job to wow the millions of enthusiasts that watch across the world and these enthusiasts also include a sizeable number of teachers...He is bringing in a large volume of foreign revenue through boxing yet the teacher is bringing nothing more than boredom to a small uninterested class. If a teacher would get as much as an engineer, who do you think would want to go to varsity for some challenging task when you can just get a teaching degree in college and get just as much cash..clearly this motion does not stand

42

d81957dd-2019-04-18T11:36:08Z-00001-000

Should fighting be allowed in hockey?

should homework be allowed i dont think so beacuse why do we spend 7 to 8 hours in school and then having to homework

30

80557bcd-2019-04-18T18:20:37Z-00002-000

Should adults have the right to carry a concealed handgun?

Concealed carry laws decrease crime Obsv1:I agree to these. I believe most states have a shall issue though. C1: Violence does not decreaseMy opponents main claim here is guns kill, therefore conceal carry permit holders kill. Now, his main claim is that all conceal carry permit holders are dangerous. I dont want to run down the list o states, but will name 3:Florida - 0.01% rate of people taking the permit away (government revoking it), of those 0.01%, the huge majority was walking onto restricted areas. Indiana - 0.25% revocation rate, none of the revocations involved violent crimeMichigan - 0.1% revocation rate. Only one involved murder, but the murder did not involve a gun. And 3 accidentally discharged a gun, no one was hurt. [1]My opponents claim only works if he can totally link conceal carry to a portion of gun violence, this is imposable. You find conceal carry permit holders save lives, and not destroy them. Now, my opponents argument is irrelevant unless he links it to his C2. My opponent then continues to the liberal what if argument, not to be rude, but it gets old. The arguments on what IF they fight and shoot one another, well guess what? Since 1977 it has NEVER happened, not once. [2] Your argument fails as conceal carry permit holders are more law abiding then the average citizen,[1] and it has never happened. [2] You might claim "what if it does", that is nearly statistically impossible, and even if it happens once or twice, we must ask if it kills more people then it takes away, it does not, it saves more lives, and it takes away none. Your argument fails on a factual basis. Also, you cite marijuana, if you are caught intoxicated with your gun you are arrested. Not to mention it never has happened.[2]C2: Lott's research is not enough My opponent claims one study is not enough, note I cited 3 studies earlier. He essentially forces a counter study, which is a viable refutation, but does not work. He claims his data was small, yet he had the largest study ever done on it, 1977 - 1997, then 1997 - 2000, then 2000-2010, then he compiled the data. [1] If you read his work, he used the LARGEST data set and the MOST data, whereas other studies continually cut out data. [1]My opponent then cites the famous crack problem, this would increase crime preternatural causes, but in states that had CCW laws there was less of a rise, and some still decreased. Now, the argument also fails as his study went also through 1997, hence does not even refute his data. A study done by Plassman, looks into the viability of the study (finds Lott's work 100% correct), Plassman does the job for Lott in refuting the drug question, and actually notes the Lott study did account for the crack variables. They used dummy variables, that likely make the results evade that problem. Also, your quote does little to explain how cocaine would ruin the results, as if that was true there should be an increase of crime, but Lott found a decrease, hence the argument fails, helps my side as it shows CCW prevailed even under drug increases. Further, the book I am using of Lott is a newer edition, that uses new data from other studies as well that do account for the cocaine usage. [1] So, really, your argument fails to refute Lott. Now one can conclude the Lott data is totally accurate.More evidenceHe uses the most bias source, violence policy center, to explain the results. He thinks more guns = more crime and suicides. First it is not true CCW always increases the gun count, as many go to the training. Second, the training these people get teaches them how to store them properly, and lastly many permit holders have their gun with em 24/7, your argument fails. So, my opponent mainly claims I am ignoring the cost of gun violence. I admit guns are in violence, but you miss the point. CCW laws do not really kill people, they save lives time and time again. [1] You keep citing gun violence, but never prove CCW laws are responsible or even a part of it, hence your arguments are invalid. Summary (different data): http://www.debate.org...CONCLUSION:My empirical data was never refuted, so vote PRO[1] Lott, John R. "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws." 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010.[2] Snyder, Jeffery R. "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun." CATO, 22 Oct. 1997

27

f46a8e38-2019-04-18T16:41:48Z-00004-000

Should more gun control laws be enacted?

