Question: Should insider trading be allowed?

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

Title: Israeli Involvement in 9/11 Content: 1] first of all my opponent has to prove two things:a] the jewish firm in wall street know beforehand that the respective airlines will be used for attack.b] insider trading is illegal everywhere. my opponent has to prove that the jewish firm is doing insider trading.after proving these 2 facts he can say that the jewish firm know about attack beforehand.2] mosad agents are happy for the same reason natanyahu was happy. america is going to attack arabs now. this do not prove that mosad is involved in this massacre.3] natanyahu's expression does not show that he is involved in this attack. if today similar attack is caused by pakistan or china in the U.S., india and indians will be very happy. but that does not prove that india is involved in the attack.4] you say amdocs are tapping your phone calls. how do you know that? what are the evidence you have that lead you to this conclusion? there are many reason why radios went down during the attack.5] presence of spy ring of a foreign country is a very normal matter. in israel, CIA network was there. in india both CIA and mosad network works. so this is no danger signal.6] only U.S. govt. can explain why it announce 19 perpetrator? what happened?see my opponent has no proof supporting his claim. so i win.

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

Title: Honest and poor is better than being dishonest and rich Content: Thank you for instigating this debate.As Con, I will argue that being dishonest and rich is better than being honest and poor.But first, let's refute what Pro has said.Honesty is a really important quality in a person considering that now a days everybody lies. This is a contradiction. How can a person have honesty if everybody lies? You can't have both. How can someone be honest when everyone is dishonest? This just doesn't make sense. Please pick one.On the other hand comes the poor vs. rich factor. Money comes and goes.This really depends on how you spend your money. If you save your money, the money will only come and never go. Please elaborate further.In the industry, if a person is "dishonest" they aren't going to be making as much money as they would be if they were being "honest."That is not true. Let's look at insider trading. http://www.google.ca...Insider trading is when you have connections with a company, and know what is happening within the company before the public does, giving you an advantage. This is a dishonest practice but can make you lots more money than if you were honest. Or we can look at theft. Theft is a dishonest practice. But if you rob the right places, you can make more money in a day than most people make in a year. Dishonesty makes you much more money than being honest.That person will never be trusted with anything, money, jobs, or any kind of responsibility and money can only bring so much happiness.First, you don't need to be trusted with money when you have millions of dollars sitting in the bank, nor do you need a job. And second, money can buy happiness. What makes you happy? Whatever makes you happy, you can buy. For example, cars, houses, etc.If a person is honest, they can always be trusted and although they would be poor, money will come to those who deserve and earn it most. This does not always happen. This was the whole basis for the occupy protests. Many people are honest workers, like a construction worker. These people are paid minimum wage. Compare this to a CEO who practices insider trading and frauds. He would make more in a day than these people would make in their life time. Therefore, money does not come to those who deserve and earn it most.Now, let's get into arguments. C.1: Worry FreeWhen you have millions sitting in the bank, you have no more worries. You don't worry about oh, will I have enough money for my next bill? Enough money for food next week? etc. You always have enough money. You never need to worry about money problems again. In fact, almost all problems are a result of money. You can live a worry free life just by living off the interest for the rest of your life.Furthermore, who recognizes your honesty anyways? It's not like someone will reward you for being honest. There is really no point in being honest. You might get friends, true, but with so much money, you can easily "buy" friends. Any benefit that can result from you being poor is also prevalent in you being rich. Therefore there is no benefit to being poor.Also, when you are poor, you meet a lot of issues in life. You would not be able to live a lavish and carefree lifestyle as someone who is rich.Therefore, it is much better to be dishonest and rich than honest and poor.

Title: Israeli Involvement in 9/11 Content: 1] insider trading in jewish owned firms on wall street is a very common thing in any firm on wall street. it has no relation with 9/11 attack.2] it may be a coincidence.3] Netanyahu does not mean that blasting america is good for israel. he means that after the blast america will take revenge against arabs who are the worst enemy of israel. thats why he said so.4] in case of amdocs there is need for further investigation.5] it may be a coincidence again.6] let the us govt. explain the matter.look all these points may be coincidence unless proved contrarary. there is a strong need of more probing in 9/11 case. especially obama should do this investigation.

Title: candy Content: candy should by allowed or not

Title: Rehabilitation Has Greater Regard For the Offender Content: Crime is not pathology, it is not the product of circumstance, and it is certainly not the product of coincidence. As the case of Husng Guangyu shows, despite being Chinas richest man he still committed crimes involving illegal business dealing, insider trading and bribery and was then sentenced to 14 years. This was rightly given in order as a just punishment for the cost of the crimes he had committed and to deter others from such practices.[1] Crime is the result of choices made by the individual, and therefore the justice system must condemn those choices when they violate society’s rules. To say otherwise (i.e. to say that criminals are merely the product of their unfortunate circumstances) would be an insult to human autonomy - the liberalist idea that our judicial system is based on, in saying that individuals are given the power to make their own decisions freely and this should be interfered with in as little as possible. It would be to deny the possibility of human actors making good decisions in the face of hardship. Retributivism alone best recognises the offender’s status as a moral agent, by asking that he take responsibility for what he has done, rather than to make excuses for it. It appeals to an inherent sense of right and wrong, and in this way is the most respectful to humanity because it recognises that persons are indeed fundamentally capable of moral deliberation, no matter what their personal circumstances are. [1] Jingqiong, Wang and Zhu Zhe, ‘Former richest man gets 14 years in prison’, China Daily, 19 May 2010.

Title: Cannibalism should be legalised Content: I am honored to be your opponent. First off all As with any food product that is being sold there has to be regulations around trading human meat as well. Most of them will be similar to the ones used for other meats already. To them there must be added some more that are listed bellow. *All operations regarding human meat sourcing , processing and selling it will be handled by a state-owned company (lets call it Humancorp) :-D. *No meat shall be allowed to be consumed that is sourced from a human that is still alive. *No Human is allowed to pre-sell his body as meat. *No human meat shall be sold that has being sourced from individuals that have being killed with the intend of selling the flesh. *All human meat being traded must be sourced from volunteers or be donated/sold to Humancorp by his closest relatives. A protocol that is similar to the one used for organ transplants will be followed. *The identity of the donor as well as the identity of the costumer of the meat must be confidential. *Human carcasses can be donated or sold to Humancorp. Humancorp can decide on prices potential processing and distribution of the meat as it sees fit as long as it adheres to the appropriate food safety regulations. *A protocol will be developed with which each human carcass will be individually evaluated in terms of safety of consumption (such protocols already exist for other meats). About the Health concerns. Human carcass and human meat consumption is a big health risk in terms of spreading diseases. However science has advanced so much that we can now safely remove parts of the body from one human and place it directly inside another human safely without any type of disinfection (transplants). Compared to that consuming of safety human flesh in terms "that is intended to be cooked and digested and not inserted directly in the body" should be fairly easy with the knowledge the food industry has about safe meat handling. Consuming human meat is a taboo. However there is no obvious reason to enforce this taboo by law. On the other hand legalizing and regulating a human meat can have positive results. *There may be a huge market of human meat out there that can prove a significant source of revenue for the state. Such an opening of human meat market will also offer even more benefits to society such as *Give to the citizens the option to assist their loved ones financially even in death. *Allow people willing to consume human meat the option to do so. With cannibalism in modern society everybody wins :-).

Title: 9/11 was an inside job Content: My opponent has changed the entire resolution. I have shown a way in which the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. HOWEVER, now my opponent wants me to prove that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned by US government insiders. Insider is not the word used in the resolution. The adjective version of "Inside" on Merriam-Webster does not include anything that means it is done or planned by insiders. I gave the most relevant of the definitions. http://www.merriam-webster.com... You'll have to click down to the adjective version. You'll see that the definition I gave was the relevant one. My opponent has not given another definition of inside, just a definition of insider. However, the definition of inside did not mention anything about "insiders." I have given my case, hopefully people will see it for what it is.

Title: Google+ Hangout Debate: Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights Content: Resolved: Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights Good debate, Lars. Hope to do a good one on Insider Trading in a few days. Debate ends at 45:30. Feel free to skip through the prep time periods. Pro/Affirmative: Wallstreetatheist (blue shirt and Americanish)Con/Negative: larztheloser (black sweatshirt and New Zealandish--think Flight of the Conchords)http://www.youtube.com...;

Title: In the event of major abuses of power it should be the public that holds politicians to account. Content: These mechanisms are not immediate enough to put an immediate stop to an aberrant behavior. Impeachment proceedings take months at least; elections may be years away; and reputational damage is even more long-term. Moreover, these punishments are nowhere near a sufficient deterrent. If loss of one’s job, and damage to one’s public image were sufficient deterrents, we would not prosecute business leaders for insider trading, nor celebrities for drunk driving. The fact is that a criminal justice system which punishes everyone equally is not just fair; it’s also a practical method of achieving meaningful deterrence. Finally, even if we are willing to settle for one of these lesser punishments, the threat of a great punishment gives prosecutors leverage to strike deals with the politicians, such as offering not to prosecute in exchange for coming forward with the details of misdeeds.

Title: Emissions trading wrongly allows companies to buy right to pollute Content: "The Case Against Carbon Trading". Rising Tide. Mar. 2002 - "Carbon Trading IS an Excuse to Avoid Real Emissions Reductions. The hopelessly compromised Kyoto Protocol now allows countries to meet all their emissions reductions with carbon credits bought through three forms of carbon trading; Joint Implementation, Clean Development Mechanism, International Emissions Trade. Some countries will certainly choose to buy credits rather than make any serious attempt to reduce their underlying dependency on fossil fuels."

Title: The United Kingdom should leave the European Union Content: Britain is currently at a cross-roads, whether to continue to restrain itself with the ties of the European Union or to free itself and allow Britain to return to being a major player in the world. Now the main question is how does the European Union restrain the UK? Economically: First of all the astronomical membership fees, which currently make up 10% of our GPD at a cost of "129 bn (2009) [1], have a heavy burden on the British Government and tax player. But of course we do receive money back from the EU but despite this Britain is still of a net loss of "8.107 bn (2013-2014) [2]. However this money we are given back can only be spent on what the EU dictates, demonstrating a loss of power in Westminster. This leads to a simple question: Can, when public services are being cut left right and centre, the government afford these costs? We then come to the question of trade, what advantages has the UK gained from the EU? Well according to the reputable think-tank Civitas which reports "EU membership has not given the UK any insider advantages" [3]. So we are paying billions upon billions of pounds for a system which does not give us advantages within it. Moreover it is fact that Britain imports more than in exports within the EU and moreover the trade gap has risen by 68% from 2008 [4]. The implications of this are then the EU and it's member states are very reliant on British trade, for example Germany makes up 28% of British imports [4]. It is then ludicrous to suggest at all that trade or British jobs will be damaged by UK withdrawal. In fact the UK is likely to benefit from leaving the EU as it would be able to secure free trade agreements with emerging economies like Brazil and established economies like China, which currently the EU hinders. This idea is reinforced by the fact that the UK exports to non-EU countries has risen by 30% [5]. Therefore it is clear that Britain can survive and in fact become stronger, economically, independent form the EU and that the UK has been economically restrained by the EU. Legally: There is much debate on how much of UK law was from the EU as quotes vary from Nick Clegg's 7% to Nigel Farage's 70% however from research it would seem that 'between 15% to 50%' of laws/regulations are made by the EU [6]. This is showing that since the Britain joined a free trade agreement the EU has continually become more interfering and has transformed into something that the British public did not vote for. Furthermore this regulation which is imposed onto British businesses and British citizens is not from democratic means the president and so-called 'cabinet' is appointed and these are the people which decided what the MEP's will discuss. The EU has a heart tainted with autocracy covered in a democratic shell. Demonstrating that the EU restrains the United Kingdom legally. Immigration: Now I will be very careful here as I do not want this debate to become centralise about the pros and cons of immigration as I think me and my opponent can both agree that there are both advantages and disadvantages to immigration. However there are many problems with immigration within the EU as it is unchecked and there is no way for Britain to control its borders, linking back to how the Westminster has ceded more power. However I find a central issue is that the EU policy of free travel forces Britain to discriminate against those people from across the globe. This then leads to a question I would much like my opponent to answer: What entitles someone from Poland, France or Germany more rights to live in Britain than someone from America, India or China? Also as the EU has allowed memberships to countries only just recovering from the strains of communism and due to Britain's generous welfare and NHS it becomes a very attractive offer to citizens of these countries. Increasing the pressure on already strained public services. This then could explain the rise of net migration to the UK to 212,000 (2013) [7] and shows that the EU policy of immigration restrains the United kingdom's public services. As an extra point I look like to mention that UKIP's success in the European elections shows, with 72% of Britons are not attached to the EU [8], that there is a increasing Eurosceptic trend within the UK. Surely if this feelings continue to grow the UK should leave solely on democratic means. [1] . https://www.gov.uk... [2] . https://www.gov.uk... [3] . http://www.bbc.co.uk... [4] . https://www.gov.uk... [5] . https://www.gov.uk... [6] . https://fullfact.org... [7] . http://www.bbc.co.uk... [8] . http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Title: Resolved: free trade should be valued above protectionism Content: I'm sorry that my opponent has missed her round. Traditionally, I would skip to allow the debate to remain even, but I will go ahead and restate my last round in a more LD format (one must forgive me, I've never done LD, and so I'm not too familiar with the format, if you must, you can cite that conduct point against me for not knowing the proper format of which was agreed). My opponent says that "free trade is benefitial for the customers," but I have to ask. How is allowing untested mediciene in come into the hands of our people benefiting them? How is allowing foods with no ingredent list so that customers can make an informed decision benefiting them? How is allowing toys that may not be safe, and have no warning about not being safe, benefiting parents (the customers)? I will just add these as my questions (which apparently I need for an LD debate, according to Wiki) and use my last round as my negative construct. Though I am probably still doing something wrong.