Gun Control in the United States I will provide a rebuttal and then present some alternate arguments. Pro changes their argument. In Round 1, my opponent states "strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. " Yet, now in Round 2 they say, "gun control is only a factor in reducing gun crimes. " So which is it? The first quote is what I assumed Pro's position was. The second quote is MY position. If my opponent now wishes to advocate the latter, then we both agree and this debate is now pointless. Pro misquotes my argument. My opponent states at the end of Round 2 that my position is "we shouldn't have gun laws. " This is not my position. I state very clearly in Round 1 that, "I am not opposed to regulating firearms . . . my goal is to show that merely making stricter gun laws does not by itself decrease gun violence. " Once again, if this is what my opponent now believes, we should delete this debate because we are in agreement. Facts do not speak for themselves, they require interpretation. This is why, when Pro says in Round 2, "this website was about the facts, not the reasons," they admit to not making an argument. The reasons are what we're after here. For example, if I see a person running, that is a fact – someone is running. But this fact gives me no actual understanding as to why. Is he exercising? Is he running from the police? Did the tiger escape from the local zoo? I don't know, I need to do further analysis. To make facts useful, you must analyze them. My opponent, by their own admission, does not do this. My opponent absurdly states "In Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, there are many gun laws. " Do we really think only 3% of Palestinians have access to weapons? Do we really think gun laws are enforced and followed in Afghanistan? I've been to Afghanistan, and I can tell you the answer is no. Perhaps the reason "the amount of guns purchased is low" in these countries is because people don't need to purchase them – they already have them, or they smuggle them in. And yet, according to my opponent's own sources, the murder rate in Afghanistan is still supposedly lower than America's. My opponent uses unreliable sources. I would not consider the Mack Family Blog (zeigen. com), Wikipedia, and a website that looks like a high school web design project (sunray22b. net) authorities on gun policy. There are lots of credible resources out there, I challenge Pro to use them. Now, on to some alternate arguments: More gun laws do not necessarily stop gun violence. According to the Cato Institute, the Columbine shooters broke around 20 different gun laws in order to amass the arsenal of weapons they eventually used (1). More laws didn't stop them. Maybe we need to focus on better enforcement of existing laws rather than adding new ones. According to the National Research Council 2013 report on gun violence, suicide accounts for 61% of all deaths from firearm related violence in the U. S (2). Maybe we have more of a suicide than a homicide problem. Maybe we need to look into more effective mental health programs, rather than simply more gun laws. Furthermore, stricter gun laws do not apply to people who don't follow the law anyway – criminals. Criminals are a major source of gun related crimes, and making more laws won't stop them – they will just make law abiding citizens easier targets. Although an exact number is hard to pinpoint, it is estimated that between 500,000 and 3,000,000 crimes are prevented each year by law abiding citizens using legal firearms for defense (3). Maybe we have a criminal problem, and need to focus on cleaning up crime infested areas, rather than simply more gun laws. As I hope I've made clear, I am absolutely in favor of gun control. I think we need laws and they should be well enforced. I am combating what I thought my opponent's position was – that we should enact more and stricter gun laws because it will decrease murder rates. I apologize if my opponent was looking to debate someone who thinks "we shouldn't have gun laws," but this is not my position. . http://www.cato.org... . http://www.nap.edu... . http://www.nap.edu...

3

1f29e12f-2019-04-18T19:13:12Z-00002-000

Should insider trading be allowed?

The U.S. Should allow free trade with cuba I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for the affirmation. Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be I affirm that the U. S. should allow free trade with Cuba. Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define the words: free trade, and set up a strict standard for the what is free trade and what isn't. Make it clear where to draw the line between free trade and restricted trade. These lines should be clearly distinguishable. By which standards should this debate be judged? Should judges weight the economic benefits, the political benefits, or moral reasons for doing so? Are all three completely equal? Are there any other benefits other than those already suggested? If so how do they rank with the other categories? Supporting Information - This is where you would include reasons why the United States should allow free trade with Cuba. What would the US gain politically, economically, morally, etc. from trading with such a country. The supporting information should utilize your definitions and explanations. You should clearly show why the US should allow the free trade with Cuba. As the person who created the resolution, you have the burden of proof and thus must prove, (using your definitions and explanations) along with examples factual/logical information why the protests are justifiable. You should also give your opinion on other countries that the US does not trade with such as North Korea, Iran, etc. . Should the US trade with them too? Thanks and good luck on the debate!

34

562197e9-2019-04-18T16:01:31Z-00000-000

Are social networking sites good for our society?