Title: Market mechanisms such as carbon trading allow the greatest reduction in emissions at the least cost... Content: Market mechanisms like carbon trading can act as a way for the rich countries historically responsible for causing climate change to avoid their responsibilities. By allowing developed countries and their businesses to purchase carbon offsetting credits in the developing world, they can effectively export their obligation to reduce carbon emissions. This is not morally justifiable as the problem was largely created by developed nations, so they should be required (by regulations) to make sacrifices to deal with it. Furthermore, as such market systems often trade virtual carbon reductions, whereby schemes in the developing world are meant to prevent increases in emissions which might otherwise have taken place, they do not reduce the actual amount of carbon emitted into the earth’s atmosphere. Questions have also been raised about the potential for fraud and corruption in many carbon offset schemes in the developing world.

Title: The attacks on September 11th of 2001 were not commited by the United States Government Content: I have presented facts to prove 9/11 was an inside job. The U.S government was warned 40 times of Osama Bin Laden flying planes into buildings in New York. There was insider trading done on the two airline companies whose planes were part of these attacks. Also, months before 9/11 shoot down orders were put in the hands of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush. It used to be in the hands of the colonels of the Air Force bases. Then on 9/11 these colonels couldn't shoot down these planes. In fact an aid warned Cheney of the plane that was going to hit the Pentagon when it was 50 miles out and then again when it was 30 miles out. Cheney then told the aid the stand down order was still on. We still have to see clear evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon too. You accuse me of disrespecting victims too. Many of the victims families believe the government did 9/11 too. We have never indicted Bin Laden either because we have no hard evidence to prove of him doing this. The first source below also has many experts who think it was an inside job. Witnesses won't say it was an inside job because if they did the government would harshly punish them. Sources: http://www.zerohedge.com... http://www2.gwu.edu... http://www.9-11commission.gov... https://m.youtube.com...

Title: The U.S. Should allow free trade with cuba Content: Thank you!

Title: Should Same-Sex Marriage be legal in The USA Content: Also a disclaimer, I am Pro for homosexual couples being allowed to marry but I'm looking to see if I can argue the Con side. But now on to my oppopnent's arguments. A1: We are all people in this world. On A1, my opponent argues that because the right is given to a man and a woman who wish to be married, there is no reason why it should not be given to a man and a man or a woman and a woman. He asks, ""what is the difference between a man who is gay, and another man who is straight? "" Well for starters one is straight and the other is gay. This might be the only difference but it is the only one that matters in this debate. The reason that a man and a man to not have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples could best be argued in an analogy. In the United States it is recognized that a woman has a right to an abortion. A woman has this right specifically because the fetus grows insider her body and because she has authority over what is done to her body. In other words, she has the right because she is a woman and her body functions how a woman's typically would. Men consequently, do not have the right to an abortion because the fetus does not grow in their body and so they do not have personal autonomy over it. This simple fact is the very reason that a man is not afforded the right to an abortion. So while technically a man is not given the right to an abortion because of his gender, it is not sexist because the gender is specifically what is taken into account when assigning this specific right. So the context in which an abortion can take place is what assigns who is given that right. We can lookat this example and apply it to marriage to see who has the right to be married. But first we should define what marriage is. Marriage: a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife[1]This is how marriage is defined by the American legal system. So for the same reason that a man does not have the right to an abortion, a homosexual couple does not have the right to become a married couple. A2: Same-Sex Marriage on the U. S. economyThis point is mostly irrelevant. Gay marriage is a moral issue, not an economic one. Just because something could help the economy does not mean that it should be pursued. A3: Reputation of AmericaThe United States should not make public policy decisions purely based on the opinion of other countries. Perhaps legalizing same-sex marriage would our countrie's reputation but it is a moral issue and the United States should make the decision based on rational moral arguments. I have successfully refuted my opponent's three contentions and in doing so have brought up an argumet agaist same-sex marriage. Vote Con! [1] . http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Title: The US Government should not allow failing financial institutions to go bust. Content: With thanks to my opponent for his continued interest in this debate, I should like to respond as follows: My opponent wrote: "The "spivs" you speak of are the guys who keep us out of the next Great Depression. If they don't have money, they won't invest, and the economy will bust, permanently. They need money so they can get our money back." Not all investment bankers are spivs, but many are. The way the markets and annual bonus systems are organised encourages traders to undertake deals that have the potential to make short-term profits but are not necissarilly beneficial to the long-term interests of their companies or, indeed, to the wider economy. A good example of this is short-selling, whereby a broker borrows shares he doesn't own and sells them later at a lower price, thus making a profit. It is, therefore, in his interest to talk the share price down and bankers often do this by spreading false rumours around the trading floors. This way, an unscrupulous trader (and in the world of de-regulated capitalism, ethical traders are, indeed, a rare commodity!) makes a profit from other peoples' misery. That's why the Fed have suspended the practice and why the FBI have been sent in to investigate a large number of suspected dodgy traders. The money they have gambled and lost in unwise trades was savers', pensioners' and investors'. Now they want the taxpayer to throw good money after bad. If Congress refuses to hand over the cash, banks might go belly-up, but their business dealings would be taken up by more scrupulous and reputable financial institutions. My opponent then continued: "The United States doesn't have that much spare capital. The only way they can get it is by borrowing. The United States is considered the world's safest investment (Marketplace, NPR). We can easily get that money." In a sense this is both true and untrue. US Government Bonds, along with gold are, indeed, the safest investments in the world, especially since the credit crunch, which is why the USFG has a lot of liquidity. However, the cash received from sale of bonds has to be repaid, sooner or later, to the investor – they are not gifts to the US taxpayer from kind international benefactors! My opponent then detailed how the majority of tax is paid for by more prosperous people, but I wouldn't call them "rich"; just "hardworking middle-class people". His final point was that the markets need capital to invest in order to make money. True. However, there is a lot of money out there – the problem is, nobody knows exactly who has got how much and so are reluctant to lend it to the markets in case the investment bank concerned sinks, taking their money with it. That's why the only place these financial institutions are likely to get their money is from the taxpayer. My point is that the taxpayer shouldn't be expected to invest their money in institutions that the market considers are bad risks.

Title: Alcohol should be prohibited again Content: The executive summary from the Cato Institute sums it up very well: "The National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)—the “noble experiment”—was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure. The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling. Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became “organized”; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition—most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that much stronger.[1]"The failure of prohibition came down to alot about freedoms being taken away. People just don't like to be told what they can do or cannot do. Alcohol prohibition caused folks to move to other more dangerous drugs. It might've slowed down consumption at first, but studies showed it increased during prohibition comparable levels of preprohibiton. There were 10 times more places to get it, it was much more lethal (poisonous) and strong[2]. During prohibition the Coast Guard increased by 188% and it's budget increased by 500%. How much more power does the government need? Just as in the prohibition of marijuana today, they continue to fail. 1.5 trillion dollars later spent on the war since the Controlled Substances Act was in effect, the usage has not changed. In fact, high school aged kids usage went up. There seems to be no relationship between arrests and use rates[3]. No, even with the more money and manpower they threw at it, it still had no effect. Prohibition did not achieve its goals. Instead, it added to the problems it was intended to solve and supplanted other ways of addressing problems. This is why it will never be tried again. This is why marijuana prohibition too will eventually subside. The only beneficiaries of Prohibition were bootleggers, crime bosses, and the forces of big government. Carroll Wooddy concluded that the "Eighteenth Amendment . . . contributed substantially to the growth of government and of government costs in this period [1915-32] [4]. Sources:[1] http://www.cato.org...[2] http://object.cato.org...;[3] http://www.aclu-wa.org...;[4] Ibid.; Wooddy, p. 104.

Title: The attacks on September 11th of 2001 were not commited by the United States Government Content: Just count it's 7 seconds, but I challenge you to this. Find a skyscraper that has fallen like that. You can't do it because it has never happened. And yes the 9/11 commission didn't mention the WTC 7 building falling because it didn't even bring it up at all. Yes there was debris left over but how did all this material get thrown and pulverized. And by the way Jesse Ventura who was a navy seal and a part of the underwater demolition team in the military thinks it was controlled demo. Many other experts thinks thermite was involved too. You bring up WTC 5 too which was more damaged then 7 but it didn't collapse. You claim iron and steam can make molten steel. Iron and steam get put together all the time in an everyday household and that doesn't make molten steel. There has to be temperature upward of 2700 degrees to melt steel. Here are some more reason not mentioned yet that contribute to my theory. Please explain to me the failure of our military too. Our planes were no where to be found. There was also insider trading done before the 9/11 attacks. The treasury announced they had lost over two trillion dollars on September 10th only for the story of 9/11 to diminish it. We never indicted Bin Laden. The government won't answer any of our questions on 9/11. We have been in Afghanistan for 13 years now. You think the best military in the world could defeat Al Qaeda in way less then 13 years. The US has lied about wars in the past. We water boarded the people associated to 9/11 which produces false information. Just watch someone get water boarded. If you were water boarded you would admit to 9/11 too. We were warned 40 times of Bin Laden hijacking planes and flying them into buildings in New York. One more thing. You keep saying none of my claims have been proven and your right it isn't proven, but what the government told us about 9/11 isn't proven either. It is simply a theory.

Title: Carbon emissions trading Content: Emissions trading wrongly allows companies to buy right to pollute

Title: Emissions trading doesn't ensure reductions in local emissions Content: Kevin E. McCarthy. "Pros and cons of air emissions credit tradings". 9 Oct. 2000 - "The principal argument against trading programs is that they do not guarantee that improvements to air quality occur in the [local] areas that are most affected by air pollution. Some of the existing trading programs, such as the federal acid rain program for sulfur dioxide, allow trades over a very large region. While such programs do improve air quality in the aggregate, they do not necessarily reduce emissions at sources that make the greatest contribution to local air pollution and its resulting health problems."

Title: Prostitution should be legal Content: First off you mention children. I don't want children to have anything to do with this I'm talking about consenting adults. First if a girl wants to trade sex for money why should she be allowed to if she wishes and other adults are willing to purchase it. It's currently a black market which makes prostitution more dangerous with kidnappings, rapes, murders and people don't want to get tested for STDS in fear of people discovering what they are doing. Making this a white market activity would make it much safer in all these aspects. Again there would need to be regulations. Only people 18 and over should be able to engage in prostitution. But if it's between consenting adults I don't see the problem. Plus with regulations there would be no more pimps and if they decide to quit they isn't any life endangering consequences. Shout out to Tminusfour20 for pointing that out in the comments. Thank you that didn't occur to me.

Title: Schools should be required to teach a trade skill class. Content: I understand that trade skills jobs are very important in our society and I have seen already how desperately the society is lacking in these specific skills, even seeing in current times how many of our trade labor forces are beginning to lessen. I am not against trade skills being taught, they are an important part of our society, but by requiring them for students to take during their public schooling should not be fully allowed. I am not concerned toward these trade skills taking up all modern education but what I am concerned for is the students themselves. Students can only learn so much at a time, especially teenagers, and then easily lose focus again. I battle through 6 classes each day in my high school, 4 being the essential math, english, science, and history, while the other 2 being elective. Yes, there are openings for 2 electives where possible trade skill requirements may belong, but after focusing so much on the essential math, english, science, and history I can imagine, not just myself, but others too must be mentally exhausted. Then putting the student through another important class such as their required trade skill may even be too much for the student. Seeing in the online Forbes article, "Motivation Matters: 40% Of High School Students Chronically Disengaged From School", that on average 40% of high school students lose all motivation facing such demanding classes. By requiring trade skill courses then it will only push that much more of a burden upon the student. My high school has already implemented some trade skill courses has I have mentioned before, but the difference is that they are not required and are the student's choice whether or not they would want to take the class. By leaving the decision in the student's hands rather than requiring them to take the course it will ensure not all students face this academic suicide while others then take up the task and work through the skill.

Title: The United States Should Promote Free Trade Content: This is for the DDO Olympics politics and government bracket. If you have any questions about the debate format below, mention them before you accept the debate. Full ResolutionThe United States Federal Government should promote a policy of free trade. BoP is on pro.DefinitionsFree trade: "The unrestricted purchase and sale of goods and services between countries without the imposition of constraints such as tariffs, duties and quotas."[1]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://www.investopedia.com...