Social networks are beneficial to our society! "Block them.."But if I do that, then I won't have anyone left to annoy"The same thing happens when you are member of any other social group"No! Facepage and twotter are different. Everything you post, and everything you do, you do to impress EVERYONE. I expect pro did not watch the video! "It's not about bragging"RUBBISH! Everything you post is going to be read and seen by everyone, so you are must have to brag. "LOOK THAT LOOK THIS" etcetera etcetera "This is a problem caused only when we don't use social media wisely"a.k.a, 100% of us. Ole! [1] "This is not a very serious disadvantage"I will have you know that it is extremely serious! LOOK AT THIS GUYS, SHE'S WRITING OFF MY MENTAL TRAUMA AS NOTHING!!!!!!!"This is a very frequent phenomenon"GAME SET AND MATCHMost people aren't responsible enough to put those stupid measures in place. They are young, after all !!"Don't visit it. [The Labour Party facepage page]"But where will I go when I need a laugh?"I suppose that you don't like fb"Yes but I am addicted just like if I were on drugs. Oh, the struggle. [2]NOW FOR MY OWN FACTS#1 ADVERTISING IS BADYOU SAY ADVERTISING IS ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF FACEPAGE AND THAT, but I disagree. Advertising is torture that we have to endure every single day of every single one of our lives :(. NOBODY has the permission to make me feel bad about myself psychologically if I don't buy their product. [3]#2 STUDENTS ARE LIARS"% of students say they use social networking for homework, getting a 6 pack, and saving the day" - NO WAY HOSE! They are just saying that because they are addicted but do not want to feel bad about themselves! [4]#3 PEOPLE JUST BELIEVE ANY OLD RUBBISH THAT THEY SEE ON THEIR FACEPAGE FACE FEED[5]#4 ALL OF THE POINTS I MADE IN ROUND ONEPro refuted ZERO of them :) ---#5 THE LABOUR PARTY HAS FACEPAGE#6 FARMILLE PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAUMA EFFECT#7 ANNOYING PEOPLE ARE ON THERE#8 FACEBOOK CREATES BARRIERS IN THE WAY OF GENUINE SOCIAL INTERACTION#9 FACEPAGE IS ALL ABOUT AND PROMOTES AND ENCOURAGES BRAGGING#10 FACEPAGE CAUSES THE LOSS OF OUR IDENTITY ---#11 FACEPAGE MAKES PEOPLE DUMBER[5]#REFUTATIONS"INCREASE VOTER PARTICIPATION"Those people are probably really dumb and will make ill-informed decisions if the only reason they're voting is because they saw someone on their face page face feed do the same. They might even vote for the green party !! (what madness !!)"DISARM SOCIAL STIGMAS"Yeah, but for every one thing like that there's a million things that promote ignorance [6]"PROVIDES ACADEMIC RESEAR...."That's what the news is for."empower individuals to make social change"That also works the other way, as I've proven several times in this round..."GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY"Not for the average joe's pocket, though! I like people, not corporations."FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTION"You get a good amount of that in real life too !!"CATCH CRIMINALS"No, that's exposing idiocy, which is really mean and quite offensive to feminists everywhere."REDUCES RISK OF HEALTH PROBLEMS"Rubbish! Every hour staring at one of those screens causes you to lose 22 MINUTES OF YOUR LIFE !!"OFFERS TEACHERS A PLATFORM"Like a table does?**table is not a social network"OFFER A WAY FOR MUSICIANS AND ARTISTS TO BUILD AUDIENCES"i) Music is rubbish anyway, so I don't see why you're even comprehending that to be a good idea.ii) Justin Bieber was found there, that's obviously an argument against it because Justin Bieber is an absolute pratt [8]."HELP SENIOR CITIZENS FEEL MORE CONNECTED TO SOCIETY"I think you are lying because the people on my feed are 99% teenagers."HELP EMPLOYERS"Please, don't be a slave to the machine."HELP STUDENTS..."Please, refer to my earlier point in this round."SPREAD INFORMATION"Yeah, but most of the time that information is bollocks. Solar Freakin' Roadways, anyone?"ALLOW PEOPLE TO IMPROVE THEIR RELATIONSHIPS"Refer back to the video I posted a link to in the previous round. It will explain why that claim is a load of rubbish.-------------------------Right, that's it, all of her bogus claims refuted and mine still stand and I posted some more.Victory!Thank you.Sources[1] https://safely.yahoo.com...;[2] https://www.google.co.uk...;[3] http://adsoftheworld.com...;[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[5] https://www.facebook.com...[6] http://www.youtube.com...[7] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[8] Look up "Bieber" in the news

7

7ba43144-2019-04-18T13:55:58Z-00006-000

Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?

Women should be allowed to vote No rebuttals. Round 3 rebuttals Round 4 rebuttals Round 5 rebuttals and concluding statements

15

3e6f0cf1-2019-04-18T16:00:16Z-00001-000

Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?

Animals Should Be Used For Scientific or Commercial Testing. 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?

27

41674042-2019-04-18T11:21:26Z-00000-000

Should more gun control laws be enacted?

is evolution real Unfortunately, Most of the population today believe in evolution, More specifically macro-evolution. But believe me when I say that it is not because of the evidence. You will understand this concept as you read. But anyway Macro-evolution is the belief that life started as one organism and that organism reproduced and slowly developed into million of species in a process that took millions and millions of years. For example, It is believed that in the space of 2 million years, A dog can develop into a horse. A fish can develop into a bird and so on. In this round, I am going to attack the overall concept of macro-evolution from these Scientific standpoints: The details of the fossil record, Structural homology, Molecular biology, And mutualism. The Details Of The Fossil Record: Evidence Against Macro-Evolution If Macro-evolution really happened, The first place you would look for confirmation would be the fossil record. After all, If dogs did eventually give rise to horses, Then we should be able to find fossils of animals somewhere between a dog and a horse. These are called transitional forms because they represent a transition from one species and another. Unfortunately, Very few of these were ever found. And even those were highly questionable. So instead of finding the transitional forms that paleontologists thought they would find, They found mostly gaps. The core of macro-evolution argues that species give rise to species in a slow, Gradual process that takes years on top of years. But the fossil record reveals a very different story. This is the sudden emergence of entirely new species with no apparent immediate ancestors. Consider this for a moment. Macro-evolution attempts to explain the earth's past. But because we don't have anyone who lived 20 million years ago to tell us that macro-evolution happened, We have to look for data that either support or refute the idea. The first place to look for data would be the fossil record. What does it tell us? It says macro-evolution never happened. The transitional forms that would be necessary for one life form to change to another simply do not exist. If the STRONGEST piece of data to tells us that macro-evolution never happened, Scientists simply should not believe in it. Structural Homology: More evidence against macro-evolution: Now to my next argument. Structural Homology is the study of similar structures in different species. Before I explain why this is evidence against macro-evolution, It is important to understand why it was originally believed to support macroevolution in the first place. Darwin supposed that if two species shared similarities in different parts of their bodies, Then this could be evidence that there is a common ancestor. Consider this link that shows the structural homology of different species limbs. http://itc. Gsw. Edu/faculty/bcarter/histgeol/paleo2/homol1. Htm In this example, The limbs of humans and cats, And horses are actually surprisingly similar. Darwin supposed that this could be evidence that they had a common ancestor. After all, He supposed that by natural selection the original ancestor could over big blocks of time could, Give rise to many similar species. This would be exactly like people supposing that you and your brother grandson's are related because of your striking similarities. In Darwin's time, This would have been an excellent argument. How could such similar species not have a common ancestor? Well unfortunately for macro-evolutionists we know that this happens because of Mendelian genetics. You see, If structural homology was the result of common ancestry, It would show up in genetic codes in the organisms that possess similar structures. Take for example, The link I showed you of the structural homology of a human, Horse, Cat, Bat, Bird, And whales limbs. If all of these came from a common ancestor, Then the corresponding parts of their DNA should be similar. Is this the case? NO! That's not what we are dealing with. Dr. Michael Denton points out that the apparent homologous structures in different species are specified by quite different genes. He is right in this case because as scientists have studied genetics, They find that this is indeed fact. Because of this, There is absolutely no way that these could have been inherited by a common ancestor. If there was a common ancestor, Then the genes and the DNA would be somewhat similar. We know that this isn't even remotely close to the truth. Molecular Biology: Strong evidence against macro-evolution Aside from DNA, The most important molecule in the chemistry of life is a protein. All life forms have them and without them, There would be no life at all. The protein I will go into is called Cytochrome C which takes part in cellular metabolism. It is made up of a series of amino acid sequences which varies from species to species as seen below. https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/1rN6jYckpQfu3VTflNWTyj2a8g38l6L78_rYlZHHkw3Y/edit Notice in the chart each of the proteins are very similar which isn't a surprise because the protein is the same in each case. The proteins between the horse and kangaroo are nearly identical. But because of the one difference, The cytochrome C for a kangaroo will not work at all in a horse and vice versa. Proteins are made in cells according to the instructions of DNA. Thus, You are looking at the differences between specific parts of these organisms genetic code, That is the part that determines the make-up of the protein. If macro-evolution is true, Then this chart should indicate how "closely related" the two species are. If they are distantly related however, That should reflect in the chart I just showed you. Now, Let's compare the Cytochrome C amino acid sequence in several different species. Let's start with the horse and kangaroo. Percent difference: 1/11 x 100= 9. 1% difference When we compare the Cytochrome C amino acid sequence between a horse and the yeast however, There are 4 differences. 4/11 x 100= 36. 4% difference This data tells us that the kangaroo is more closely related to the horse than the yeast which makes sense from a macro-evolution point of view because according to them "complex life forms evolved from simple ones. " Well, If this were true, Than it should reflect in the next chart I show you. Check out the bacterium Rhodosprillum Cytochrome C amino acid sequence and see the percent difference it has from other species. https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/1V_4ApE6bQ7nMZE-hd16NOpJ8QBYIO8nZ2RLwlk02FtE/edit The bacterium is the simplest life form on earth. Of the organisms listed, The yeast is the next simplest life form. If it is true that complex life forms evolved from simple ones, Then the yeast should be closely related to the bacterium. That is not the case however. Of the organisms listed on the chart, The yeast actually has a 69% difference from the bacterium while the other much more complex organisms like the horse has a 64% difference. Instead of the yeast being more closely related to the LEAST complex organisms, It is actually more closely related to the MOST complex organisms. The data in the chart shows absolutely none of the evolutionary relationships that should exist if macro-evolution really happened. Mutualsim: The nail in the coffin for Macro-evolution: Today there is something called mutualism which is a close relationship between two species where both benefit. An example of this is between the oriental sweetlips and the blue streak wrasse. The Oriental sweetlips is one of the few fish that has teeth. However it must get them cleaned otherwise they would rot and fall out. So, The blue streak wrasse cleans the oriental sweetlips teeth by eating all of the plaque on it. This gives the blue streak wrasse a good meal, And at the same time, The oriental sweetlips gets its teeth cleaned, Thus causing both to benefit. Macro-Evolution states that one life form came into existence from dead matter. This process by itself is impossible but that is aside the point. For now let's just say it happened. That life form reproduced creating every species of animals we see today. In order for macro-evolution to be true, This case of mutualism would have to have come across by chance. At some point in time evolutionists would say that the sweetlips probably had no teeth but in a number of generations, Teeth began to form. In order for these teeth not to rot, The sweetlips would have to develop the instinct to seek out a fish to clean it's teeth. This instinct would have to develop at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME THE TEETH EVOLVED. But that's not enough. At the exact time these instincts evolved, The blue streak wrasse would have to INDEPENDENTLY decide to swim in the sweetlips mouth without the fear of being eaten. Remember, If these don't happen at the exact same time, The process won't work. That is just one of millions of examples of mutualism. There are just too many of these happy coincidences for evolution to be possible. Conclusion: Today there is just too much data that Macro-evolutionists completely ignore. There are a few reasons so many people believe in it today. One, If Macro-evolution is not true than you have to accept that there is a God in the equation. After all, There really isn't any other explanation other than evolution of how life originated. Accepting that evolution is false means accepting that God is real and accepting that God is real makes a claim on your life. Another reason so many people believe in evolution is because for the most part it is not allowed to be taught in high school classrooms and college classrooms. Thus, Because the idea of evolution is so universal, It is the only thing that students have to base their beliefs on. There aren't many people that believe in God these days so their only option is to put their faith in science. But those people have to understand one thing. Science will fail us, Everything in this life will. Sources in comments