Title: The U.S. Should allow free trade with cuba Content: Hello, I am the first speaker for the house on the motion that "The US should allow free trade with cuba" I affirm that the US should allow free trade with Cuba. Definitions: US: The United states of america, Free Trade: Free trade is a system of trade policy that allows traders to act and transact without interference from government. According to the law of comparative advantage the policy permits trading partners mutual gains from trade of goods and services. (According to wikipedia) Now onto the debate... Point 1: The Popularity of Opening Relations is Huge A. The popularity of opening relations is so large that is really inconcievable that anyone would not want to open relations. R. We need to do a lot of work to fix Cuba and with popularity so high, we cannot go wrong. E. A poll by Washington Post and New York Times asked, ï¿½€œDo you think the United States should or should not re-establish diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba?" The response was amazing. 2/3 of responders were in favor of opening relations. E. A similar poll was conducted by CNN in April of this year showed that upward of 70% of people saide we should open relations. Furthermore, this was up almost 10% from the same poll in 2002. R. Clearly, the population is becoming more and more relaxed about having relations with Cuba and are confident that bad things will not happen. So judge, I ask you, why not?! Point 2: The Dangerous Fidel Castro is No Longer in Power. A. Fidel Castro was the man who invaded Cuba from Mexico in 1959, took control of the government, and made the lives of Cubans and Americans miserable for many years. He was also the man who led the Cuban missile crisis that threatened our country. R. Now, you may say, well, why canï¿½€™t this happen again. But judge, when one looks at it, Cubaï¿½€™s power is very limited at this point. Fidel Castro is gone and his brother Raul has taken over. Cuba is in the news so much less for dangerous activities. There was a scare about a plan with Russia a couple of years ago, but this was settled and gone within weeks. E. Judge, prominent organizations believe this too; this is not just me saying this to try and convince you. The proposal is supported by the US Tour Operators Association, the National Tour Association and human rights groups like the Washington Office on Latin America, according to the Cuban newspaper Trabajadores. E. Congressman also believe in it. U.S. congressman Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) is confident that Washingtonï¿½€™s travel restrictions to Cuba on U.S. citizens will be lifted before the end of this year. He says that voters in the house are just ~25 votes short of a bill to lift the embargo and he said in a September article that he hoped to have this done by the end of 2009. Although this has not happened with more pressing on the table, it is clear it is close and with a little more convincing, it can be done. Conclusion: Judge, so many people, citizens, politicians and organizations alike, support making this move. I will explain more on this topic in the second speech, showing concrete reasons about why we should make the change beyond popularity. So for the reasons I have stated, the pro should clearly win this debate.

Title: THW deny health care to the people who engaged in illegal organ trading Content: Thank you for your arguments. I will go on my rebuttals.FrameworkOkay, my opponent has not put any framework. BOP is shared equally, and the one who fills the BOP will be the winner.Organ Trading is a very serious matter. It is first of illegal, and also very bad for people. There is no reason to do this. My team will show you why we should not let these illegal doing things people have the not equivalent rights as us. Why should we make things equal for us who did nothing illegal or someone who did illegal things. Are we able to get the same rights? Our team is here to explain why we should not have equal rights.Rebuttals1. Okay, let's go with the Ashley Harris-Moore first. Why she got this effect? Becuase she did illegal things, which made harm to her family. It is not the governments fault that she did this illegal organ trading. It is her fault she did this. If no one did this illegal organ trading, then everyone can give healthcare to people around the world. It is depending to the parents choice, not the government. If this is the best they want to do to their child, this is the way they do it. Basically, it is their fault that they did illegal organ trading to defend themselves. This person had done this to defend herself however, she made a bad choice. Right now, our government side wants to help the citizens unless they ban this illegal organ trading. If that person did not do illegal organ trading, she could have got healthcare. This depended on this person's actions, not the government.2. Now let's go with Pro's second argument which was about system failure. Con tried to say, let's not deny healthcare to this illegal crime people, and legalize the purchase of organs. First of all, that will become more of a failure. It is illegal to do so. It will just make the citizens to more illegal acts. I think denying healthcare is better because it is not illegal, however, legalizing the purchase, is going to be hard to manage. Also, only the poor people will sell these organs to get money, when they harm their own body, and it is useless.ContentionsI will go to some more arguments, then finish this round.1. We should not do illegal things.This one is obvious. We should not do illegal things. Okay, as the resolution says, this organ trading, is illegal. The meaning of illegal is not allowed by law. That is why we should ban organ trading. However the problem is that the government cannot do this. That is why we need to make something happen to never do that again. This is one reason why need to deny healthcare for them. The second reason is that there is no reason to treat these illegal organ traders. They should not get the benefits we do. This is another reason we need to deny healthcare.ConclusionOur team believes that organ trading is very bad thing because it is illegal. As I said in the framework, Pro side had filled to explain why we should not get the equal rights as these people who did illegal things. Rebutted all of Con's mistakes also. Please Vote for Pro!Sourceshttp://www.merriam-webster.com...Thank you!

Title: Trade in the goods ivory and rhinoceros horns should be legalized. Content: Thanks for posting this debate. In the following round I shall focus on mainly the ivory trade and not the rhinoceros horn trade. Firstly because convincing spectators that ivory trading should remain illegal will suffice to win me the debate and secondly because I'm not too interested in reading up on rhinoceroses. In the following I shall set out the fundamental problem of the ivory and rhinoceros horn trades and lay out ethical and practical considerations of the trade. As a consequence, I shall prove that a trade in ivory and rhino horns should remain illegal. The fundamental problem Let me begin by stating that I do not find anything inherently wrong with the handling of ivory and rhino horns. They are not harmful substances to either users of these products, nor are they indirectly harmful to other humans. In fact, if it were the case that humans could plant ivory seeds, harvest ivory tusks and sell them at market, then the ivory trade would operate like any other industry. The fundamental problem is that the goods in question must be obtained from other living creatures that are either killed or made less well off due to a demand for tusks and horns. It is from this standpoint that I shall argue against the legalisation of markets in these goods. Problems with a free market in ivory and tusks Let us take the assumption that we allow free entry into the horn and tusk market. That is, anyone can pick up arms, find an elephant or rhino and, kill it and remove their appendages. Such a market would be undesirable, not only from the point of view of the beast, but for man as well. Such a free market would incentivise unlimited exploitation of the resource in question as quickly as possible. That is, driven by the desire to make profits, entrepreneurs (read: poachers), will attempt to extract as much ivory and horn in the present and leave as little as possible for future time periods. This obviously implies that the number of elephants and rhinoceroses in the wild will dwindle dramatically. This has indeed been the case, with the African elephant population falling by almost two-thirds in the 1980s from 1.2 million to 450,000 [1]. There was little doubt at the time of the ban on the ivory trade that extinction of the African elephant was an inevitability, and no doubt remains that this is the case today. This of course, implies a problem for the ivory market itself. Such a market would mean that a sustainable marketable quantity of ivory could not possibly be maintained. In short, since the incentives faced by the ivory entrepreneur lead him to kill as many elephants as possible in as short a time frame as possible, the ivory trade itself will soon cease to exist. [2] As a result of its economic unviability, few would argue for free and unrestricted trade in tusk and horn. Ethical considerations: Animal Persons and Human Needs In the following I shall try to argue that the killing of creatures like elephants and rhinoceroses may be unethical, especially when done for human desires that may be considered trifling. These arguments will give weight to the case for criminalising ivory and tusk traders. But first, a quick detour. Consider the following scenario. Humans have discovered a race of extraterrestrials that have similar mental capacities and abilities to humans, as well as possessing consciousness, sentience, self-awareness, the ability to feel pleasure and pain, can think and feel and can communicate. Would such entities be deserving of the same rights as human beings. Philosophers and members of the public generally answer in the affirmative. [3] The primary reason for this is that these are the main conditions necessary for personhood. Those who do not extend these rights to non-human persons appear to be speciesists – that is, people who claim the rights of an entity are based on a non-relevant characteristic, in this case species membership. What does this have to do with elephants? The answer should be clear by now. If elephants possess the characteristics necessary to make them worthy of personhood, then they would appear to be candidates for rights equal to that of other persons. I strongly believe that this is the case. Elephants possess the largest brains of any land mammal. [4] As a consequence, elephants possess a mental capacity greater than most other animals. In addition to consciousness and the ability to feel pleasure and pain, elephants display a sense of self awareness. In a famous study, an ‘x' was marked on the face of South Asian elephants and large mirrors were placed in front of them. One of the elephants managed to touch the mark with its trunk, while others were able to display a sense of familiarity with their own reflections [5]. They also display a sense of compassion, artistic ability, creativity, problem solving ability and social interaction. [6] The conclusion that follows from this is that the killing of an elephant should carry the same, or almost the same moral significance as the killing of a human person. The second prong in the argument against the legalisation of trade is the fact that tusk and horn products serve interests that might be considered fleeting or unnecessary. The main uses of ivory are ornamental – piano keys, billiard balls and other handcrafted objects. Contrary to popular beliefs, powdered rhinoceros horns are not an aphrodisiac, but may be used to treat fevers. They too can be sculpted into ornamental figures. Clearly, close substitutes to ivory and rhino horn exist. The fact that there exist substitutes to these products and the fact that the needs fulfilled by these goods are not urgent (i.e. they are not medicinal in nature, nor can they be eaten) gives weight to the case that trade in these goods should remain illegal. An analogy can be drawn here: dog- and cock-fighting inflicts pain on animals, the fact that it does so solely for human entertainment counts in favour of keeping such activities illegal. Free Range Elephants? One possible solution to the moral dilemma is to suggest another method of extracting ivory from elephants. One such solution is to capture and raise elephants on large fields, and extract their tusks when they reach maturity. We already have free range chickens, why not free range elephants? Two considerations count here: one ethical and one practical. Firstly, although an elephant may be kept in an enclosure, free of pain for most of its life, removing its tusks may not be ethically justified. An elephant values its tusks. It uses them to "dig for water, salt, and roots; to debark trees to eat the bark; to dig into baobab trees to get at the pulp inside; and to move trees and branches when clearing a path. In addition, they are used for marking trees to establish territory, and occasionally as weapons." [7] This would appear to diminish the quality of life of an elephant and make it vulnerable, and since an elephant is more akin to a human than, say, a chicken, great consideration ought to be given its suffering. Another similar analogy might be useful. Suppose that humans could produce other humans in laboratories and raise them in warehouses. Would it be ethical to permit the removal of the organs of such people? Suppose these people had the intellect of an elephant or a human child. Would it still be ethical? I contend that it would not, and since after all, we do not permit the removal of organs from children that most consider my view plausible. If the analogy is apt, the removal of tusks from elephants is also wrong. The practical consideration is much more straightforward. Although an elephant may live between 50 and 70 years, its tusks do not grow back once removed. [8] It may take many, many years for a large tusk to develop in an elephant. As a result, elephant farming would not be a viable option for those interested in harvesting ivory. *References in the comments

Title: Resolved: The U.S. should allow all imports of goods and capital. Content: Thank you Con for your swift response. This debate has been about whether "The United States should allow imports of goods and capital from any society outside of the United States allowing that the domestic laws of the U.S. (such as regulations, finance laws etc.) are followed. Essentially, anyone may sell goods to the U.S. and invest in firms, land, capital goods so long as they abide by the laws that all U.S. investors and U.S. firms have to abide by with goods sold in the U.S. and investments in U.S. firms, land, and capital goods." I have argued in the affirmative, and Con had contended. Our disagreements have been on two points; the semantics of the resolution, and the economics of freer trade. In his opening round, Con argued that some things should not be imported because of the harm they could do. I pointed out that much of his list is negated by the full resolution (which frankly would not fit in a nice headline). Con rebutted that drugs and exotic animals still follow the domestic law of some states, and also attempted to bring in an argument that past laws (such as laws protecting slavery) could be allowed under the wording of my resolution. I argued that while yes, states do have differing laws, both the laws of the states and the laws of the federal government of the U.S. are in effect in the U.S., and so Colorado would likely not have legal importation of marijuana while the federal government maintains that it should be illegal. On the argument of using past law, I have argued that this is an absurd legal theory; our current law supersedes the past law, and future law will supersede current law and make past laws null and void. Punishment for breaking new laws in the past may be protected by ex post facto, but one cannot sell things that are illegal today. Con has simply responded with an assertion to this point. At this point, it is up to the voting audience on whether firms can sell things based on past law. On the second point, economics, I have argued that imports help to free up land, labor, and capital at home for more productive means. I have also argued that the "balance of trade" is only really a problem when factoring in debt the U.S. federal government sells to foreigners by means of Federal Reserve monetizing the debt. Con has responded by pointing out the labor "freed" from unproductive sources, and call it a detriment when 700,000 jobs are lost to free trade. I point out that this is the freeing of labor for more productive uses, and that welfare and inflation hamper us in this competitive sense, but also point out that the problems inflation and welfare create are still present without imports and that the imports increase our wealth even as the Federal Government artificially increases the costs to the consumer. Con has since rebutted that free trade is the main cause of the problem and that central banking and welfare may merely exacerbate the problem. Con then goes on to say that central bank inflation helps to increase wages and that reduced poverty is linked to both the same time period as welfare reforms and freer trade. I hold that he makes my point for me; inflation artificially increases the costs of both the final good and labor, granting the foreign competition an advantage, and that freer trade has reduced the price of goods and thus increased the standard of living by allowing poorer people to purchase more with less labor. Where the central banks inflation hampers the U.S. competitively and increases the prices of goods and labor, at best not doing anything to affect prices within the domestic sphere at all on balance, freer trade helps to increase the standard of living where government laws and practices reduce the average person"s wealth. Where welfare creates artificially higher prices and wages, and creates a gap between incomes that apply for welfare and incomes that provide more than welfare benefits plus wages, free trade actually boosts the effectiveness of welfare while reducing this gap. Further, to say reduced poverty is linked to the welfare reforms from the same period as increased trade creates a dilemma; which reduced poverty, the freer trade or welfare reform that still artificially increases prices and has a gap? I hold that the freer trade has reduced poverty by increasing real wealth, just as argued in PR2. Con has argued that poorer countries may not export capital; that still does not account for lower prices in what they do sell improving real wealth. Con created a straw-man in saying that I am against free trade hurting the economy because inflation increases imports. By this very straw-man, Con has created a dilemma for the position he has held for 2 rounds; if all free trade is bad, then why have any at all? The answer must lie in what Con does not contend. On the note of free trade incentivizing peace, Con has remained silent. On the point that while federal programs have hurt 700,000 jobs and, for sake of argument, 2.8 million U.S. citizens, Con has had much to say. About the 297.2 million citizens that benefit, over ten times the number of people negatively affected by free trade, Con has remained more quiet. While I have hopefully argued well that the 700,000 jobs are more the fault of government policy rather than freer trade, isn"t a policy that helps 297 million and increases peace while helping to reduce the welfare gap and effects of inflation that most affects those 3 million negatively better than one that does not increase peace and hampers 300 million with at best a static market? I argue that it is, and that the resolution should therefore be affirmed. Thank you Con for this debate, and thank you to anyone who has read this full debate. Please vote for the better competitor, and provide RFD for any vote you cast.