46

1f1620a4-2019-04-18T11:54:27Z-00001-000

Should net neutrality be restored?

Net Neutrality Should Be Repealed 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.

33

50689d14-2019-04-17T11:47:19Z-00215-000

Should people become vegetarian?

Lawyers become uninteresting people "Why you shouldn't go to law school." Law and Letters. November 15th, 2007: "Uninterestingness. The practice of law takes so much of one's time that one can engage in few activities with the rest of one's life. It is also so stressful that one tends to obsess about it. The result is that lawyers can become very boring people, with nothing to talk about except their ugly jobs."

31

b5b096db-2019-04-18T18:54:54Z-00003-000

Is obesity a disease?

Obesity is a disease. 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.

34

ff6dab6e-2019-04-18T19:30:28Z-00000-000

Are social networking sites good for our society?

Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. To begin with, to save space, I will be using "SNS" in the place of "social networking sites". Also, I am going to refrain from copy-pasting my opponent's argument if possible, and would greatly appreciate it if any reader would refer to the appropriate part of my opponents arguments to see what I am talking about.. I would like to briefly revisit my opponent's Round 2 argument now that he has posted his sources. 1. Economical: My opponent has failed to post his source for this contention. 2. Political: The source my opponent gave barely mentions using social networking sites as a means of campaigning, but instead implies candidates are concentrating on other methods such as distributing fliers. To defend my contentions... 1."-My opponent has not given any sources to support this contention, so it should be voided. Moreover, this has a positive impact on the United States because it becomes an incentive to use the social networking sites with respect for others. When an individual has to learn the potential consequences by receiving them, it is much better." http://www.nzherald.co.nz... Here is the source, so this contention must remain in consideration. Also, it is absurd to think that danger of identity theft is positive. The devastating effect that identity theft has on peoples' lives far exceeds any caution it encourages. Furthermore, it is evident that these teens are not even using the caution that my opponent suggests they are since 4.5 million are at risk for ID theft. In addition, it should be noted that the resolution is essentially asking whether or not the US is better with the existence of social networking sites. Therefore, teaching a teen how to use these sites with respect for others is insignificant in terms of its impact. To put my refutation into perspective, say John Doe posts his birth date, phone number, and other similar things onto his Facebook page. A criminal comes along and steals John's identity, which he uses to rack of thousands and thousands of dollars in charges. Do you think that the tradeoff comes even close to equal (thousands of dollars lost for a lesson learned)? 2. "- That is an individuals choice, and the social networking site neither forces them nor hypnotizes individuals into wanting to waste 233 million hours of their time [as you so eloquently stated.] -You still have failed to give a citation for these statistic." Your first bullet point is of course true, however that is irrelevant. The hours are being wasted, at a huge cost to businesses. And actually, I did cite this statistic, but here it is again http://www.cnn.com... 3. "-Once again, you didn't give an accessible source for the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire statistic or your FBI source. Moreover, the resolution states "social networking Web sites." This is referring to the intended usage of them from creation. Therefore, [because they were not created to have underage users, or have sexual predators prey on the naive,] it is not the fault of the websites, but their irresponsible users." Here is the source for both stats - http://www.time.com... I fail to see how the resolution stating "social networking web sites" refers to the intended usage of them from creation. Obviously these sites were not created for anything negative, so there would be no chance for the Con side if your interpretation was true. The resolution is referring to any effects that are caused by social networking sites. 4. ""Also a major issue is cyber bullying..." - Again, the site was used in an inappropriate manner so it should not be blamed on the social networking site. Thank you for the link. However, the statistics do not specifically state social networking websites. However, it does say "Savvy students are using Instant Messaging, e-mails, chat rooms and websites they create to humiliate a peer." As a result, these statistics do not belong in this debate." I would like to point out my argument, which you have not even attempted to refute, that in this resolution anything on/caused by/catalyzed by these sites is relevant. Though these sites are not responsible for all cyberbullying, they are still responsible for a significant portion. Additionally, I would like to point out that the single statistic that my opponent is not my contention, the rest of my contention stands unrefuted. 5. ""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." -I would like to remind you that did not give an accessible source. Moreover, you said "Unknown." Individuals should remain responsible for themselves, and downloading unknown files is not at all responsible, which once again leads me to proclaim that social networking websites should not be held accountable for something like that." 6.""Identity theft is a big issue in social networking sites as people place their personal information on Social networking sites." - In everything in life, there is a rule of thumb. Placing extremely sensitive information is by no means in accordance to the rule of thumb concerning social networking websites. Social networking websites should not be held accountable for something like that." (I will address points 5 and 6 as one, as my opponent's refutation was nearly identical) Here is the source: http://www.ctn.org.au... Yet again I would like to direct you towards my unrefuted argument that anything on/caused by/catalyzed by these sites is relevant under the resolution Now, to refute my opponent's case. 1. Simply because 55% said that SNS have a place in the business world doesn't give any indication of its impact. Also, the fact that 55 is more than 50 means absolutely nothing. You said ""It is no longer just an outlet for personal use -- it's rapidly becoming a must for business success," says Rohrer," however, this is just a quote thrown out there. It has no evidence to back it up so I would ask for this to be discounted from consideration. In quoting Mr. Palfrey, my opponent is failing to realize that it bear little significance what theoretically should happen, only what has happened, is happening, or will happen. The reality is that these sites are not safe, no matter how much SNS want users to think that they are. Next, when my opponent refutes my argument, she ignores my point and again tries to refute my cyberbullying statistic. I have already addressed that, but seeing as my opponent has not addressed my refutation of her contention, her contention stands negated. In addition, I used common sense to point out the flaws in your contention, so I have no source. 2. You say that this must be considered when combined with the others, however this only goes to show the weakness. I am trying to show you the flaws in your contentions one by one to show you how weak your argument it, so my refutation stands. 3. They don't enhance our democracy, all they do is provide yet another place to talk. This, again, is commonly replicated all over, and as such is highly insignificant. 4. 236 members married is realistically very little. First, take into consideration that this is only 118 couples. According to http://www.cdc.gov..., 6109 couples marry every day. When the grand scheme of things is considered, eHarmony is insignificant. You have not provided any other statistics, so we must assume that all similar sites are equally insignificant. As the impact of my arguments far overwhelms the impact of my opponent's arguemnts, as well as the vast majority (if not all) of my contentions standing while my opponent's are proven to be weak