Title: THW deny health care to the people who engaged in illegal organ trading Content: Only Wytled can accept this debateRules1. No forfeiting2. 10k, select winner3. Only Wytled can accept.4. I can do both sides so say in comments if you like my side5. No kritiks. 6. Have to be over 3000 Elo unless over 100 wins. 75 debates min. 7. 2500 ELO to vote8. Not follow rules, automatic loss.Structure1. Acceptance2. Arguments3. Rebuttals, Counter Arguments4. Rebuttals, Defending Case5. Defending Case, Rebuttals, ConclusionDefinitions1. Healthcare: Treatment of any kind of doctors, to overcome diseases, to make better health.2. Organ Trading: Trade of human organs. Thank you.

Title: Schools should be required to teach a trade skill class. Content: The focus in primary education has shifted in recent decades. With common core policies across the nation, primary schools main focus has turned towards "making the grades" needed to be accepted into a university system to continue education with an importance focused on continuing for a bachelors degree. According to collegedata.com college board, the average cost of tuition and fees for the 2016"2017 school year was $33,480 at private colleges, $9,650 for state residents at public colleges, and $24,930 for out-of-state residents attending public universities. Take a trade like Heating, ventilation, and refrigeration technician, you could take the entire program at RCC for $1,276 plus about $500 for books and fees. If you go to college for a non STEM related degree your average first year job offer is around $49,000 according to business insider. As a first year HVAC technician in California the average first year salary not including overtime hours is in the range of $43,000 -$53,000. If primary schools could help give the needed skills and access to a new trade, it can help streamline the decision process and help put people into the workforce with a good paying job sooner, which will help the economy grow.

Title: Abortion should be allowed. Content: I accept the challenge.

Title: Resolved: We would depower all superhumans. (Mr. Infidel's R1 Tourney) Content: D1: Stranger DangerHere, CON drops my argument that we have no means of depowering politicians and businessmen, as we do not have an EMR for these situations. CON wants consistency? Okay, I'll give him consistency. When politicians and businessmen use their power to harm others, they get arrested. For example, when big name CEOs practice insider trading, they are using their position and hurting others who invest in the business. As a result, they get arrested. We can hardly arrest a superhero or supervillain, as superheroes protect our cities from these supervillains (the police are quite useless as they are mere humans) and as supervillains, they can easily escape from prison. Therefore, we must take some sort of measure to punish these supervillains, as CON stated, we need consistency. We can do this with depowerment. Therefore, superheroes (as they are the good guys) are able to lead normal lives as humans, and the supervillains can now be arrested and charged for crimes that he committed as a supervillain. In fact, many superheroes want to lead normal lives and get rid of their powers. You think the they enjoy having their loved ones in constant danger? No, we would be doing many superheroes a favor by allowing them to lead normal lives. Frankly, we owe them this favor, as they have been saving our cities from supervillains for a long time. Therefore, I have successfully defended my argument both ways. CON attempted to refute my argument with a straw man fallacy, which obviously is not a valid refutation, as it is a fallacy. However, CON insists that it was not a fallacy, and he is merely applying my concept consistently, though CON has failed on this front as well. I have applied it consistently, and still shown that we should depower all superhumans. Therefore, it is obvious that I win on this point. Sub D1: ClashesAgain, I will show CON that when applied consistently, we should depower all superhumans. CON says that we should depower nations. We are already trying to depower nations. Just look at the trade sanctions against Iran. . http://www.international.gc.ca...We are imposing these trade sanctions because Iran is developing nuclear weaponry, and these trade sanctions are done in an effort to depower nations, in this case Iran, from these nuclear weapons. Obviously, it is still a work in progress. Therefore, when applied consistently, we should depower superhumans as well, as we are already depowering nations. Obviously, CON does not realize that by arguing consistency, he is improving my case. Therefore, I have won on this point as well. D.2: ExploitationOkay, true, there may be homosexuals in Marvel and Capcom, I did not realize this. However, this still does not disprove my argumentThis argument is about how superhumans will be experimented on because of their supernatural tendencies and powers. CON says that it proves too much, and, by my logic, we should make homosexuals heterosexual, and etc. However, I must ask, what is wrong with making homosexuals heterosexual with the use of a similar EMR? I am sure that those homosexuals and Jews wished that they were not homosexual or Jewish during the time they were experimented on. If by using the EMR, changing homosexuals to heterosexuals and converted Jews to Christianity, we prevented these people from being tortured and experimented on, then I would argue that that is a much better option. We would have saved these people much pain, and the morality of this outweighs the morality of conversion. It is the same with the superhumans. The morality of saving them from the pain of experimentation and torture, outweighs the use of the EMR. Furthermore, I would like to remind CON that many of these superhumans wish that they could lead a normal life anyways, like I pointed out in my first defense this round. Therefore, as it is much more moral to save people from pain, my point still stands. D4: TemptationHere, my opponent drops my argument that politicians should be arrested and is different from the depowerment of superhumans. CON says that I am unable to consistently apply this argument. However, he fails to realize that I, in actuality, have. We arrest politicians for succumbing to temptation and abusing their power. As I pointed out in my first defense this round, we cannot arrest superhumans. As a result, we must first depower them, and then arrest them if they have broken any laws during their time as a superhuman. Also, CON says that " A point supporting the "de-powerization" of only a fraction or even a majority (so long as it is not all) does not help my opponent's case. "However, he fails to realize that it does help my case. The depowerment of the fraction of superhumans, the adolescents, is merely an added benefit to the depowerment of all superhumans, as they are much more prone to temptation as they are still growing. CON conceives this to be an argument on its own. I would agree, that as an argument, this does not help my case. However, it is not an argument, but merely a beneficial side effect of this resolution. For example, say you are at a restaurant, and you're really feeling like Pizza. It is Saturday, a day where the restaurant gives a free side of fries with every Pizza ordered. This would certainly influence your decision. You would not order the Pizza for the fries, but merely, it would be an added benefit to the Pizza ordered, as fries or not, you still would have ordered the pizza. Like how the fries benefit your meal, this argument which highlights the temptation of adolescents, benefits my case. Therefore, it helps my case. Also, applied consistently, I have again shown how we should depower superhumans as well. Therefore, my argument is still valid. C.4: EvolutionMy opponent uses the same flawed logic in his refutation, and CON also changes his views. The previous round, CON says, "This point would only hold weight if my opponent showed that it was already a good idea and that we ought to do it now. "I have done what my opponent pointed out, which shows that the point holds weight. However now, CON says that my points are irrelevant to the debate, when clearly, he say that my point would hold weight if I proved these things, which I have. My points are relevant to the debate. As CON says, we are "concerned with whether de-powering is a good idea at all. "This argument supports that line of reasoning. Depowering is a good idea, as superhumans may develop a resistance to the EMR and if needed, future attempts at depowering may prove useless, which is why depowering now is a good idea. Clearly, my opponent doesn't know what he is talking about. This argument is still valid. RefutationR.1 Basic rights and "de-powerization"I will now refute my opponent's one argument. CON says that "however it has not and cannot be demonstrated that every single possessor of super human abilities has or will use them to infringe on the rights of others. " However, I have proved this stance. Note that in the first round, my sub C1 point of Clash, I stated that superhumans will inevitably clash and there will always be a fight. CON did not contest that they will alway clash and fight. He merely said that this was not a valid point to prove the resolution (which I contested). Therefore, it is assumed that he agrees. As a pointed out in the previous round, a basic right is the security of person, in essence, safety. Therefore, it is infringing on the rights of people around the fight (bystanders) caught in the crossfire, as their security of person is being violated. As CON himself said, " I hold that if super humans infringe on the rights of others to such a degree that not de-powering them would casually cause infringement on the rights of others, de-powerization would prove moral. "Therefore, CON has conceded his case to me. As a result, it is obvious that I have won this debate. Thanks to the voters for reading and CON for debating this topic with me.

Title: Killing sharks in moderation through quotas would allow the shark fin soup trade to continue. Content: There is no need to ban the soup; just seek tougher restrictions on the over-fishing and in increase in the technology to stop sharks becoming the by-catch of some fishing vessels.

Title: is pushing allowed in soccer Content: yes it is

Title: Gay marriage Content: Gay marriage should be allowed

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

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

Title: Gay Marriage Content: Gay Marriage shouldn't be allowed.

Title: Death penalty should be allowed. Content: I accept

Title: The United States should regulate trade. Content: Done

Title: Market mechanisms such as carbon trading allow the greatest reduction in emissions at the least cost... Content: Market mechanisms such as carbon trading allow the greatest reduction in emissions at the least cost – this damages the world economy less and will ultimately allow more rapid decreases in emissions than costly regulations would achieve. Power generating plants and motor vehicles in the developing world and the former Soviet Union are often hugely more polluting than those in the most developed nations, and it would be relatively cheap to equip them with more modern technology in order to bring emissions down. By contrast, achieving even a tiny additional reduction in more efficient developed world plants and vehicles would be hugely costly, as it would require completely new technologies to be developed. Carbon trading (or an international carbon tax) would encourage firms to direct investment into whatever would reduce their emissions most cost-effectively, either by direct investment in their developing world operations, or by buying carbon credits from such countries. If this means emissions in the rich world stay level while carbon reduction efforts are concentrated elsewhere, then fine – the world as a whole gains from this. And if it transfers money and directs investment into developing nations, then that is an additional benefit of the scheme.

Title: Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to homosexuals for religious reasons. Content: I have accepted the debate challenge. I will be arguing on the premises of religious freedom, which applies more heavily to smaller businesses, as they are more family oriented and are generally more likely to implement religious ideals. I will also be arguing on the basis of free trade, which also amounts to government and its inability to legislate if service can or cannot be denied for any reason. Burden of proof is not shared, as there is no statistical evidence incorporated into this debate. I would use some sources though.