8

adc4406d-2019-04-18T15:56:15Z-00002-000

Should abortion be legal?

Abortion : Should Abortion Be Legalized Notice: my opponent accidentally said "adoption shouldn't be legalized". When voting, spelling and grammar should go to me.REBUTTALS1. Protection of the unbornThe unborn's not always gonna die2. Less people?If "criminals" have rights to their body and baby, certiainly a good citizen should have the same rights3. Death of woman? 3. Risky for the woman?When done with trained professionals, abortions are safe with little or no risks. [1]Besides, my opponent has to suggest it is better to not get an abortion rather than getting an abortion. How much people die each year getting an abortion? Again, 47,000 people die per year from NOT getting an abortion, far outweighting my opponent's vague unknown number. (See source [2] in round 1, as well as the picture below for proof) [1] http://www.reuters.com...

17

ceed40d0-2019-04-18T12:14:03Z-00003-000

Should recreational marijuana be legal?

Nazism is a more effective government than Communism Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes, Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich dem F"hrer des Deutschen Reich

5

2d6f4e75-2019-04-15T20:22:43Z-00013-000

Should social security be privatized?

Privatising social security will harm retirees As Greg Anrig and Bernard Wasow of the non-partisan think tank the Century Foundation argue: "Privatization advocates like to stress the appeal of 'individual choice' and 'personal control,' while assuming in their forecasts that everyone's accounts will match the overall performance of the stock market. But… research by Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel found that even professional money managers over time significantly underperformed indexes of the entire market."[1] Most people don't have the knowledge to manage their own investments. A Securities and Exchange Commission report showed the extent of financial illiteracy for example half of adults don't know what a stock market is, half don't understand the purpose of diversifying investments and 45% believe it provides "a guarantee that [their] portfolio won't suffer if the stock market falls"[2] Including all the management costs it is safe to say that growth from individual accounts will be lower than the market average. The private sector is therefore in no better a position to make investment decisions than the state. Privatised accounts would bring their own problems. They are vulnerable to market downturns. Despite crashes the long term return from shares has always been positive. But this does not help those that hit retirement age during a period when the stock market is down. With private pensions people would be relying on luck that they retire at the right time or happened to pick winning stocks.[3] The economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, privatizers make incredible assumptions about the likely performance of the market in order to be able to justify their claim that private accounts would outdo the current system. The price-earnings ratio would need to be around 70 to 1 by 2050. This is unrealistic and would be an immense bubble as a P/E ratio of 20 to 1 is considered more normal today.[4] If returns are low then there the added worry that privatized social security may not beat inflation. This would mean that retiree's pensions become worth less and less. At the moment Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation so providing protection.  Privatizing social security would have a big impact on those who want to remain in the system through falling tax revenues.  Implementing private accounts will take 4 per-cent of the 12.4 per-cent taken from each worker's annual pay out of the collective 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.[5] It is for reasons such as these that privatization of similar social security systems has disappointed elsewhere, as Anrig and Wasow argue: "Advocates of privatization often cite other countries, such as Chile and the United Kingdom, where the governments pushed workers into personal investment accounts to reduce the long-term obligations of their Social Security systems, as models for the United States to emulate. But the sobering experiences in those countries actually provide strong arguments against privatization. A report last year from the World Bank, once an enthusiastic privatization proponent, expressed disappointment that in Chile, and in most other Latin American countries that followed in its footsteps, "more than half of all workers [are excluded] from even a semblance of a safety net during their old age.""[6] Therefore privatizing Social Security would actually harm retirees and undermine the entire system, and so Social Security should not be privatized. [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] Office of Investor Education and Assistance Securities and Exchange Commission, 'The Facts on Saving and Investing', April 1999, http://www.sec.gov/pdf/report99.pdf pp.16-19 [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 [6] 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

40

41272f07-2019-04-18T18:31:56Z-00001-000

Should the death penalty be allowed?

Death penalty "Lol you argue what is happening now. Also it was implied the current system is used in this debate." My opponent has failed to explain why any kind of death penalty should be abolished. My opponent did not specify before the debate started that the topic of death penalty was only limited to its current use in the United States. My opponent wishes to make known of his intentions AFTER the debate started. I find this to be an irresponsible condition opposed upon me by my opponent because I accepted this debate only on the conditions of which were supplied at the time of acceptance. At the time, I was accepting the position of 'Pro' for A death penalty. Notice how neither the title of the debate nor anything written in the comments section before the debate started includes anything specific that says "Resolved: The current death penalty system instituted in the United States should be abolished". I am within my bounds to be arguing for a death penalty, not THE death penalty. In this case, I would like to supply some definitions: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Death - a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life [1] Penalty - 1. A legal sentence. 