Title: The U.S. Should allow free trade with cuba Content: ===> I N T R O D U C T I O N <=== I appreciate my opponent's excellent opening argument. My opponent has made two contentions for why Free Trade with Cuba is beneficial for the US. ===> A R G U M E N T -- O F -- C O N T E N T I O N -- 1 <=== -->Because the population is in favor of it.<-- My opponent is attempting to make the claim that because the masses favor something, it should immediately be done by the congress. Using public opinion to base the decisions of the most powerful nation on the earth is absolutely ridiculous. "Fewer than a third (Of Americans) can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth" Source:http://www.nytimes.com... Our government is a representational democracy. We choose educated elected leaders to make key foreign policy choices for us. Is my opponent seriously advocating otherwise? To allow public opinion to dictate government's decision is an incredibly dangerous precedent. Polls also can easily be misleading based on how the questions are phrased, the tone of which the questions for ask, etc. Furthermore not everyone chooses to answer polls because not everyone has the time nor cares enough to answer them. For these reasons polls are a terrible way of determining key foreign policy decisions. ===> A R G U M E N T -- O F -- C O N T E N T I O N -- 2 <=== "Fidel Castro is no longer in power" My opponent attempts to make the following argument "Fidel Castro is gone and his brother Raul has taken over. Cuba is in the news so much less for dangerous activities. There was a scare about a plan with Russia a couple of years ago, but this was settled and gone within weeks." Such an argument could be re-written: "Hitler is gone and his brother Schmitler has taken over. Germany is still in control by the Nazi party, but it isn't on our news as much for being dangerous. Nuclear warheads were set up in Cuba and pointed directly at the US. A nuclear war nearly erupted due to Cuba's part in Russia's plans. Although my opponent labels this as point two, he clearly has several contentions which I will outline and sub-sequentially rebut. -->Raul Castro is not as dangerous as Fidel Castro. "Raul Castro was once known as an iron-fisted ideologue who executed Fidel Castro's orders - and enemies - ruthlessly. At the time of the revolution 50 years ago, Raul Castro did the dirty work backstage, disposing of soldiers loyal to U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista and cracking the whip to keep wavering communist apparatchiks in line and passionate about the cause. As Fidel Castro's strongman and defence minister, he trained a rag-tag bunch of guerrillas into a feared army that fought "anti-imperialist" wars abroad, most notably in Angola where Cuban soldiers helped defeat South African troops. The strength of Raul Castro's ideology and his enforcement of it made ordinary Cubans wary of the now bespectacled, flabby-faced grandfather of eight." SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... "(Washington, DC) - Raï¿½l Castro's government has locked up scores of people for exercising their fundamental freedoms and allowed scores more political prisoners arrested during Fidel Castro's rule to languish in detention, Human Rights Watch says in a report released today. Rather than dismantle Cuba's repressive machinery, Raï¿½l Castro has kept it firmly in place and fully active, the report says. The 123-page report, "New Castro, Same Cuba," shows how the Raï¿½l Castro government has relied in particular on the Criminal Code offense of "dangerousness," which allows authorities to imprison individuals before they have committed any crime, on the suspicion that they are likely to commit an offense in the future. This "dangerousness" provision is overtly political, defining as "dangerous" any behavior that contradicts Cuba's socialist norms. " SOURCE: http://www.hrw.org... "In a January 2009 campaign called "Operation Victory," dozens of individuals in eastern Cuba—most of them youth—were charged with "dangerousness" for being unemployed. So was a man from Sancti Spï¿½ritus who could not work because of health problems, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment in August 2008 for being unemployed. " REPORT SOURCE: http://www.hrw.org... -->Cuba hasn't done anything terrible recently (thus not being in the news) "Cuba's laws empower the state to criminalize virtually all forms of dissent. Article 62 of the Cuban constitution explicitly prohibits Cubans from exercising their basic rights against the "ends of the socialist state." REPORT SOURCE: http://www.hrw.org... As can clearly be seen by the evidence for both Raul and Cuba, they continue to actively repress their citizens and prevent both by their actions (locking up dissidents) and by their laws(stated directly above). Cuba's blatant disrespect for basic human rights, wrongful imprisonment, and blatant disregard for the rights of their citizens warrants no lifting of the trade ban of a country which nearly brought our world to the brink of nuclear war. Eyewitness testimony: "The rapid response brigade was waiting for us, carrying wooden bats and metal rods, as though they were ready to beat us. They insulted us, saying we were worms, the scum of society. They called my mother and me whores and sluts." Raul is no different than his brother and is a danger to the U.S. Simply because Cuba does not appear on our local news does not mean that they have been acting fairly towards their citizens. -->Random Organizations support this. My opponent has committed the following fallacies: Argument from Authority -- By saying that a few organizations approve of it, it must be the best for our country. Anecdotal - By only giving only a few organizations as proof, my opponent assumes that all organizations agree with this notion. Ad Populum - An appeal to the populous (popularity). Since it's popular, it must be the right thing to do. Hasty Generalization: committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. -->One Representative believes in it. My opponent makes the same fallacies as above. Perhaps my opponent has misread his own resolution. The U.S. should allow free trade with Cuba. Should is being the correct word. This argument is about what is right vs what is wrong, not a popularity contest. ===> C O N C L U S I O N <=== My opponent has yet to show any real benefits of allowing free trade with Cuba. Instead, he has merely tried to turn this debate in a popularity contest in which the number of people agreeing with his resolution somehow affirm it. This is not so. My opponent must show much more than vague assertions that Cuba and its ruler are somehow less dangerous if he expects to affirm his resolution. He carries the burden of proof, but as of yet has not shown any real benefits of free trade. Using polls and anecdotal evidence to somehow assert his resolution is weak and is not an affirmation of your resolution. Furthermore making vague assertions such that Cuba and its leader are less dangerous without any real proof or logical backing will also not affirm your resolution. For these reasons I have negated Pro's contentions. I await my opponents new contentions in R2. Thank you.

Title: Resolved: The U.S. should allow all imports of goods and capital. Content: 1. The semantical argument Is it really silly to argue that there is a loophole in the definition? You merely said that the imports must abide by law. Not current law. Therefore, future laws and past laws apply. Slavery was legal in the past, drugs will likely become legal in the future. The legality argument is not a card blanche response. Drugs, invasive species, and human trafficking are all valid points and must be responded to. 2. Economics PRO seems to put much of the blame on other domestic issues. However, welfare is not the *cause* of the job loss. It could be argued that it *amplified* the job loss, but to argue that it is the sole cause is absurd. Welfare *may* exacerbate problems. It *may* lead to laziness. But it is not the cause of the significant job losses incurred due to recent free-trade agreements. It is absurd to claim this. Further, Welfare may be causing less harm as time goes on, as welfare reform was passed in the same time period as many of these free trade agreements were signed. And Welfare reform is associated with increased levels of employment and decreased poverty [1]. Therefore, if anything, welfare policies became less deleterious over the period that agreements such as NAFTA were passed. Welfare policies were loosened, meaning that they *prevented* job loss, and did not cause it. In fact, many analysis’s argue that the existence of welfare may reduce poverty [2]. Again, arguing that welfare *caused* job loss in the hundreds of thousands is absurd. Welfare *may* work to *amplify* job losses, and making them more long term. But Welfare is never the initial unemployment forcing. And may even work to alleviate some social ills. PRO notes how some large industries—namely, the car industry—imports may help the job situation. This is in dispute. The reason companies like Toyota employ so many people here is because there is a large market. It is cost-efficient to have manufacturing plants here, since a huge amount of their income comes from US consumers. You reduce shipping costs. However, to put those jobs here also costs a lot of start-up money. Smaller imports which are not from large companies or wealthy countries (like Japan) may not do this, and will continue to keep their predominant workforce abroad. This would mean that for smaller industries, the effect would be negative. This would mean that not all imports are beneficial, and that some protective measures would overall benefit the US economy. PRO again attempts to put the blame on central banking. Again, banking may exacerbate any effect, but it is not the forcing. Just as the sun is the forcing behind interglacial changes, CO2 often works to amplify the warming effects. Free trade begins the pain, and these other things PRO points to are amplifiers. They are negative, to be sure, but are not the largest factor in the equation. Further, if PRO supports *current* law, then the current law supports the central bankers. Which means he must also defend current legal institutions. They, as he claims, exacerbate any problem. Meaning he must also defend their existence, as they are under the *current* legal code. Using his logic, he then must support increased imports due to central banks. If the ‘bad’ imports are coming in due to the bank, he must defend them. Why? Because current law supports it. And he must defend *all* imports. He cannot pick and choose which ones he supports. Just because a bank backs one he cannot wave it away. He must support it based on the terms he wants to use for this debate. In many ways, higher inflation helps the economy as it causes consumers to consume more. Inflation also leads to increased wages [3]. Therefore, again, assuming that inflationary measures are the cause of the job loss is absurd. And how do these measures, according to my opponent, hurt the economy? By increasing foreign imports! Therefore, he essentially concedes that at least *some* imports will hurt the US economy. If this is true, then why allow them into the country? If *some* imports are bad, then why not restrict their access? He essentially ruins his case by arguing that the central bank is bad because it… increases imports… which means by that flow imports are bad. PRO seems to want to have a little discussion on welfare and central banking. I would love to. Maybe he could challenge me to a separate debate on central banking (e.g. gold standards). But overall, these arguments are red-herrings. What is the *net* effect of imports on the US economy, and should they be restricted. To allow all imports in, PRO must support free trade. I provided evidence that these free-trade regimes harm the economy. PRO claimed that the central bank did it. Why? They increase imports. This concedes that imports are bad, and therefore he essentially concedes what I was saying. He says welfare caused it. Why? Disincentive to work. It may *exacerbate* the problem, but isn’t the cause. In fact, the effect of welfare has been decreasing over that time period, meaning the amplification is smaller than it would be otherwise. Meaning it likely was not the cause of the massive job loss due to these laws. In fact, welfare is associated with decreased poverty, meaning that welfare is likely NOT the culprit of the massive job losses. So, what do we have under economics? 1) Free trade harms economy 2) PRO admits that imports harm economy 3) Therefore, as allowing *all* imports into the country would harm the economy, it seems logical to restrict *some* of their access to our country. As can be seen, allowing all imports would exacerbate any economic woes we are now facing, and would decrease US living standards. Some imports should be barred entrance to the country. Resolution negated. 1. http://www.nber.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.investopedia.com...

Title: The U.S. Should allow free trade with cuba Content: 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!

Title: cloning animals Content: should cloning of a extinct animals be allowed

Title: Free trade and markets harm the environment Content: Free trade agreements cannot discriminate against any products because of their way of production. This allows for trading products that have been grown or processed with techniques that have been harmful to the environment .

Title: Emissions trading can disproportionately pollute poor countries Content: "Cap and trade is not the answer: an open letter". Transnational Institute. 31 Jan. 2007 - "Sulphur dioxide trading in the U.S., often touted as an unequivocal success and a model for carbon trading programs internationally, has had similar disproportionate impacts on poor communities and communities of color. It was their air quality that suffered in exchange for more "efficient" cuts in pollution elsewhere. Plants in Tennessee were allowed to spew tons more sulphur dioxide into the air than plants in the Northeast, choking the residents living near the plant with acid gases. Paint peeled off cars and local property values suffered as communities in the Northeast benefited."

Title: The United States should regulate trade. Content: I concede

Title: Decriminilisation of drugs will diminish organised crime Content: Public alarm has been stirred up more by the undesirable side-effects of the illicit trade in drugs than by any knowledge about the drugs themselves. Since the law bans them, it is inevitable that a black market should have grown up to meet the considerable demand that exists. If their sale were made legal, at officially-controlled prices, the black market would disappear overnight - and with it would go the theft, blackmail, drugpushing and other evils which surround it at present. In view of the widespread, albeit illegal trade in drugs (soft and hard), fully effective control of this illicit market is in any case currently almost impossible, in practice — seizures by police and Customs amount to only a tiny fraction of the whole trade. The Netherlands, which has allowed the possession and retail sale of marijuana since 1976, is actually lower in the rank than the United States in the percentage of people who have ever tried marijuana in every age category. Moreover, those who have tried have done this at an age higher that the average age of the people in the United States who use other illegal drugs. Toleration of drugs in the Netherlands has not led to a massive rise in consumption, as critics feared, and the police have found it much easier to keep an eye on the trade.

Title: Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed Content: Oy vey.

Title: The United States should regulate trade. Content: I accept.

Title: Should Gay Marriage Be Legal Content: Should Gay Marriage be allowed

Title: THW deny health care to the people who engaged in illegal organ trading Content: Thanks for Wytled to accept my challenge. I am Pro in this debate, however it says I am Con. That is just one mistake. Secondly, Wylted asked me to debate 16k on this one. I might, however I think it will be much better if you two do a debate with each other.FrameworkThe debate is about we should deny health care to the people who had engaged in illegal organ trading. I will talk about the effects and the consequences of this. My opponent will talk about the consequences and effects. If I fill the BOP, I win the debate. If my opponent fills BOP, he wins.Okay, I will get into my arguments first.ArgumentsBefore I will go to my arguments, I think we need to crack down on the black market and also punish the people involved in illegal organ trading because, it is wrong in principle.1. Underestimates the health care systemMy first argument is that this underestimates the health care system. If you just read the argument title, it is a bad idea. Our team thinks that we need consequences because of this. People should be getting organs under the government health care system, not through the black market. Only through the government system can we ensure that the donated organ was not given out of abuse, Now, if some people obtain organs faster through the black market, then everyone who needs an organ will turn to the black market instead of waiting for the government, which makes bad consequences. Not only illicit organ trade crime, we believe that there should be additional consequences harming the health care system, otherwise there will be some bad effects to the government's health care system, and also to the citizens. I think that this should not happen. If we do this we will underestimate the health care system like it is nothing however, we think that we need special consequences.2. Indirectly subsidizing the black market.Okay, this argument is about if we do not do what the resolution says, it is indirectly subsidizing the black market.If the national health care system continues to subsidize these people who illegally participated in the black market of organ trade, then the state would be indirectly subsidizing the black market. This is principle wrong, which means that we should not do this. That means that the resolution is right and also we have to deny healthcare to these people who engaged in this illegal and harmful organ trading.3. Send a strong messageOkay, my last argument is that it sends a strong message.I think that our policy will have a deterrent effect. Since organ transplanted patient needs long-term health care for their condition, cutting national health care would significantly increase the costs of their medical bills which is good for the patient. We think this will disincentivize many people from engaging in illicit organ trading because, if you do not thing, you have good effects, when if you do engage in the illegal organ trading you won't. Even if the policy fails to deter to everyone, it will at least reduce the black market compared to at first which is a very good thing.ConclusionBecause of these three arguments, I think that we should not support health care to the people who engaged on illegal organ trading. We need to crack down on to the black market and punish the people who engaged in illegal organ trading. Thank you.This is the end of my arguments. Even if my position says Con, I am actually Pro as Wytled has requested. Thank you. I hope Con write his arguments. Vote for Pro.(Actually Con in site header.)Thank you. Over to Pro.Sources1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk...2. http://www.foxnews.com...3. http://idebate.org...4. http://dsq-sds.org...5. http://newint.org...6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Title: Open Borders for Living/Travelling Content: If we open our borders, then terrorists can go in and terrorize our citizens. Illegal Immigrants will come in here with no intent of becoming citizens and live off welfare and food stamps. You say that we should be able to go wherever we want. You are proposing that we allow drug dealers to come into this country and trade drugs. National Security will be threanted because Terrorists and spies will come in here and kill innocent children and take military secrets. In our Bill of rights, no where does it say that we can go wherever we want. I will wait for your response. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Google+ Hangout Debate: Justice Requires the Recognition of Animal Rights Content: http://www.youtube.com...Watch my copy of the video instead. It will save you from having to skip ahead a bunch of times.Apologies in advance for the poor quality of my case. I literally prepared it 10 minutes before and this was my first live LD debate. Thanks to my opponent for working everything out. The debate was awesome fun. Looking forward to our future insider trading rematch!

Title: Carbon trading fairly punishes inefficient polluters. Content: Given the above argument, this is a more reasonable approach to rewarding and punishing an industry whose emergence pre-dates the environmental concerns surrounding carbon emissions. Polluters should be rewarded for taking steps to be more "efficient", opposed to being efficient already.

Title: Resolved: The U.S. should allow all imports of goods and capital. Content: The definition begins with "merchandise or possessions;" since human beings in the U. S. cannot legally be made the merchandise or possession of another human being, I will primarily assume that our debate need not cover the "this includes people" as part of that definition. I will hope that this debate does not become one of free trade and immigration; there is quite enough difference to make them separate topics of debate, and while I have the maximum character limit on each round for this debate, it is still a limit. Secondly, BoP is fully on me. Now, let"s begin. The reasons for importing all consumer goods, capital goods, investments, etc. without restriction are as follows; it will allow us to be wealthier, it encourages a reduction of trade barriers against our exports, and it encourages neutral peace with other States. First, allowing the free import of goods will make the average consumer of the United States wealthier. The reasons a foreign good sells in another country is two-fold; it is either cheaper to produce in the foreign country, or it is of a different quality that consumers prefer to the home counterpart. Either way, the only reason a foreign good sells compared to a home counterpart is because the consumers prefer the foreign good. In the case of differing quality, profits are going in the direction that satisfies human wants, and giving the economic signals to make products more like the foreign one. In the case of a cheaper good, there is a freeing of resources happening; the foreign seller has more money to continue creating what is desired, whilst land, labor, and capital at home is freed up to produce different goods the American consumer wants. Either way, wealth is improved with imports. Now, the astute reader will likely ask how the U. S. is to pay for its imports if it does not trade with other countries. Excusing for the time the antics of the Federal Reserve in selling government debt abroad (by creating dollars and increasing inflation), other countries need dollars to buy American goods and Americans need the foreign currency to buy foreign goods. However, under the system of fiat money we have today, this would mean that an almost barter-like situation has to happen in the international market; there has to be people from outside the U. S. who for some reason want U. S. dollars, and they have to have the currency the U. S. firms want to use to buy foreign goods to sell. So, in todays world of fiat money, the "balance of trade" is only an issue when factoring in the selling of government debt (which is more an indictment of governments spending beyond their means than of trade between private individuals). Lastly for this opening post, a policy of importation without restriction allows for a safer U. S. and less reason to involve the U. S. military in foreign conflicts. When States go to war, it is essentially an extension of domestic politics; the British wanted the U. S. for economic reasons in the Revolutionary War, the control of lands West of the Mississippi river was economic in seeking to mine the gold and other resources there, among Northerners during the American Civil War there was those who wanted to keep the south in order to avoid a free-trade zone not subject to Federal tariffs [1], there was war debt to be protected in the first World War [2], and a desire by different capitalists to protect interests in Europe or acquire interests in Pacific oil is partly behind the attempts by FDR to get the U. S. into the second World War [3]. Additionally, the Spanish American war had many economic incentives [4]. While a moral outrage is described as the reason for war in all the cases I have listed (the mexicans or spanish accused of shooting first in the Mexican-American and Spanish-American conflicts, the taxes imposed by the British in case of Revolution, Slavery and Fascism and Monarchy in the other conflicts), this is merely part of ensuring the "prefect trinity" that Clausewitz considered important to a war is present; a hatred of the enemy for which to get the support of the common citizen [5]. There is plenty of moral outrage in the world, but it is the movers and shakers with economic interests who lobby States to pursue a policy of war or peace. With the ability to sell any good in the U. S. and the ability to own capital in the U. S. , there is two incentives for the rich of foreign nations; they are incentivized to stress peace towards the U. S. in their own States (since war kills paying customers), and they are likewise incentivized to lobby for peace from the U. S. in order to protect capital interests. What this means is that the U. S. is less likely to be attacked and simultaneously less likely to be belligerent, thus reducing the security dilemma that States face in the international scene [6]. When coupled with the incentive for other States to open up, as well as the reliance each State gains upon each other, there will be more peace and more prosperity. I hand the ball to Con. [1]. http://www.emarotta.com... [2]. http://wwi.lib.byu.edu... [3]. http://mises.org... [4]. http://www.shmoop.com... [5]. http://www.clausewitz.com... [6]. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Carbon emissions trading Content: Carbon trading fairly punishes inefficient polluters.

Title: The US Government should not allow failing financial institutions to go bust. Content: You know, I'm Pro, and you're Con. That means that you and I are arguing the wrong sides. Oh well, I assume that we should just stick with the old way. "Not all investment bankers are spivs, but many are. The way the markets and annual bonus systems are organised encourages traders to undertake deals that have the potential to make short-term profits but are not necissarilly (sic) beneficial to the long-term interests of their companies or, indeed, to the wider economy." We need investors. If they don't have money, that really sucks for us. I kind of want to go to college. "The money they have gambled and lost in unwise trades was savers', pensioners' and investors'. Now they want the taxpayer to throw good money after bad. If Congress refuses to hand over the cash, banks might go belly-up, but their business dealings would be taken up by more scrupulous and reputable financial institutions." Again, it's also foreign investors we could use. It's not all on us taxpayers. "In a sense this is both true and untrue. US Government Bonds, along with gold are, indeed, the safest investments in the world, especially since the credit crunch, which is why the USFG has a lot of liquidity. However, the cash received from sale of bonds has to be repaid, sooner or later, to the investor – they are not gifts to the US taxpayer from kind international benefactors!" You know how we have been doing this since the 1790s? We have been borrowing more money. Alexander Hamilton came up with this idea. That's why we have a $9 trillion debt. We don't have to get out of debt, we have so much credit, we're fine. So, later, more people will buy bonds, and we'll pay off that debt. "His final point was that the markets need capital to invest in order to make money. True. However, there is a lot of money out there – the problem is, nobody knows exactly who has got how much and so are reluctant to lend it to the markets in case the investment bank concerned sinks, taking their money with it." Yes, bailing them all out will increase confidence, which will bring up the economy. If we have confidence, which the bailout would provide, there will be even more investments." Vote for me.

Title: The American Trade Embargo Against Cuba should be eliminated Content: D1. Rights of businesses According to your own logic, any person or business with means has the right to trade with terrorist organizations. Should this be allowed? No. Terrorist organizations want to destroy the United States. The United States government has the right to place embargo's on countries as Congress has the power to regulate commerce. An embargo is nothing more than a regulation on commerce. As for Venezuela, Cuba has a one party-communist system. Venezuela has a multi-party system (in fact, in 2006 36% of the vote was for Manuel Rosales). Hugo Chavez while criticized was elected in a democratic manner. The blockade is still the only leverage we hold over Cuba. If the United States can starve one dictatorship is that not better than starving no dictatorships? D2) Nationalized Economy This is not a transition period. It is an attempt to boost the dormant Cuban economy. The housing "market" (if you want to call it a market there is no real market) is still partly under government control as people can own only two houses at most, people have to go through the central bank in order to make a transaction, etc. And I pose this question to my opponent, there are hundreds of countries in the world. Only one has an embargo on Cuba, the United States, why can't Cuba trade with other countries " to drive new cars" the United States does get most of its cars from foreign countries? It is because of Cuba's governmental policy that Cuba's economy is so bad. Not the United States. D3) Castro But, they still have this policy of hating the United States and a Cuban-Iranian Alliance is already in the works. (1) It just is not fully implemented because Cuba really has nothing to offer Iran. Why should the USA allow Cuba to give the Iranians an incentive to become a permanent MILITARY alliance? A wise man once said "always expect the worst, and you will never be disappointed." This applies to everyday life. Once the Castro's die whose to say that there will not be a Stalin of Cuba? Someone more oppressive could come into power. In the world of foreign affairs and international relations, ambassadors and presidents ALWAYS expect the worst outcome that way you can plan for this outcome. If you expect the world will be good, you WILL not plan for the bad because, in your mind, there is no bad. In foreign affairs, you must expect the worst. In this case, the worst case scenario is a second Cuban missile crisis, my question for my opponent is: because there is a possibility of ending a trade embargo with Cuba resulting in a second missile crisis should the leaders of the United States of America, whose sole purpose is to the people of the United States, end the embargo on Cuba when there is the rather large possibility of harm? D4) Negotiations Why should we negotiate at all? What is the United States incentive? R1) Out of date Embargo I will reiterate, "always expect the worst, and you will never be disappointed." In other words, plan for the worst, and with Cuba, the United States definitely should. There IS an Iranian-Cuban alliance in the making, with an added American trade influx all this will do is increase Iran's incentive to want to create a permanent military alliance. R2) Benefit You say potential for friendship. I say potential for harm. Allowing Cuba to modernize their infrastructure, and modernize their military only increases Iran's incentive to want to create a permanent military alliance with Cuba. Expecting Pro's outcome is many times more dangerous than expecting Cons. R3) Ideas "The Cuban internet is among the most tightly controlled in the world. A special permit is required to use the Internet and all e-mails are intricately monitored." (2) Cuba controls ALL radio broadcasts, all newspapers, the entire Internet and all entertainment. (2) How exactly is opening trade with Cuba going to change this? It will not. People in Cuba cannot access any sites which are pro capitalism, people in Cuba cannot access sites such as Twitter or Facebook. A majority of people cannot even legally use the Internet. Opening trade with Cuba does not change this. *Opening trade with Cuba == a large chance of harm coming to the United States *The Embargo has a reason to exist *The Cuban leaders are causing the Cuban people's economic hardship *Cuba is closely tied to Iran and anti-American countries The blockade on Cuba should stay in place. Sources: 1. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...

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

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

Title: Guns should be banned in the U.S. Content: 1. People kill people, with guns The common argument for those in support of gun ownership is that people kill people, not guns. The flaw in that argument is quite obvious, people kill people using guns. If guns weren't allowed, murderers and such would have a harder time killing people. Now affirmation might argue that you can get guns illegally, well then we better step up our attacks on the black market. 2. Guns aren't needed to protect your individual freedom All police, military men and women an so forth, swear an oath to the constitution, not to the government or any individual. Therefore any argument that the government would use to military to make police state is false as the military would never listen to the government on such an order when they serve the people and the country as a whole. 3. Illegal gun trafficking could be stopped By banning guns from coming into the US altogether, we could have an easier time at focusing on stopping guns from entering and therefore ending the illegal gun trade.

Title: Marijuana Should Be Legal For Medicinal Purposes Content: I urge that the votes be mindful of the arguments presented in this round. First, my opponent outlines in his first round of debate that he intends to uphold two areas contention to warrant a vote for the Pro. The medical Benefits of marijuana and the safety of marijuana. The second point of contention, the safety of marijuana, has has since been dropped; my opponent recognizes that there are explicit negative impacts to marijuana and that it is not a wholly safe drug as he originally claimed This drop, signified by the drop of the alcohol and tobacco argument is the first reason to vote Con. Next, In my opponent's constructive to this debate he outlines four areas of suggested medical benefit that result for the usage of medical marijuana. These four areas are: Cancer, Alzheimers, MS and Arthritis. These are the only medical benefits that should be considered as any other medical benefits would have been new arguments; however in warrant these argument he cites only Business Insider and HowStuffWorks until the previous last round. The means that the 'chronic pain' and 'other benefits' voter my opponent offers are illegitimate and should be stricken from the flow. The Business Insider article expressly details that for Cancer, Alzeimers, MS and Arthritis marijuana serves as an anesthetic only, not attacking the core problems associated with this disease. As cited from MD Dr. Mbakwe in round 3, "Dr. Mbakwe is uncomfortable with the lack of control and regulation of medicinal marijuana. She says other medications, like methotrexate, treat the autoimmune disease at the root of the problem, and in turn can control pain and inflammation in combination with pain medications like nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs . .. On the other hand, while marijuana may help with pain symptoms, it does nothing for the disease progression or organ damage, Dr. Mbakwe says. [16]" Marijuana only relieves pain while causing substantial damage to vital organs. Marijuana is not a sustainable treatment as there are a number of viable alternative for anesthetic relief. These alternatives include Propofol[5], Halothane[6] and Enflurane[7], none of which have the same negative-effects of marijuana. This argument was never addressed. In round 4 my opponent expands the benefits of medical marijuana in treating breast cancer through the use of Cannabidol, but I show in round 3 that it only helps breast cancer and second that it can be produced artificially. "[15]Clinically, there are still limited therapeutic interventions for aggressive and metastatic breast cancers available. Clearly, effective and nontoxic therapies are urgently required. Id-1, an inhibitor of basic helix-loop-helix transcription factors, has recently been shown to be a key regulator of the metastatic potential of breast and additional cancers. Using a mouse model, we previously determined that metastatic breast cancer cells became significantly less invasive in vitro and less metastatic in vivo when Id-1 was down-regulated by stable transduction with antisense Id-1. It is not possible at this point, however, to use antisense technology to reduce Id-1 expression in patients with metastatic breast cancer. " As for Alzheimers which my opponent states alzheimers cures, this isn't the case whatsoever; "[4]Marijuana may be able to slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease" marijuana has been shown to slow the effects of alzheimers but not do away with them entirely. This is the second reason to vote Con. Next, I would like to address the issue of evidence. I have shown numerous times in this debate where my opponent has cited either uncredible evidence or where he miscites evidence. Norml. org is the biggest example of this bad evidence, but other examples include outright rejecting my evidence regarding Paranoia and Shizophrenia; even the evidence he cites in the prior round supports me here, stating "[]Findings suggest that regular cannabis users are significantly more prone to cognitive and perceptual distortions as well as disorganization, but not interpersonal deficits, than non-regular users and those who have never used. " [23] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Furthermore in offering his voters Pro never actually expands upon the reasons he is winning the arguments concerning Cancer, Alzheimers, MS and Arthritis. He simply claims that he has cited authoritative evidence to support his claims. These should be considered drops as these are appeals to authority that never actually cite the authority. Placing a link in a debate does not stand to warrant the arguments made.