2. A punishment for violating rules of procedure. [2] Punish - to subject to pain, loss, confinement, death, etc., as a penalty for some offense, transgression, or fault: to punish a criminal. [3] Voluntary - done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice: a voluntary contribution. [4] Recidivism - the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been treated or trained to extinguish that behavior. [6] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The definition of a death penalty can be construed from the definitions above as a legal sentence subjecting a person to death. My stance on the subject of a death penalty is that a death penalty should remain in the United States, but it should be entirely different than the current death penalty. A decision to undergo the death penalty should be a voluntary choice made by a convict who would have the option of life in prison or death. I have no doubt that a portion of criminals sentenced to life in prison would rather opt for the death penalty than a life sentence. This is evident by the fact that a large number of murder-suicides occur in the United States in which after a person commits murder, they take their own life. The source and evidence for this argument is listed in the first round of the debate. R1: Cost "SO your "the defendant chooses" is false. The judge in the end chooses, defendant just gets to plea to try to weaken the sentence." It is most definitely not false. In a voluntary death penalty, the defendant WOULD be able to choose. Remember, the argument is not about the current US death penalty, but is about A death penalty. So it is the trial itself under the DP that is expensive. That is what I have said all along. A voluntary death penalty would eliminate the bulk of the cost that it takes to execute a criminal because the legal appeals process which costs the most money would be eliminated. The appeals process exists because convicts who are fighting the state do not want to receive the death penalty. The people who would fight the death penalty in the future would not be sentenced to the death penalty in a voluntary death penalty, they would be sentenced to life in prison, therefore eliminating the appeals process in death penalties that costs the most amount of money in the current death penalty in the US. Also you concede that the DP costs more. I stated that the current death penalty costs more. A voluntary death penalty would cost so much less than the current death penalty, and would cost less than life in prison simply because the costs for food, health and shelter would amount to $0 after the criminal is executed. The states would actually save $1.5 million in living costs per convict if the convict opts for the voluntary death penalty over life in prison [5]. R2: The death penalty does not deter crime. The act of deterring crime is not the primary purpose of creating and enforcing rules for punishing lawbreakers. Fantastic. Then if deterrence isn't a major issue in deterring crime, then why are you debating that the death penalty doesn't deter crime if any other form of punishment isn't made to deter crime either? If the sole purpose of rules of law aren't even made to deter crime, you have just defeated your own argument. You make it seem that deterrence is a negligible issue. R3: The DP infringes international law. I agree with your statements on the current death penalty. But not all death penalties would violate this law. A voluntary death penalty would allow a convict to have more personal liberties than the current death penalty and a convict would also have the right to life or death based on his choice. R4: Risk of executing innocents I fail to see how an innocent person would want to opt for death under a voluntary death penalty. Even so, it's a person's right to life or death and a government shouldn't be infringing on 'international law' that you cite in this debate because it would infringe on liberty of the person to govern their own body. R5: Death sentences are racist and unfair "Lol you argue what is happening now. Also it was implied the current system is used in this debate." Like I said above, I am arguing for A death penalty, not the current death penalty. You did not specify that as a condition of the debate when I accepted the debate. Therefore you MUST convince the voters that the United States would be better off without a death penalty, and I am convincing the voters that the United States would be better with A death penalty. Notice that the topic is simply 'Death Penalty' and that you did not provide any additional information to what your resolution was for the debate. Therefore I am obligated to argue within my bounds, and my bounds are that I am arguing for a Death Penalty in the United States. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In conclusion, the United States would be better off with a voluntary death penalty than without one at all. - It would be cheaper than life imprisonment by saving 1.5 million dollars per inmate. - It would give the convict the right to make a decision on their continuation of life. - It would eliminate the possibility of the criminal from being released back into society and committing recidivism. Voters: Because the debate resolution later admitted by my opponent was not provided at the beginning of the debate, I strongly urge you to base your decision on who convinced you more on the argument that a death penalty of some kind is better or worse than any kind of death penalty at all. I hope that after reviewing all of the debate, you make the right decision and vote Pro! :) Sources: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://en.wiktionary.org... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://dictionary.reference.com... 5. http://www.heartsandminds.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org...