Title: Girls should not be allowed to wear mini skirts in work related environments. Content: My point of view in this debate is completely about ethics. It is not about freedom of expression, nor is it about the rights of the employer. The purpose of this debate is to talk about ethics, and that is all I'm here to talk about. Contention 1: Foreign Business International trade is a risky business, simply because of vast cultural gaps even between countries that are similar. For example, in England, it is rude to maintain prolonged eye contact because it is seen as aggressive. In Japan, wearing white is taboo, for it is the color of death. In France, liberal dress is considered to be rude. When looking for trade partners, foreign businesses try to learn as much about a business as possible. This includes standards of procedure, rules of conduct, and dress code. The employees are a business, and the way they act and dress are all major indicators of what a business is like. When women are allowed to wear miniskirts, which are quite liberal pieces of clothing, foreign businesses see that and are turned off, because they feel unwelcomed and humiliated. It is unethical for a businesses that trade internationally, or are planning to trade internationally, to allow employees to wear liberal dress of all kinds. Contention 2: Consumers & other employees There are some consumers who do not mind liberal dress. There are other consumers, like me, who do not patronize certain businesses simply because of their employees dress code. Nor would I invest in a company that does not have a strict dress code. That would not be a problem if not for the 80% of women who believe that miniskirts do not belong in the workplace, and 61% of men who share that opinion (Reuters 2011). That's a huge percentage of people who feel uncomfortable being around women in miniskirts. This applies to both consumers and the miniskirt wearing women's fellow employees. Is it ethical for a business to make their customers and employees uncomfortable? Absolutely not. Contention 3: Investors Professional investors prefer to invest in businesses that appeal to as many customers as possible, maximizing their ability to make a profit. As I've shown earlier, foreign countries don't like to trade with companies that have lax dress codes, and consumers don't like them, and employees don't like them. If nobody likes them but the people wearing them, where will a company go? Down the drain. Investors don't like companies that are doomed for destruction. End of story. Contention 4: no advantage There are really no advantages to wearing miniskirts except to the people wearing them. And the people who like miniskirts can wear them when they return home, still gaining their advantages. To finish, miniskirts are bad for business. They turn off foreign business, they turn off consumers, they turn off employees, and they turn off investors. The only advantages of miniskirts are reaped by the wearers. So, you ladies who wear miniskirts can wear them to anywhere you want, save your workplace, because, really, they're bad for your job.

Title: Should the U.S. allow Monopolies such as standard oil Content: i belive that monoplies should be allowed because normally they were smarter and deserve to own a monoply. Componies like Standard oil should not have been split up. It is wrong

Title: Gaza blockade allows basic aid, but not other important trade Content: Israel allows roughly 81 items to enter Gaza. It excludes thousands of other types of goods, making it impossible for Gaza to engage in legitimate trade and truly build its economy. This cause serious economic suffering.

Title: Trade in the goods ivory and rhinoceros horns should be legalized. Content: Greetings to all keen debaters and observers, and a big thank you to Ninja for instigating a topic which should yield an entertaining debate. This will be my first debate and although I'm not well versed about the particulars of the tusk and horn trades I feel that I have some valuable views about the treatment of animals that should prove interesting. ************************ More factual background: While the price of rhinoceros and elephant products remains high, so does the potential cost of legalisation of trade in such goods. Before the wholesale ban on the ivory trade in 1989, numbers of elephants in Africa dwindled from 1.2 million to 450,000 in just one decade. [1] That's all from me for the moment - I wouldn't want to give away my advantage when I don't have to. Good Luck! ************************ [1] http://advocacy.britannica.com...

Title: The United States should regulate trade. Content: I'll get right into my arguments. 1. Free trade is bad for the economy because it allows trade deficits.Free trade allows the US to import more than it exports. To make up the difference, the US is forced to sell its assets and assume debt. Because the US allows trade deficits, foreign countries own over $30 trillion in US assets. [1] And as a result, the US net international investment position is -$5.445 trillion. [1] The US then has to pay interest on this debt, which is calculated as part of the federal deficit.The US debt to foreign countries, as well as the federal deficit, is bad for the economy. The Economic Strategy Institute estimated in 2001 that the trade deficit was shaving at least one percent per year off our economic growth. [2] Economist William Bahr estimates that our trade deficit since 1991 has made our economy 13% smaller than it otherwise would be. [3] Other economists have estimated that trade deficits have stunted GDP growth by up to 20%. [2] Trade deficits also hurt the economy by destroying jobs. For example, economists have shown that trade deficits with China cost the US 2.8 million jobs between 2001 and 2008. [4] And the situation only gets worse. Eventually, the US will exhaust its ability to sell assets and assume debt. The US will then be forced to pay foreign countries back, and it'll have to pay them back by working for free.Instead of a free trade policy, which allows these harmful trade deficits, the US should regulate imports and exports so that the value of imports is roughly equal to the value of exports.2. Free trade poses an existential threat to human survival because it encourages carbon emissions.97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate warming. [5] Climate change has already hurt agriculture, human health, ecosystems, water supplies, and many people's livelihoods. [6] If greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate, we'll soon reach a tipping point, after which runaway climate change will make the planet inhabitable to humans. [7] Climate change thus poses an existential threat to human survival.Free trade is incompatible with reducing emissions, slowing climate warming, and saving our planet. Under a free trade regime, prices are set solely by supply and demand, so social costs like climate change and environmental damage aren't reflected in the good's price. Economists call these unaccounted social costs "externalities." Free trade is driven by prices, so if prices are wrong due to externalities, free trade will produce bad outcomes.For example, wasted energy from transportation costs... Free trade encourages goods to be made in one place and used very far away. The transportation costs are not only a waste of energy but they also increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, speeding up climate change. Free trade prices simply don't account for carbon emissions (especially the high quantity of emissions from transporting goods across international borders). Nor do free trade prices account for radioactive waste from nuclear power or pollution from pesticides, chemicals, and heavy metals. In fact, free trade not only permits environmental damage but encourages it, as a way to grab a cost advantage. Given the existential threat to human survival posed by climate warming, free trade poses a threat to human survival.To create prices that account for externalities, the US should tax and subsidize imports and exports to "internalize" social costs that escape the prices set by supply and demand. A small, uniform tariff for all countries would encourage local production, thereby avoiding an enormous amount of wasted energy in transportation. Personally, I think the US needs to get serious about climate change and start taxing all imports produced in harmful ways, to discourage greenhouse gas emissions and encourage clean production facilities and renewable energy sources. These regulations are necessary not only to set accurate prices that reflect externalities but also to slow climate warming.3. Free trade unfairly redistributes wealth by making the rich richer and the poor poorer.The Stolper-Samuelson theorem says that people who draw most of their income from returns on capital gain from free trade, while people who get most of their income from labor are hurt by free trade. [8] Even though the majority of people in the US are workers, the US has more capital per person, and fewer workers per dollar capital, than the rest of the world. [9] So according to the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, the majority of people in the US get poorer as a result of free trade while the rich (those with the most capital) get richer.The Stolper-Samuelson theorem has proven correct. Income inequality in the US has grown sharply since the 1970s, when the US started implementing free trade policies. [9] US Bureau of Labor Statistics figures show that wages for workers tracked productivity increases until the 1970s, after which wages have increased more slowly than productivity. [10] Some BLS figures about the wage gap have shown increases in wages at 8% while productivity has increased 80% since 1973. [10] These figures suggest that free trade has lowered the wages of US workers because of global competition with developing nations. At bottom, free trade redistributes wealth so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. As a policy matter, not only is this degree of income inequality unfair and unjust, but it's also against American values such as equal opportunity.ConclusionIn the US, free trade has led to massive financial debt, income inequality, and poverty. Other countries also offer cautionary tales. In protectionist Latin America, per capita income in the 60s and 70s was growing at 3.1% per year, but after the continent embraced free trade in the 80s, per capita income dropped to 1.7%. [11] All the empirical evidence favors protectionist trade practices as an economic matter.But there's another (more important) reason to restrict trade: free trade promotes carbon emissions, waste of energy, and environmental damage. Given the threat to human survival posed by climate warming, and as a result of potential runaway climate change, the US should impose taxes on imports to encourage local production, discourage wasted energy from transportation, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.References:[1] http://www.bea.gov...[2] http://origin.www.uscc.gov...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4] http://www.epi.org...[5] http://climate.nasa.gov...[6] http://www.ipcc.ch...[7] http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...[10] http://www.bls.gov...[11] http://www.cepal.org...

Title: Should the Cell Phones Be Allowed in Schools Content: Cell phone helps communication goes on

Title: Animal Testing should be allowed Content: I agree to debate against the topic,Pro.

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

Title: Animal testing should not be allowed. Content: I am for animal testing. Looking forward to what my opponent has to say.

Title: Cannibalism Should Be Allowed Content: I thank the Con for a fantastic debate and will now end with my conclusion. I believe we should allow cannibalism because it is an easy to access food source, it gives us a great amount of Pros that in my opinion do out weigh the negatives. It can help us feed the whole world including the starving people in Africa it is also a unique experience that I'm more than sure people who are Pro for it will be pleased with. It's not that big an issue considering it's not illegal in countries like the U.S and Australia and many more! It's just harder to gain access to the meat for consumption so that's why I say we should do something similar to Organ Donors except Cannibal cards so that when that individual dies they can be used by Meat Vendors. I will say Con makes some pretty good points but at the end of the day we're just animals and given that other animals eat their own species why don't we? With that said I thank Con for this argument and hope they enjoyed it. [I am aware that this is rather sort but I won't be able to do a proper conclusion as I have school and work followed by sleeping and more work and I won't have time to reply to this debate unless I do it now so I do apologize]

Title: should the usa ban trade with countires that violate wemon and human rights Content: We should post an embargo on countries that violate women and human rights. If we do not then it will be saying that its okay to use medieval principals on our fellow kin. No matter if they are 10 miles away or 5000 miles away.

Title: Individuals who are released from prison shouldn't be discriminated in getting a job. Content: Since you attacked so hard i did not have evidence i have TESTIMONY from a drugie herself calling rehab a joke http://www.zimbio.com... and after research on you're source the new york times i found something really interesting on business insider claiming that you're source is not actually published by the new york times AND does fake articles the link is here http://businessinsider.com.au... this means that (a) you're source is discredited and (b) that that news is possibly fake.

Title: Cannibalism Should Be Allowed Content: Don't worry, my conclusion will be even shorter. Pro outlined some possible benefits to legalized cannibalism. I contend that these benefits could be achieved without cannibalism, and that allowing cannibalism may have unpleasant repercussions (people murdered for parts, etc. ). From this, I conclude that cannibalism should not be allowed.

Title: Oil Companies Should Not Be Allowed To Drill Offshore Content: Banning drilling is unfair to nations and responsible companies

Title: Killing sharks in moderation through quotas would allow the shark fin soup trade to continue. Content: Experience has shown that the legislation on shark fishing is extremely difficult to enforce. What kind of technology can possibly create a net that distinguishes between commercial fish and sharks whilst being cost effective for fishermen? I don't see it arriving any time soon. We can't penalize fishermen for accidentally catching sharks, especially considering the difficulties faced by the business. It would be far better to cut off the shark fin trade at the other end, and make breaking the law less likely by removing the financial incentive.

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

Title: Assault rifles Content: Should assault rifles be allowed for citizens?