9

debd317e-2019-04-18T16:46:28Z-00004-000

Should students have to wear school uniforms?

Uniforms at School! I ask voters to please enjoy the following debate. I will admit that I did not quote his every word. If I did so I would not have been able to type a proper response. However I did respond to his every point. So without further ado: Refutations: "Uniforms ensure equality among students. If children wear uniforms then they cannot be judged by what they wear" Then the bullies would likely find a new thing to give them shame about. How do we know it wouldn't be a worse thing? And what about weekends? As you even said: "After all, students can always wear whatever they want on the weekends. Weekends are for students to do what they want" This directly shows that on weekends, the bullies are able to bully the students who wear odd clothing. In fact, by doing this you are increasing the bulling because you have just encouraged the bullies to find a new flaw in that student. I fail to find this a better way to ensure equality. "Uniforms make students less self-conscious of their appearance. Students would not have to have to stand in front of the mirror for half an hour every morning to decide if their outfit is good enough or what outfit to wear. This argument can be applied to many students, especially girls" 1. Not even a shred of evidence is shown to assert that students stand in front of a mirror for half of an hour every morning. 2. His reasoning in this section does not support even his original argument, that students would not be self conscience about appearances. Only support for an argument that it would save time. 3. Even if we assumed his argument is complete, students would still feel rather ridiculous in uniforms. If a student is sad about there appearances in clothing they have chosen and bought, why would a uniform make them feel less self conscience? "It shows signs of respect and politeness. You show respect to your school and teachers when you wear uniforms" There are different ways to respect your school. I can respect America, but I do not have to wear a giant flag every day to prove it. Why would it be wrong for a student to show respect in another way, or have a neutral viewpoint on the school? "Uniforms save money. When you only have to wear two outfits a week that aren't your school uniform, you can have a more limited selection of clothing. " This would be showing that students do not buy any other articles of clothing. I yet again quote: "After all, students can always wear whatever they want on the weekends. " Pro is saying students will not wear uniforms when the week ends. We will obviously need more clothing for that student. The real major problem with this though is the average cost of a uniform is $249. Remember, this is being added on to regular clothing costs and expenses. [1] "Uniforms enforce discipline. If there are uniforms then everybody will be dressed appropriately. This would give teachers one less thing to worry about" Why would students be more compelled to wear a uniform than they would to follow the dress code? "Making all children wear school uniforms would make them put more focus on school work" Where in your sources does it say this? "Today, many students wear one pair of jeans, one t-shirt, and one sweater per day and wash seven pairs of all three items every day. Students wouldn't have 5 uniforms (one for each school day) and as a result, a lot of water would be saved. " Students do not wear 7 outfits per a day my friend. With a uniform however, a student would be forced to wash at the very minimum once every other day. Which would be a big waste, considering they would have little to wash. "Some studies show that school uniforms might help attendance and graduation rates. Studies show that having students wear uniforms would help them get through school" My only rebuttal to this is that often times those are more wealthy schools if they have uniforms. Private schools for example. Could you determine somehow in what schools this was conducted in? In may just be a different curriculum, or rather a false cause. "People's lives must have some limits" The religious people are not allowed to where religious articles of clothing? A dress code is a more practical limit, as it allows these things. "This is true. People are often judged by how they dress. If a student is dressed neatly and has clean clothes every day then teachers may think differently of that student than they would think of somebody who constantly has sagging jeans and dirty clothes" He does not present a rebuttal on how it is justified. The argument stands. Conclusion: Uniforms tend to cause more harm than good, as shown in arguments. Vote Con. Thank You. [1] . http://www.statisticbrain.com...