Title: Free trade should be valued above protectionism Content: Uil Spring 2011 Neg "When goods are not allowed to cross borders, soldiers will"- Frederic Bastiat. A country can only produce as efficiently as its cultural values, reflected in its business ethics and labor laws, allow. In a country such as the United States, productivity is limited to the extent that it does not involve child labor, long labor hours, forced labor, or unsafe working conditions. So what happens if a country does not have the same standards as we do? Well, they might produce the goods more efficiently, in a manner of speaking. The problem is the efficiency your consumers gain comes at the expense of the cultural value your buying power once maintained. Here's an illustration: lets say that a Chinese child laborer, henforth known as a (ccl) works for $.10 an hour, whereas a U.S laborer, known as a (usl) in the same field earns $8.00 an hour. Assuming the product is of the same quality, you can afford to hire up to 80 ccls for every one usl. Your efficiency is seemingly increased ten fold. Furthermore, if you wish to hire only 50 ccls, you might be able to get away with inferior production processes. Now your efficient only because, compared to the consumer culture you are infiltrating, you are a criminal. That is the problem with free trade: the countries that benefit from it most are the ones we should least want to support with our consumer dollars. When we do, we displace our cultural values within our society, at least to the extent of that singular product or service, with those of the provisionary society. This is why I must negate resolved: Free trade should be valued above protectionism. The value for today's debate shall be Sovereignty, which is a government position that is independent from foreign control or intervention and has the power to regulate its own affairs. The criterion that shall be used in conjunction with Sovereignty is Unilateralism, which is A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies. I offer the following definitions for clarity in today's round: Free Trade- - an economic concept referring to the selling of products between countries without tariffs or other trade barriers. From American Heritage. Protectionism- - the economic policy of promoting favored domestic industries through the use of high tariffs and other regulations to discourage imports. From wordiq.com Contention 1: Free trade is bad for a society; it denies basic human rights Chinese workers are denied the right to form unions, are often paid less than China's own very low minimum wage, and are denied overtime pay. But if free trade is bad for labor, then we should end it, not patch it up, as fundamental economic defects are too profound for a few labor agreements to fix. Free trade is not fair trade; it benefits strong nations at the expense of weaker ones, and rich interests at the expense of the rest of us. Available evidence shows that Africa's economy is experiencing increasing and serious deterioration in terms of trade, despite tremendous efforts deployed by its governments to reorganize and restructure their economies, often at a very high social cost. Trade liberalization has worked to undermine the comparative advantages that Africa might have had, aggravating their development problems and leading to the abuse of labor standards and human rights. Contention 2: Protectionism is the better alternative for a country, rather then Free Trade. Protectionism means a nation looks at its economy as one of its assets. A government will make industrial, production and trade policies designed to ensure the nation's economic success. This could allow a country to develop economically. Japan was a good example in the aftermath of World War Two. The term Made in Japan, was considered a bad thing to put on a product. Then they started making the best electronics, and cars. They quit being a big joke. In our country we have, at least in the past, considered it important that workers make a minimum wage, that children go to school instead of entering the workforce at an early age, and that prisoners, especially political prisoners not be forced to work for literally pennies a day, if they get paid at all. We buy a lot of products from countries that don't have such protections. We pay less for them, but we jeopardize our economy. We buy shirts, athletic clothing and shoes from countries that use child and prisoner labor and have no minimum wage. Corporations are there to make money, not to have a moral conscious. They go where they can maximize profits, no matter what the costs to their country. A protectionist policy would keep products out from countries that unduly exploits its labor, uses child labor or prisoner labor. While we would pay higher prices, we would also have the additional money to afford them. We would have a healthy economy based on a strong manufactoring base.

Title: Free trade Content: Unfettered Free Trade allows for toxic products to be commercialized

Title: Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to homosexuals for religious reasons. Content: Thank you for continuing the debate.To be clear, I did not assert that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to homosexuals. I does not. I was simply making the point that it is within the government's power to address this issue. I feel that I have sufficiently proven that the federal government has the power to legislate this issue. I will instead address your point that I did not sufficiently prove that the government should. Despite your personal opinions, the Supreme Court's decisions are the interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, as long as the law is not made with religion in mind but made for the public good, it does not violate the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment.By opening a business, you give implied consent to service the public. You choose what products you sell. You choose at what price you wish to sell those items. You choose where you wish those items to be located. You can choose everything about how the business works. However, you do not choose the customers because it does not affect your business. You argue that people have a right to free trade. I agree, in the sense they should be able to control everything that affects their business. The sexual orientation of a customer does not. The customers money is not worth less because they are homosexual. The customer doesn't force the business to pay money because they are homosexual. Business is all about the bottom line, and serving homosexuals does not affect that bottom line. What if I chose to open a business, and before anyone ordered, I asked them which party they supported. If they said Republican, I would refuse them service. Would that be something you support? I say no, because, just like serving homosexuals, it does not affect the business's bottom line. Calling the refusal to serve homosexuals religious freedom is misnomer. It is, and should be called, discrimination against homosexuals. Calling it religious freedom is like calling a Klu Klux Klan rally an exercise in freedom of speech instead of calling it racism. Even if you claim religious freedom, the argument is weak. The Bible forbids you from committing an act of homosexuality. It does not forbid you from talking to, selling to, being friends with, or even going to the wedding of someone who is homosexual. The Bible actually says that God is the only one who should judge. Who are you to judge homosexuals and refuse them service?The First Amendment reads, in part, "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"(1). Since the Bible does not condemn those who serve or socialize with homosexuals, there is not even an argument that a law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals would even remotely violate the free exercise of Christianity. The Bible in fact reads "You shall love your neighbor as yourself"(Mark 12:31)(2). Does this not mean that you should not refuse service to anyone if you would not refuse service to yourself? It is not your place to judge anyone. Discriminating against homosexuals is impossible without judgement.In conclusion, discrimination against Homosexuals should be made illegal for two reasons. First, serving homosexuals does not actually affect your ability to run a profitable business in whatever way you like. Second, religious freedom is an invalid argument when the Bible does not support discrimination. As a matter of fact, I would say the Bible actually tells you not to discriminate. Congress has the ability to stop the discrimination. Stopping this discrimination does not prohibit the free exercise of your religion nor your right to free trade. Homosexuals did not choose to be homosexuals. It's time to stop discriminating against people because they happened to be born just a little bit different.(1)http://www.usconstitution.net...(2)http://biblehub.com...

Title: Gun right should be dis-allowed. Content: Nac.

Title: death penalty Content: should the death penalty be allowed?

Title: Terrorism should not be allowed publicity Content: States do not negotiate with terrorists due to public pressure.

Title: Free trade undermines democratic processes Content: Free trade agreements allow for foreign investing corporations to bypass domestic judicial system. The government in this way gives up its right to regulate foreign investment and citizens cannot be protected against corporation abuses.

Title: Should the Cell Phones Be Allowed in Schools Content: Yes, to some degree

Title: The FWS should open up the refuge islands to limited business. Content: I think FWS shouldn't be allowed because as usual the fishing market would escalate quickly in terms that there would be no more fish because as all ways there would be people that do not follow the rules.

Title: Should secondary school students be allowed to sell food to other students for profit. Content: I want to start by thanking my opponent for his participation. I am pleased to see that my opponent agrees with me on the importance of trade. It seems that in this last round my opponent's arguments and rebuttals can be boiled down into two points: 1- There are better ways to teach trade practices than the act of students selling snacks to one another.2- The food the students are trading are not healthy.I. Better ways to teach trade: Young enterprise rebuttalSir Walter Salomon founded Young Enterprise in 1962. [1] It was based on the successful Junior Achievement programme in America. He admired the US charity’s ability to foster work readiness, entrepreneurship, financial literacy skills, and its philosophy of “learning by doing” that encouraged tens of thousands of young people to reach their potential. Because of the fact that the organization itself has a focus on the philosophy of "learning by doing", I would argue that this point is null in itself because the children are technically doing exactly what this program would teach them to do. We also can't say that this is no better than basic trade between students in terms of profit making because most participants in the programme actually do work towards making a profit for themselves. In the recent information tab titled Now on the same page as the link I shared above it goes on to claim that:"Young Enterprise’s pioneering Start-up scheme to help university students launch their own business booms as the economic downturn triggers a surge towards graduate self- employment. In the Spring of 2013, Young Enterprise launches the Tenner programme, a competition that challenges young teenagers to take a ten pounds loan, to do something enterprising, make a difference and give back. The scheme fits superbly with what we already do and provides a potential catalyst for major expansion."Not only does this programme promote making profits, but one challenge is specifically aimed at children under the age of 11 with the sole goal of selling goods or products for making a profit. [2] So why my opponent used this as an example is beyond me. These children are making profits just like the students who are selling snacks, with the only difference that the former is guided by adults (which makes sense since the children are below 11 years in age) whereas secondary school children (who range in age from 12-18) aren't necessarily supervised. [1] http://www.young-enterprise.org.uk...[2] http://www.young-enterprise.org.uk...II. Non-Profit Organizations and GreedI get where my opponent is coming from when he states that selling goods for profit are a matter of greed. Everyone knows that buying and selling for profits can be viewed as a form of greed. This then turns our argument into one on morality, and if it's ultimately for the greater good. I have no interest in turning this into a morality argument when I've already stated in previous rounds how: "This is the risk of trade, and under capitalism the seller has the right to sell the goods for a price that reasonably matches the demand. No-one is forcing these students to purchase the food, they are doing it willingly on their own accord. If both the buyer and seller have come to an agreement, it is implied that they are both satisfied with the parameters of the transaction. The only exclusion would be if it is a purchase made under duress, but this is not the case."I extend this point from my previous round based on the fact that my opponent left it standing unchallenged. The importance of this should not be underestimated because when a buyer agrees to the price of a sale, there is no un-fair practices being had - the buyer is willingly paying that price. There is no guarantee that volunteering for non-profit organizations can teach children how to conduct sales better than a hands-on experience of actually buying and selling products based on demand and supply which is exactly what these secondary students are doing. There is no greed or exploitation going on, so I see no point in recommending they do it for a non-profit group when they can gain just as good experience, if not better, by conducting the trades on their own accord. In doing so, they are their own boss. They can learn first-hand from their mistakes and it actually teaches them lessons because it directly affects their profits. They are highly unlikely to make the same mistake twice if they are losing profit. In a non-profit organization, they can make mistakes without any real repercussions in terms of their own profits - there is no guarantee that they will learn from those mistakes when their is no form of applicable repercussions that would truly affect them.My opponent failed to show how such lessons gained from volunteering can actually benefit someone more than the hands-on approach where their own profits might be truly affected. Hands-on experience has always been the best method of retaining knowledge gained from interactions and situations where lessons are needed to be learned. Especially when the people involved in such interactions have the mental capability to understand the ramifications of their actions as I also pointed out in my previous round. My opponent made the final point in this argument: "What students are doing by selling are only gaining slight knowledge of business, but their main incentive for their actions is purely because of the profit they make." My opponent failed to prove the validity of this statement by showing how students are only gaining a slight knowledge of business. There is no evidence for such a claim and I would counter-argue, as I did earlier, that this hands-on experience would provide a vast amount of knowledge for those involved when it comes to:1) Bargaining: which would build the social skills of compromising and meeting in the middle. 2) Supply and Demand: would teach the importance of accurate price listing and understanding what the consumer desires.3) Competing prices with other students: Would teach the importance of marketing, location, building relationships with consumers so they will return for later purchases, and ultimately the cut-throat nature of the trade business.4) Building a name for your business: A skill that can be applied to any and every young entrepreneur for future application. III. Healthy LivingAt the end of my opponents round, he introduced the issue of health which I already touched on in my previous round. Once more, he uses school rules as the factor that should ban such practices. I've already stated how:1) Students should not break school rules and that if they do - the punishment is justified.2) That school rules were never part of the resolution which is based on a "should" claim. Considering the IQ statistics I shared in my previous round - it is evident that these students have the intelligence necessary for determining the health benefits of certain foods. If they are willing to engage in such practices, it is evident that health is not a determining factor for such trades. Since school rules were not part of the resolution, it is clear that the only point my opponent really has going for him is if trading such unhealthy foods is morally acceptable. But when the factor of 'forced purchases' is removed from the equation, there are no moral issues being raised. The students view these foods as a 'good', which is why they are willing to purchase such products for the listed prices of sale. I would argue that hindering someone's ability to purchase a product they deem as 'good' would be more morally compromising to the standards of free-trade, capitalism, and individual preferences than it would over health. These students are fully capable of determining what they can and cannot eat and when school rules are removed from the equation- my opponents argument collapses on itself in terms of moral justification.

Title: Animal testing should not be allowed. Content: I mean to clarify my stance on animal testing, as the title was a mistake on my behalf. I am for animal testing. That being said, would you please elaborate on your opinion on animal testing? It was not entirely clear within your statements.

Title: It's time the British Government repealed the 1807 Slave Trade Abolition Act. Content: This archaic Act of Parliament is now over two hundred years old and no longer reflects the reality on the ground in modern Britain. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that privateers should be allowed to send ships over to Africa to round up the natives, transport them back to the UK and force them to work in miserable conditions for no pay; that would be very wrong indeed. Instead, what I propose is a scheme that would make real improvements to the lives of the tens of thousands of financially and socially disadvantaged people who currently sleep rough on Britain's streets and who have to beg passers-by for money to survive. By providing homeless people with secure accommodation and decent meals in return for an honest day's work, these unfortunate individuals can restore their sense of self worth and begin to look forward to a brighter future. Licensed companies should be allowed to tour the streets, round up all the vagabonds, tramps and other vagrants and transport them back to holding centres to be sorted and processed before being auctioned off to the highest bidder. Not only would this scheme be of enormous benefit to the homeless people and their masters, but also make Britain a more attractive and less intimidating place for tourists and business people to visit. Naturally, these forced-labour traders will have to invest some time and money in their stock before selling them on. New arrivals in the holding centres will have to be stripped, hosed down and given a clean uniform to wear before being fed and watered. Some may also require medical attention or have to be treated for drug or alcohol abuse. Once the inmates' health and fitness have been restored to a reasonable level and they have been made to look presentable, they could be offered for sale at adapted cattle markets around the country. Potential purchasers could include prosperous families seeking domestic help, farmers looking for agricultural workers and factory-owners requiring affordable labour in order to compete with companies from China, India and the Philippines. Britain is falling behind the very many countries around the world that take advantage of the competitive edge that slavery gives them (1) and it's high time we started to catch up. In order to do this, however, the British Government must first repeal the 1807 Slave Trade Abolition Act and I hereby commend this long overdue proposal to the House. Thank you. . (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Title: Gang Members in the U.S Armed Forces should not be allowed! Content: Oh man

Title: Trade in the goods ivory and rhinoceros horns should be legalized. Content: Oh well, not the debate we all wanted.

Title: There should be no controls on private trade and use of small arms Content: as you have supplied me no new ammo, i must resort to gloating with this : http://www.youtube.com... . ... hope y'all like gwen stefani. . . .